Internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an organization claiming to set medical standards for transgender treatment, have been scrutinized by the research group Environmental Progress. The analysis of these documents, obtained by journalist Michael Shellenberger, suggests that WPATH members engaged in experimental treatments, contradicting the organization’s public stance that its recommendations are based on evidence and science.
Environmental Progress argues that WPATH operates more like an unethical activist group than a scientific organization, providing cover to doctors to avoid legal issues by claiming they were following expert standards. The report accuses WPATH of endorsing low-barrier gender transitioning of youth, describing it as medical malpractice that violates the Hippocratic Oath and harms vulnerable individuals without justification.
The internal discussions revealed WPATH members experimenting on young people, contrary to the organization’s public claim that its procedures are not experimental. The report calls for reputable medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association to sever ties with WPATH and adopt ethical, evidence-based medicine.
The report sheds light on earlier decades when transgender individuals tried to “pass” convincingly. Some activists addressed this by encouraging transitioning before puberty, raising concerns about youth understanding the irreversible consequences of such decisions. The report criticizes WPATH for reducing the evidence required before performing surgery and some practitioners seemingly endorsing gender surgery without thorough assessments.
The report notes instances where individuals developed cancer or experienced sexual dysfunction as a result of hormone treatments and fake genitals. It questions the focus on cosmetic outcomes over the ultimate purpose of attractiveness in attracting mates. Environmental Progress contends that WPATH’s overall approach reflects activism rather than a scientific or medical perspective.
Former WPATH member Stephen B. Levine, who oversaw the Standards of Care in the 1990s, resigned, stating his regretful conclusion that the organization had become dominated by politics and ideology. The report highlights the shift to an “informed consent model of care,” allowing patients to have gender surgery if they express the desire, even though the internal discussions reveal uncertainty among doctors about the exact implications of a patient’s consent. The report also suggests instances of WPATH members working around rules, such as billing the Department of Veterans Affairs for treating transgender patients under a different label.
In summary, the conservative perspective underscores concerns about WPATH’s ethical standards, accusing the organization of prioritizing activism over scientific rigor and advocating for a reassessment of its influence by reputable medical organizations.
