They settled with him for half a million dollars, and publicly apologized, because their review, inspired by the accusations of conversion therapy that you are repeating, was filled with "errors."
The accusations in question were of serious breaches of professional conduct, such as the aforementioned incident in which he allegedly forced a teenager to undress and verbally abused them. That claim was later acknowledged by CAMH to be unsubstantiated (although not necessarily untrue), and CAMH absolutely shouldn't have publicized it in the form they did. Again, I stand by the fact that it is a believable accusation based on an understanding of Zucker's method.
People like Zucker like to pretend that there is a difference between the desistance-based therapy that they practice and conversion therapy, particularly as the legality of conversion therapy has become increasingly questionable. However, both approaches are based in the use of coercive behavioral modification techniques. The stories of parents being told to take their children's toys away and punish them arbitrarily for gender non-conforming behaviour, and of children becoming withdrawn and emotionally disturbed as a result, are not from this report, they are from the observations of other therapists, including those who support Zucker and believe that his method works (particularly Michael J Bailey, whose publicly expressed views on trans people might be described as even more hostile than those of Zucker).
But also, "CAMH stands by its decision to close the child and youth gender identity clinic." So yes, his clinic was closed. You are wrong on all counts.
It's not "his" clinic though, he just worked there until he was fired. The decision to close the clinic came
after he was fired, and while related to the accusations that the clinic was practicing conversion therapy, it's clear that the problems with that clinic went far beyond Zucker himself. That clinic, for example, used to be called the Clarke institute, its director for many years was Ray Blanchard, who viewed transwomen as either gay men or perverted straight men and who turned out to have close ties with a right-wing think tank that advocated scientific racism and eugenics. An organizational culture had clearly developed there that was deeply, deeply hostile to trans children and viewed the goal of treatment as enforcing desistance through coercive control. That may not be illegal (yet) but it is child abuse, and as someone who has routinely tried to advance the TERFy claim that gender shouldn't matter, I struggle to see why you have so little problem with the idea of punishing and hurting children for displaying gender non-conformity.
Oh wait, no I don't. I'm absolutely familiar with this brand of hypocrisy.
Including this time, when you read the sample for people regretting transition, where I was talking about the sample for people not regretting transition.
No, that's not what I did.
What I did is to note that the "sample" (case studies aren't a sample) of people not regretting transition was framed in response to another citation, the aforementioned letter, that I then followed up on.
Let me show you this. The opening sentence of the text you quoted from page 6 reads.
"Recent case studies suggest, on the contrary, that transition may be beneficial and appreciated by some youths who grow up to be cis."
On the contrary to what?
This indicates that this sentence, and the following paragraph, is intended to be read as a continuation of the previous paragraph, which describes the aforementioned letter and the problems with it (which, you will note, does not include the fact that it draws conclusions from a small number of case studies, because that's not actually a problem). I was actually describing the same paragraph, but I did so within its appropriate context as a continuation of the argument in the previous paragraph, whereas you seem reluctant to do this for some reason.
The author extrapolates from two data points (I may have said two people earlier, if so I apologize, one of the data points had two people, so 3 people total).
Again, learn what a case study is.
Saying words like "data points" doesn't make you sound smart, it makes it clear you can't understand or appreciate the basic purpose and utility of different forms of research.
They conclude, based on wholesale, unempirical rationalization the ultimately cis- people would feel gratitude for the experience of transitioning, explained by a "fact" that has absolutely no evidence whatsoever, one which given any honest consideration flies in the face of the argument for transition in the first place.
This is simply not true.
You know how I know that, because there is an actual conclusion, which opens as such.
"In this article, I have argued that desistance research is of very limited relevance in debates surrounding clinical models of care for transgender and gender creative youth and fails to provide support to the wait-and-see and corrective models. The conservatism of those two models vis-à-vis prepubertal social transition is not supported by desistance studies. Not only do we have good reasons to doubt the accuracy of reported persistence rates, but these observations are disconnected from the clinical decisions health care professionals face surrounding models of care. Moreover, transition for those who would grow up cis does not appear comparably harmful to delaying transition, and both the corrective and wait-and-see model pose signifcant risks of harm."
I have marked the bit that is relevant, which should perhaps indicate how small a part of the overall point being made it is given that the conclusion continues for two more paragraphs.
You will note the phrase "comparably harmful". That phrase denotes a comparison. There is no argument here that cis people would always or necessarily feel gratitude for the experience of having transitioned and there doesn't need to be, because the point is comparative.
The point of the bit you are struggling with is actually a response to the kind of argument you are making, which (and prepare for a mind-blowing realization)
is why I posted this article in the first place. The point is that even if you could produce accurate statistics regarding desistance or retransition that didn't come from child abusers, it would not necessarily support the conclusion you are attempting to draw from it.
You are inferring harm where there is literally no evidence for it, and expecting us to buy it simply because you believe that quoting statistics makes you sound smart. Meanwhile, as mentioned, the side you are supporting cannot even provide isolated examples which actually demonstrate the harm you are alleging or provide some theoretical mechanism to explain it. We are just supposed to take it on faith.
Well, no. I'm not taking anything on faith from people who think child abuse is acceptable.
www.marineinsight.com
