EPATH Conference prepares for disruptions from transgender activists, issues code of conduct

From the EPATH Conference website

The Second Biennial conference of the European Professional Association for Transgender Health (EPATH) has issued a last minute “code of conduct” as it prepares to deal with stalking, harassment, threats, and abuse of presenters from attendees following the activist hijacking of the USPATH conference earlier this year. The EPATH and USPATH conferences are regional events sponsored by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), a medical lobbying group comprised of individuals who make a living off the medicalization of sex-roles among individuals that identify as transgender.
The Code of Conduct issued for the April 6- 8th EPATH conference, being held in popular medical tourism hotbed of Belgrade, Serbia, reads as follows:


This year, in line with good governance arrangements, all attendees, speakers, sponsors and volunteers at the 2nd biennial EPATH conference are required to agree with the following code of conduct. We expect cooperation from all participants to help ensure a safe environment for everybody.

The 2nd biennial EPATH conference takes place in a friendly environment where everyone should feel welcome, safe and comfortable to share ideas and engage in open discussion without threat of intimidation or public humiliation.

We expect all conference participants to be respectful in person and online towards other delegates, speakers, organisers, staff and volunteers.

We expect all conference participants to behave and to use language that is respectful, non-pathologising and consistent with human rights standards, taking into account its shifting and complex contextual and cultural character. Ultimately this caution applies equally to transgender health and all other formal and informal settings in which human interaction takes place. Please refer to our Language Policy.

We are committed to providing a harassment-free conference and training experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, or religion.  Harassment of participants, speakers, staff or volunteers in any form will not be tolerated.

Harassment includes offensive verbal comments, and other forms of using disrespectful and pathologising language inconsistent with human rights standards, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing, photography or recording without explicit consent, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Conference participants asked to stop any harassing behaviour are expected to comply immediately.

These policies apply in every space at the venue related to conference, and to all participants in every role.

If a participant engages in harassing behaviour, EPATH may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the conference with no refund.

If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of conference staff immediately. Timo Nieder of the EPATH board and Guy Bronselaer, onsite manager, are available as a first point of contact: +32 486 688 579. Conference staff can be identified, as they’ll be wearing branded clothing and/or badges.

We will be happy to assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the event, for example by providing escorts. Contacting police should be the last resource if this is required.

We expect conference participants to follow these rules at all event venues and related social events.

We trust that this code of conduct mirrors the views of the vast majority of our participants.



TPATH (Transgender Professional Organization for Transgender Health), an organization comprised of transgender medical activist members of WPATH, has issued an “expression of concern” about the code of conduct. They communicated their “alarm” that the code “might be used to curb the freedom of all participants to communicate the harm caused by certain presenters and methodologies. such as by filming for documentation or acts of protest like speeches and silent picketing. These methods, steeped as they are in the tradition of WPATH and history, may indeed be “disruptive”, but any “public humiliation” experienced by the recipients might better be attributed to their own failure to respond to more ‘reasonable’ dialogue over the years and decades that preceded these actions.”
Read TPATH’s full complaint below the fold:

EPATH Code of Conduct

by Noah | Apr 6, 2017 | EPATH, TPATH | 0 comments

To: World Professional Association for Professional Health (WPATH)

European Professional Association for Transgender Health (EPATH)

From: Transgender Professional Association for Transgender Health (TPATH)

We are writing you to express our concern about the Code of Conduct recently published to EPATH’s website. We are concerned not just with the late date at which this Code was published (Mar 22, 2017, just 16 days before the conference), or that its distribution was not widely shared beyond this site, but primarily that the content of this Code contains a number of concerning statements.

For example, we welcome the inclusion of policies that might curb the tendency of cisgender professionals to take non-consensual pictures of transgender participants (“photography or recording without explicit consent”), something that has happened all too often at past conferences; however, we are alarmed that this same set of policies might be used to curb the freedom of all participants to communicate the harm caused by certain presenters and methodologies. such as by filming for documentation or acts of protest like speeches and silent picketing. These methods, steeped as they are in the tradition of WPATH and history, may indeed be “disruptive”, but any “public humiliation” experienced by the recipients might better be attributed to their own failure to respond to more ‘reasonable’ dialogue over the years and decades that preceded these actions.

Furthermore, we find the addition of a provision for “contacting [the] police” in the event of disruption or other incidents of that nature unacceptable in any situation, but particularly in Serbia, where protections for LGB and transgender people are still developing and human rights violations by police against both transgender and non-transgender citizens are well-documented. Ultimately it appears that EPATH and WPATH are threatening to retaliate against civil disobedience and/or protest by invoking the disproportionate violence of the state.

Additionally, we are concerned by early reports that the Code of Conduct is being unevenly applied against trans participants, with cisgender professionals left to ignore it. In particular, we are alarmed by reports that the language guidelines directing presenters to use gender affirming guidelines are being flagrantly violated, as are directions to obtain permission from subjects before presenting their pictures.

