The WPATH Files: Pseudoscientific Surgical and Hormonal Experiments on Children, Adolescents, and Vulnerable Adults (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    6,003
    Reaction score
    2,858
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    THE WPATH FILES

    Advocates of gender-affirming care say it’s evidence-based.

    But now, newly released internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical.

    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.

    And yet WPATH’s internal files, which include written discussions and a video, reveal that its members know they are creating victims and not getting “informed consent.”

    Victims include a 10-year-old girl, a 13-year-old developmentally delayed adolescent, and individuals suffering from schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses.

    The injuries described in the WPATH Files include sterilization, loss of sexual function, liver tumors, and death.

    WPATH members indicate repeatedly that they know that many children and their parents don’t understand the effects that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will have on their bodies. And yet, they continue to perform and advocate for gender medicine.

    The WPATH Files prove that gender medicine is comprised of unregulated and pseudoscientific experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. It will go down as one of the worst medical scandals in history.

    Why I Am Publishing WPATH Files And How I Got Them

    The written WPATH Files come from WPATH’s member discussion forum, which runs on software provided by DocMatter.

    Ninety seconds of the 82-minute video was made public last year. We are making the full video available for the first time.

    One or more people gave me the WPATH Files, and my colleagues and I attempted to summarize them as a series of articles. We quickly realized the topic was too sensitive, complex, and large to be dealt with as a work of journalism, and we moved the project to the research institute I founded seven years ago, Environmental Progress (EP).

    The Files are authentic. We redacted most names and left only those individuals who are leading gender medicine practitioners to whom we sent “right-of-reply” emails. We know WPATH members discussed our emails internally. No WPATH leader or member has denied that the Files are anything other than what they appear to be.

    EP is publishing a 70-page report to provide context for the 170 pages of WPATH Files. Mia Hughes is the author of the report. It and accompanying summary materials can be downloaded at the link below. That link also provides a link to the full WPATH video.

    What follows are simply a few highlights. People with a serious interest in the topic should read the report and all the files:



     
    It is crazy to think experiments on mentally vulnerable kids, many of which are permanent, should be just passed off as some normal medical decision.
    This is not happening. This poster continues to regurgitate lies told by people they know are lying, no matter how many times they've been shown that truth.

    The WPATH Files show that WPATH are frauds and they are lying the public about the risks and dangers. What's even worse is WPATH is setting the standards for trans care.
    This is not true. It's intentionally false and deceptive. That doesn't stop this poster from regurgitating the lie.

    Want to know the proof none of this posters sources nor this poster actually care about protecting children?

    They don't even want to discuss protecting children from the real harm of playing tackle football at any early age or protecting children from being shot to death. They won't even acknowledge it's a problem.

    Believe the blatant hypocrisy when you see it.

    What this poster's sources and this poster is doing is trying to trick you into agreeing to giving them control over how people raise their children. Power and control over others is what they are truly seeking.

    They don't really want to protect the children. If they did, then they wouldn't vote against and protest every policy designed to make sure poorer children get what they need to grow up healthy and well. Nah, they don't care about that.

    They want to force every parent to raise their children the way they demand that children be raised.

    They want to force every child to act and dress the way they demand every child act and dress.

    They know they can't be honest with you and ask you to support their true desires. So, they dishonestly create a false danger that children need to be "protected from" to play on the fact that most of us actually want children protected and will help to protect.

    Just like most of us don't want to force other parents to raise their children the way we think they should and just like most of us don't want to force people to dress and act the way we want them to.

    The real danger to these children are the people that are trying to trick you into giving them the support and power they need to control other people. If you give them that power, it's only a matter of time before they come for you and your children too.
     


    ...In 1974, the science lined up neatly with the demands of gay rights activists. But today, the science of pediatric gender medicine is uncertain, so it doesn’t back the cause the of groups leading the contemporary LGBTQ civil rights movement in the United States.

    GLAAD has gone so far as to insist that “the science is settled” regarding pediatric gender transition. It is not. In fact, the field of pediatric gender medicine is woefully compromised by a critical lack of quality research. Evidence-based-medicine experts insist that we simply do not know whether gender-transition treatment is safe and effective for minors.

    Understandably, APA leaders — and other empathetic everyday people — are wary of repeating the mistakes of the past and are inclined to stand with LGBTQ advocates, particularly as conservative groups fight for all manner of restrictive laws that target kids who identify as transgender.

    The APA’s signaling on best practices for the care of such young people is of paramount importance. The offices of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are often the entry point into gender-transition medicalization. And in U.S. gender clinics, a therapist typically must approve a minor’s referral to an endocrinologist for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

    During the past decade, nations across the globe saw a surge in children and adolescents with gender-related distress, a population with a high rate of other psychiatric conditions, autism and self-harm. This phenomenon has occurred amid an overall crisis in youth mental health. It is not a betrayal of gender-distressed young people’s complex needs to demand the highest possible quality of evidence to determine whether prescribing them medications that could rob them of their fertility and sexual function are in their best interest. It is the APA’s responsibility, free from ideology or politics, to make such demands — which are, in fact, in service of these young people’s well-being.

    The APA has been notably silent on a landmark report published last month that was commissioned by the British National Health Service. Called the Cass Review, it concluded that pediatric gender-transition treatment is based on “remarkably weak evidence.” The report is supported by seven independently conducted systematic literature reviews — the gold standard of scientific evidence. Their findings were in line with those of six previous such reviews, conducted by European and North American investigators and published since 2019.
     
