> All the stuff about the adolescent he may or may not have mocked is a red herring - I've followed this issue, and literally the only place I've heard it menti

> All the stuff about the adolescent he may or may not have mocked is a red herring - I've followed this issue, and literally the only place I've heard it mentioned is articles defending Zucker. The article brings up many more flaws with the external review than the use of that anecdote. For example, the misreporting of statistics (70% vs 30% of patients meeting the criteria for gender dysphoria); the low number of interviews with actual patients of the GIC (9 or 11), of whom even so only 2 had complaints; misreporting the nature of the use of play therapy (for assessment vs treatment); and so forth. If the GIC is to be condemned (as perhaps it should) for conversion therapy, it should at least be done on the basis of a thorough, fact-checked independent review; the article's thesis is that the external review conducted by Zinck and Pignatiello does not suffice. It's not just one anecdote they take issue with. > His approach involved telling parents to prevent their kids from playing with toys of the "wrong" gender [...] > His position - what he told parents coming to his clinic for help [...] > I've followed this issue, [...] Do you have any links you think are particularly informative about the practices of the GIC in this regard?