We agree that a Code of Conduct for these events is advisable; however, any such Code must be created in collaboration with all affected parties. We therefore recommend both rescinding the current Code, pending the creation of a process for designing a one that is respectful and robust, and viewing any potential occurrences at EPATH Belgrade in light of the harm that may be caused by repressing them.

Going forward, TPATH would be more than happy to participate in the development and consultation processes.


The Transgender Professional Association for Transgender Health Leadership Team;

Noah Adams, MSW, Toronto, Canada

Tani Anakak, Southern Africa

Lukas Berredo, MA, Berlin, Germany

Dani Castro, MA, MFT, Oakland, California

Rense Havinga, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Ruth Pearce, PhD, Leamington UK

Cianán B. Russell, PhD, Bangkok, Thailand

Vreer Verkerke, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Reubs Walsh, MSC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands




EPATH Code of Conduct

19 thoughts on “EPATH Conference prepares for disruptions from transgender activists, issues code of conduct

        1. Here is why: both were eugenicists, in that they both were working, towards a goal of eliminating, those they thought were ‘mongrels’. ‘Impure’, etc. If one were to look at Planned Parenthood’s original charter/mission statement….one will see they predated what Mengele, et al would do.
          Secondly, the fact that PP is now an ally in the transing of gay and lesbian youth,( as well as an ally for the brigade to get HRT medications, bypassing other means) is no different than the Nazis experimenting on children; chemically inducing eye color change and other sickening items. All of which were done to make those who were non-Germanic, Germanic. To fit into a warped version of society.
          No matter how PP’s history is spun, the facts of the case speak for themself. As such, the connection between Sanger and Mengele is a valid one.

  1. “If a participant engages in harassing behaviour, EPATH may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the conference with no refund.”
    Sure, that will make them behave. lol! The only thing that the trans activist thug mob responds to is the threat of arrest, criminal prosecution and the risk of serious jail time. They don’t care one whit about “warnings” or expulsion. Recall the video of their attack on the Vancouver Women’s Library. Nothing deterred them until they were told that the police were being called. At that moment, they fled and were gone in less than a minute. We need to be calling the police every single time, for every single incident.

  2. Gender Trouble: Item 110 on the Child Behavior Checklist and Youth Self-Report
    » Kenneth Zucker and Thomas D. Steensma
    Gender Trouble: Item 110 on the Child Behavior Checklist and Youth Self-Report
    When the Child Behavior Checklist and the Youth Self-Report were first published, they both contained two items pertaining to gender identity (Item 5: “Behaves like opposite sex”; Item 110: “Wishes to be of opposite sex”). In subsequent versions of the CBCL and YSR, only Item 110 was retained. Both Items 5 and 110 or Item 110 alone have been used to gauge the prevalence, in a crude way, of gender-variant behavior or even as a rough proxy for Gender Identity Disorder (the diagnostic term in DSM-III, III-R, and IV) in both the referred and non-referred samples in the standardization studies (e.g., Steensma et al., 2013; Zucker et al., 1997) and in more specific populations, such as twins (van Beijsterveldt et al., 2006) or specific diagnostic groups, such as children with an autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Strang et al. , 2014). In the standardization samples, Item 5 was endorsed more frequently than Item 110 and both items were endorsed more frequently in girls than in boys. As of yet, it is unclear if endorsement of Item 110 might be associated with degree of general behavioral and emotional problems in referred and non-referred children in general.
    The aim of the present study was two-fold: (1) to report on the prevalence of Item 110 in two new standardized samples: the 2001 U.S. version of the CBCL and YSR (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) and the 2013 Dutch version of the CBCL and YSR (Verhulst & van der Ende, 2013); (2) to see whether or not children and youth for whom this item was endorsed differed from those for whom it was not with regard to the probands’ birth-assigned sex, the sum of all other items that were scored positive, suicidality, and a metric of poor peer relations.
    Main Outcome Measures
    Four samples were used: For the CBCL, the U.S. and Dutch samples of referred and non-referred children (ages 6-18 years); for the YSR, the U.S. and Dutch samples of referred and non-referred youth (ages 11-18 years). In total, there were 12,216 children and youth. Across the four samples, Item 110 was dichotomized as present or absent. The sum of all behavioral and emotional problems (less Item 110) was recorded as was the sum of the two suicidality items (Items 18 and 91) and a 3-item metric of poor peer relations (Items, 25, 38, and 48). Because we were analyzing an anonymous set of data bases supplied by the authors of the standardization samples, formal ethical approval to conduct this research was not required.
    The dependent measures of total behavior problems, suicidality, and poor peer relations were each analyzed in a 2 (Gender) x 2 (Referral Status: Referred vs. Non-Referred) x 2 (Item 110: Present vs. Absent) analysis of variance (ANOVA).
    Across referral status, country (U.S. vs. Holland), and form (CBCL vs. YSR), Item 110 was coded as present in less than 1% of cases (e.g., in Dutch referred boys on the CBCL) to 16.0% of U.S. referred girls on the YSR. Across the entire sample, the prevalence was 3.7%. In all samples, Item 110 was endorsed more frequently for girls than for boys. In each of the four samples, the ANOVAS showed significant main effects for Item 110 for the sum of the total behavior problems, the sum of the two suicidality items, and the sum of the metric of poor peer relations, with most of the p values < .001. In all instances, children and youth for whom Item 110 was coded as present had more behavior problems, more suicidality, and poorer peer relations. Effect sizes using Cohen's d ranged from .40 to 3.43.
    In both clinic-referred and non-referred children and youth, Item 110 proved to be a powerful correlate of behavioral and emotional problems in general and suicidality and poor peer relations in particular. It is rather remarkable that a single item measure that might be construed as a crude proxy for the presence of gender dysphoria was able to detect such strong effects on general psychologic well-being. In clinic-referred populations at large, this finding suggests that whenever Item 110 is coded as present, it is quite likely the case that these children and youth will show evidence of a more general psychologic vulnerability than children and youth for whom Item 110 is coded as absent. It may well serve as a useful gateway for a more thorough evaluation of the felt gender identity of these children and youth.
    KENNETH ZUCKER (University of Toronto), Thomas D. Steensma (VUMC)
    Topic Area
    Oral & Poster Topics: Children and adolescents
    OS-2B » Children & Adolescents II: Assessing Prevalence, Treatment Satisfaction and Mental Health (11:00 – Friday, 7th April, Atlantic 2)
    Presentation Files
    The presenter has not uploaded any presentation files.

