The recent revelations surrounding the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) have pulled back the curtain on what many have been asserting for years: so-called “gender-affirming care” is an experimental venture marred by a litany of serious, often life-altering side effects. Journalist Michael Shellenberger’s “The WPATH Files” not only exposes the grim realities of these medical interventions but also the lack of informed consent.
The leaked internal documents and video footage from WPATH itself reveal a medical community grappling with the repercussions of their treatments. From cancer in teenagers to painful sex and the near impossibility of obtaining true informed consent from young patients, the issues brought to light cannot be dismissed by any morally conscious individual. Tragically, these patients are often too young to grasp the magnitude of the decisions being made on their behalf.
The instances of informed consent—or the lack thereof—discussed in the “Identity Evolution Workshop” panel are particularly telling. The acknowledgment that young patients can barely comprehend the implications of fertility preservation speaks volumes about the ethical quagmire this practice represents. Moreover, the discussions on the WPATH discussion boards about treating patients with dissociative identity disorder without fully understanding their condition is a glaring indictment of the reckless approach to so-called “gender-affirming care.”
The admission by WPATH members that cross-sex hormones can lead to serious conditions such as liver cancer in teenagers is a stark reminder of the dangers associated with these interventions. The tragic case of a young individual developing aggressive liver cancer after testosterone use, as noted in The Lancet, is a heart-wrenching example of the irreversible harm that can result from these experimental treatments.
The response to individuals who decide to detransition further illustrates the ideological dogma that has permeated the field. Instead of acknowledging detransitioning as a legitimate outcome and a clear indication that the initial intervention may have been misguided, WPATH members instead choose to rationalize and minimize these experiences. This refusal to confront the reality of detransitioning and its implications is indicative of a medical community more concerned with getting rich and adhering to a narrative than with the well-being of their patients.
The “WPATH Files” lay bare the troubling realities of “gender-affirming care,” a term that belies the experimental and often harmful nature of these medical interventions. As more states consider legislation to protect minors from these practices, it is imperative that the public, policymakers, and the medical community at large confront the evidence and reassess the approach to treating individuals with gender dysphoria. The health and future of many confused young people depend on it.
