'Neither scientific nor medical': Leaked WPATH files shed light on the horror show that is 'gender-affirming care'

Leaked internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have provided damning insights into the pseudo-scientific practice of so-called gender-affirming care along with its ghastly consequences.

According to journalist Mia Hughes' 242-page report, published Monday by Michael Shellenberger's think tank, Environmental Progress, WPATH members "demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the debilitating and potentially fatal side effects of cross-sex hormones and other treatments."

Shellenberger, who collaborated on the report with Hughes and Tablet columnist Alex Gutentag, noted on X that the findings are especially troubling as the "American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on WPATH. It is considered the leading global authority on gender medicine."

WPATH members quoted in the report can be seen discussing:

• Giving irreversible medical treatments to mentally-compromised victims incapable of providing consent;
• The inability of minors to comprehend the long-term consequences of so-called gender affirmation;
• Putting a gloss on de-transition and post-operation regrets;
• The narrative that minors should receive hormones or go under the knife because otherwise they'll kill themselves — a popular claim amongst LGBT activists that was shown to be false in a recent Finnish study; and
• Various debilitating side effects of sex-change procedures.

In one instance, Dianne Berg, a child psychologist at the University of Minnesota who co-authored the child chapter of WPATH Standards of Care 8, admits that it is out of children's "developmental range to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them. They'll say they understand, but then they'll say something else that makes you think, oh, they didn't really understand that they are going to have facial hair."

Canadian endocrinologist Daniel Metzger noted during an internal WPATH panel discussion, "Most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of brain space to really talk about [fertility preservation] in a serious way."

"I think the thing you have to remember about kids is that we're often explaining these sorts of things to people who haven't even had biology in high school yet," added Metzger.

It's not just prospective child victims who are clueless about what their experimental transmogrification would ultimately entail. One WPATH member noted that parents sometimes sign off without knowing the stakes or what's involved in the medical intervention.

The WPATH files also illuminate how some professionals in the sex-change industry appear to be freewheeling without an anchorage in ethics or reality.

One surgeon is quoted as suggesting that affirming surgeries don't have to produce looks and body parts that "exist in nature," even though WPATH condemned Republicans for suggesting that "gender-affirming health care is not experimental."

"I think we are going to see a wave of non-binary affirming requests for surgery that will include non-standard procedures," wrote the California surgeon. "I have worked with clients who identify as non-binary, agender, and Eunuchs who have wanted atypical surgical procedures, many of which either don't exist in nature or represent the first of their kind."

The WPATH files further reveal the nightmarish consequences victims have faced after receiving "gender-affirming care." There are secret stories of hormone-trigger liver cancer; pelvic inflammatory disease; pelvic floor dysfunction; atrophied uteri; painful orgasms; "[erections] feeling like broken glass"; and death.

"The WPATH Files show that what is called 'gender medicine' is neither science nor medicine," Shellenberger said in a statement. "The experiments are not randomized, double-blind, or controlled. It's not medicine since the first rule is to do no harm. And that requires informed consent."

Environmental Progress indicated that it reached out for comment to every WPATH member named in the files and that two responded; one confirming the comments attributed to them and the other pushing back against how their remarks had been interpreted in the report.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!