What the fuck did I just read.
Reduxx is a known anti-trans website. I didn’t see proof that the professors named were the ones who controlled the aliases.
The site makes it very easy to click through to the proof. For example, here’s kristoff at the eunuch archives claiming that he and two other members presented at a WPATH conference:
Looking at the symposium guide from WPATH, you can see the people that presented:
TRACK B Panel Presentations:
Identity development. Eunuchs then and now. Organizer and Chair: Thomas W. Johnson. OAK AMPHITHEATRE
Eunuchs: Seeking voluntary castration. Richard J. Wassersug, PhD.
Eunuchs: Personality and sexuality. Thomas W. Johnson, PhD.
Eunuchs: Body integrity identity disorder and castration. Krister Willette, PhD.
Eunuchs: An historical perspective. Shaun Tougher, PhD.
Case study of a transition from “male to not-male” or “male to eunuch” (MtE). Randall D. Ehrbar, PsyD.
I don’t have any reason to doubt the rest of reduxx’s work in tying down the three usernames mentioned above to which of those 5 people presented, but here’s part of it if you’d like to look into this further:
But according to posts made to the forum in March and April, Johnson let his identity slip and invited site members to partake in an academic survey on “childhood experiences, castration desire and sexual history,” as well as watch him give a talk at CSUC via Zoom.
To me, the more important thing isn’t exact identities, but the fact that WPATH consulted with multiple child castration fetishists. That’s horrendous, and taints the entire organization’s work. As I said in another comment, this is the sort of thing that can turn back the clock on trans rights. Your average person will hear about this and think “trans = pedos”. WPATH badly needs to clean house.
Your 1st link is a forum. It doesn’t clearly tie the professors to being the owners of those accounts. Who’s to say someone isn’t masquerading as them on that forum. Has the associated email address and IP addresses of those accounts been tied to the professors?
You might find it weird, but experts in their fields often conduct speeches on their area of expertise.
“Clean house”… have they been charged with anything? Show me definitive proof those professors own/control those accounts and I would agree they need to go. Otherwise its just conjecture.
A second click will bring you here:
You should really read it, it has a lot of details. In particular, it links to this page:
Where the user kristoff solicits donations and types this:
Donations may be made through PayPal using this email address:
Or you may send check, money order, or discretely wrapped cash by snail mail to:
Wyrm Wyvern, Inc.
PO Box 68098
Minneapolis, MN, 55418-8098
USA
You can go here to search for the file number
699082500046to find Wyrm Wyvern, Inc., with this info:Krister H Willette
2018 5th St NE
Minneapolis, MN 55418–4406
USA
Who is one of the academics named in the reduxx exposé, and who has published research directly referencing the Eunuch Archives. A quote from that article shows that these academics are actively involved in the community:
A second, but larger, online survey that Wassersug and Johnson (2007) posted
So we have the user kristoff claiming widely on eunuch.org that he is Krister H. Willette, and we have Krister H. Willette publishing research that shows intimate, active knowledge of eunuch.org along with his co-authors. To doubt that the user kristoff is Krister H. Willette, you would have to believe that Krister H. Willette had his identity stolen by the user kristoff, had knowledge of this for decades, and has done nothing about it. It is far more believable that they are the same person.
You might find it weird, but experts in their fields often conduct speeches on their area of expertise.
Are you talking about Johnson’s talk at CSUC? If so, it’s not about the talk itself, it’s that by mentioning the talk, the user revealed that he is Thomas W. Johnson, as the reduxx article points out. To doubt this, you again have to believe that the academic is intimately familiar with eunuch.org, sees someone widely claiming to be him, and does nothing about it. That’s not a rational position to take.
have they been charged with anything
This is revolting behavior, but likely not illegal. IANAL, but AFAIK sexual stories involving children generally aren’t considered illegal in the US. That’s not the right question to be asking though. Do you think WPATH should be welcoming pedophiles into its ranks, even if they “keep it legal”? I, and most other people, would say “hell no”.
EDIT: You made me go and create an account. If you doubt any of this, just go and look for yourself, he’s not trying to hide it. He repeatedly signs his messages as “krister”, has access to the PO Box mentioned above, and has inside knowledge of WPATH happenings.