  3. GallusMag: What do you make of this? Are you concerned that we don’t understand causality, only that these factors seem to vary together?

    1. Huh?
      Ken Zucker is presenting at EPATH which is certainly one of the reasons for the Code of Conduct, considering his presentation at USPATH was interrupted by protesters and he was unable to present.
      I posted the above abstract for his scheduled EPATH presentation for that reason. Sometimes I forget there are some new readers who might not follow this crap closely and I start posting in shorthand. LOL. Bad me.

      1. you wrote that its “one of the reasons.” What are the others? Im genuinely a little confused about what reason trans activists have to be so pissed at this group. Is it just that the medical community, though definitely following the lead of trans activism, is just not shifting quite fast enough for the trans activists (they seem to constantly move the goalposts in contradictory directions)?
        The weird thing with the conference is that it’s all very covert, like, “let’s issue a statement about codes of conduct for reasons that we all theoretically know, only despite the fact that we all know them, we refuse to just talk openly about them.” Huh? It’s weird. What’s the point of cultivating open secrets? They should just state that there has been recent controversy around Zucker, who has drawn ire from trans activists. They should go on to state that they support a diversity of views so long as these views are within the realm of science, and that in the interest of science they will not allow anyone to silence their presenters—trans activists or not. Is it so hard? Why does everyone walk on eggshells around these men-who-would-be-women. We all, collectively and separately, need to stand up to these bullies at every turn. And although issuing the code of conduct is a form of standing up to them, it’s literally the most tame, accommodating, low-bar version of it possible.

  4. I guess they realized how cult like the USPATH no platforming of dr zucker looks now, especially in light of the “who knows best?” BBC special that interviewed his former patients. On twitter ray Blanchard said Dutch practitioners at this conference operate in the same way zucker does and do not understand the controversy about letting him speak. I also don’t really understand non professionals protesting a speaker at a medical conference, it has a real Streisand effect… Say, that might be why they are doing this? If they just let him talk fewer people will pay attention?

  5. I don’t know why trans activists even protest Ken Zucker, considering his own influence in popularizing “puberty blocking” of gay and lesbian children. His mentor, Richard “sissy boy” Green, set up an entire UK conference a decade ago for the sole purpose of promoting the practice, which Zucker attended and supported.
    Here’s an interesting history lesson for anyone who wants it, from 2008:
    You can really see all this shit going down(hill) from there. Recommended.
    *Bonus: Annelou De Vries on how the Dutch decided not to use (then non-puberty blocked) children seen by the NHS as a control group to study protocol outcomes because “society in the UK is very different from Holland”.

  6. Having watched two parents suffer chemotherapy and radiation which ultimately didn’t save their lives (in my father’s case, they barely extended his life), I plan to crash every oncology conference I can find to demand those slash-and-burn butchers abandon their accepted treatment protocols in favor of supplements and macrobiotic food.

      1. Yes, I know. That’s my point. Patients and activists should not be able to dictate treatment protocols in any fashion.

    1. How about the fact that there is a cure for breast cancer? I was so glad to find that there are women who refuse the poisons of the doctors if the doctors can’t tell them why they got breast cancer in the first place. Dr Guy Abraham has been working on this for years and there are a number of women curing their own cancer. It may also relate to other endocrine-system cancers, but the studies have not been done yet.
      I would crash a conference of endocrinologists due to the gross medical neglect I suffered for decades. I have asked if the only way one can get their attention is by setting oneself on fire outside a conference.

  7. Hate this About Ray film. The transing and erasure of Gay and Lesbian youth by straight society through trendy hollywood films. The only time I see actual lesbian films is through Wolfe Video where you still have to filter through gay male, bisexual and trans media, and still many lesbian films still include trans.

Comments are closed.