Here’s another link where “Jesus” claims to be Thomas W. Johnson:
https://archive.ph/O48mL#selection-725.0-729.64
If you have any questions about the survey and its use or purposes, feel free to contact Prof. Thomas W. Johnson (TWJ@sonic.net). I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Thank you.
Tom Johnson
An article posted by a sock puppet.
I do like socks, but I’m no puppet. I’m interested in discussion about this article because it looks legitimate, which is horrifying. If you’re able to disprove the claims, that would be a relief.
Which claims specifically?
How about this? “WPATH removed lower age limits in SOC8 while consulting with child castration fetishists”
That single statement contains 1 claim:
WPATH removed lower age limits in SOC8.
This is true.
It also contains another claim:
They did this while consulting with child castration fetishists.
Based on the article provided, it appears to be true. If that’s the case then I think most sane people would agree they should not consult with them anymore, and revisit any influence they might have had on policy.
Having said that, gender-affirming care has been shown to be a net positive to individuals and society as a whole, so I’m not sure if you’re then trying to go the next step and discredit that in general as a result of this, because that’s how the article reads and is a separate discussion entirely.
I’m not seeking to disprove anything in this article, merely understand what kind of discussion you want to have about it.
This is the sort of useful conversation I was looking to have. I think we’re in agreement. In another comment, I wrote this:
WPATH should clean house and purge all pedophiles, retract SOC 8, publish an apology, and write a new version that doesn’t have input from known pedophiles.
Which might not be how you would phrase it, but largely agrees with:
If that’s the case then I think most sane people would agree they should not consult with them anymore, and revisit any influence they might have had on policy.
Here’s my assumption of this article: A professor engages in deviant and illegal behaviors, participating in graphic contents that exploit children sexually using transgederism as a Catalyst.
If you could just tell me what the main point is about this article I’d appreciate it. Genuinely I would. Because I’m not sure what the exact point is supposed to be after reading it.
Anyway
Going off of my assumption as I stated, I think it’s important NO MATTER WHAT THE TOPIC IS OK GUYS ? That when it ultimately comes to children there needs to be safeguards. I don’t care what the topics are. It could be sex, violence, guns, and the trans topic.
anything that could be used to manipulate a growing mind, needs to be handled with zero bias and influence.
do not influence children instead, teach them provide them BOTH sides of an argument no matter what. Let them come to their own conclusions. That is how shit should be anyway.
The issue in my opinion is people personalize things. Making it about them and how their own personal experiences stand as ultimate fact.
That is not genuine and it is harmful to others
Agreed, there is no point to this article except to seemingly ignore the incredibly problematic and disgusting pedo bend and focus instead on “eunuch” as a gender identity bothering the author.
I don’t think it’s a political stance to say pedophilia is worse than an adult willingly cutting his junk off. Personally I don’t care what you do with your own body, but leave the kids out of this.
Not sure why this was even posted, what the intent was, or why the focus wasn’t on the incredibly pedophilic and racist elements of the story written and instead raging on the choices adults make to their own bodies. Priorities, people.
It’s all the right has, their party has done literally nothing but piss people off. These are the posts of a dying political party
I think there’s articles that better make the point OP was trying to make besides this one. This one confused me. As to why I felt compelled to make an assumption on it.
The only problem I see with OP finding a source to better articulate and illustrate the point he’s trying to make, is that the media and the internet are heavily biased now.
This may have been the only article he could find that was somewhere along the lines of the point he was trying to make.
Just a guess.
I think its because of all the posts about pedo priests and the like. Reminding everyone that pedos are everywhere
Your assumption doesn’t really capture the article. It’s not about a single pedophile, it’s about rot within WPATH, which might turn back the clock on trans rights.
To summarize, WPATH published a new standard of care that removed lower age limits. It did this while consulting with at least one child castration fetishist, which is a huge and disgusting conflict of interest. WPATH should clean house and purge all pedophiles, retract SOC 8, publish an apology, and write a new version that doesn’t have input from known pedophiles.
Aside from the pedophilia angle, the eunuch chapter was done while consulting with said eunuch fetishists. If WPATH is just publishing fetish material, maybe Ray Blanchard is right and trans people are just AGPs, trans women are just men in dresses, etc, etc. It’s a bad look.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to ignore this. This is the sort of thing that can strongly influence public opinion.