    You believe just about any conspiracy theory that’s out there. You have a right to those crazy ideas, but you don’t have the right to force other people to follow your crazy ideas. It’s not hard. Don’t be an authoritarian. Don’t force other people to follow your ideas. Let them make their own decisions.
    What's the conspiracy? That the internal WPATH communications weren't leaked or that the Cass Review never happened?
    What you say things show actually never quite show that. 🤷‍♀️ It may be that the standards for trans care change. Maybe not. But the last thing we need is politicians meddling in something they know nothing about. Or people on a message board deciding things they know nothing about for other people.
    We also don't need WPATH, who sets the care standards for Trans care, saying one thing publicly and another thing in private that often contradicts their public statements. We need WPATH or anyone else to be honest to these kids about the actual risks and side effects that could be permanent and how it can be life changing.
    Why don’t you live by your own ideas and let other people live their own lives? I’m not joking. I would like a serious answer here. Why is it that you find it acceptable that social media sites be forced to keep Nazi content up in the name of “free speech” - yet you want to police medical care for trans kids? Square that circle for me please.
    I'll always advocate for things that protect children so of course I would be against experimenting on vulnerable kids.

    I've never said anything in support of Nazi content, but it is funny how that's always the left's comeback to people who push for free speech.

    Part of free speech is hearing views you don't like even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Also, hate speech isn't outlawed by the 1st ammendment.
     
    What's the conspiracy? That the internal WPATH communications weren't leaked or that the Cass Review never happened?

    We also don't need WPATH, who sets the care standards for Trans care, saying one thing publicly and another thing in private that often contradicts their public statements. We need WPATH or anyone else to be honest to these kids about the actual risks and side effects that could be permanent and how it can be life changing.

    I'll always advocate for things that protect children so of course I would be against experimenting on vulnerable kids.

    I've never said anything in support of Nazi content, but it is funny how that's always the left's comeback to people who push for free speech.

    Part of free speech is hearing views you don't like even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Also, hate speech isn't outlawed by the 1st ammendment.
    What you are doing here is the same thing you do in other threads. You are taking internal debate where scientists are open with each other, talk out different scenarios, and basically have free discussions to make sure they get things right, and assign malign intent. I guess I should clarify it isn’t you doing this, because you only consume tweets from anti-science sources who assign malign intent. Any organization worth its salt will have internal debates where they question themselves all the damn time. It’s similar to self-scouting in sports. When you take these internal debates and twist them into a conspiracy and assign malign intent - you aren’t helping kids. At all.

    I never said you supported any Nazi content. What I said you have supported is that social media should be forced to include things they don’t want to include. Which actually violates their freedom of association. If it’s the government forcing them to include things they don’t want to include, that’s a violation of the First Amendment that you claim to support. Companies don’t have to include messages they don’t want to include on their platforms, it’s as simple as that.

    NO, part of free speech isn’t “hearing views that I don’t want to hear”. You cannot force people to hear any views. That is definitely NOT part of free speech. Please, I’m begging you - go read the First Amendment. It’s obvious you don’t know much about it.
     
    What you are doing here is the same thing you do in other threads. You are taking internal debate where scientists are open with each other, talk out different scenarios, and basically have free discussions to make sure they get things right, and assign malign intent. I guess I should clarify it isn’t you doing this, because you only consume tweets from anti-science sources who assign malign intent. Any organization worth its salt will have internal debates where they question themselves all the damn time. It’s similar to self-scouting in sports. When you take these internal debates and twist them into a conspiracy and assign malign intent - you aren’t helping kids. At all.
    Again, what was the the conspiracy you talked about?

    Oh please. We get private message and emails leaked showing with this and Covid that the people involved were lying, deceitful, saying one thing publicly and the opposite in private and you fall back on these silly excuses. Your excuses sound a lot like Governor Landrys excuses on why they want to gut the public records law that allows the public(and Lee Zuric) to see the deliberative process behind making laws and rules.

    I'm posting things from anti-science people? You just like to label people you disagree with like being racists, white supremacists, antivax, etc.

    Why do you continually try to cover for these frauds?
    I never said you supported any Nazi content. What I said you have supported is that social media should be forced to include things they don’t want to include. Which actually violates their freedom of association. If it’s the government forcing them to include things they don’t want to include, that’s a violation of the First Amendment that you claim to support. Companies don’t have to include messages they don’t want to include on their platforms, it’s as simple as that.
    It violates their freedom of association? Not quite. How is the government forcing them to include things they don't want to include?

    From what I've seen it's the opposite. The government pressures the social media companies to censor and remove.

    NO, part of free speech isn’t “hearing views that I don’t want to hear”. You cannot force people to hear any views. That is definitely NOT part of free speech. Please, I’m begging you - go read the First Amendment. It’s obvious you don’t know much about it.
    Lol. It's not about forcing people to hear any views but with the 1st ammendment views that you don't like, including hate speech, are protected by the 1st ammendment.
     
    Last edited:
    Again, what was the the conspiracy you talked about?

    Oh please. We get private message and emails leaked showing with this and Covid that the people involved were lying, deceitful, saying one thing publicly and the opposite in private and you fall back on these silly excuses. Your excuses sound a lot like Governor Landrys excuses on why they want to gut the public records law that allows the public(and Lee Zuric) to see the deliberative process behind making laws and rules.

    I'm posting things from anti-science people? You just like to label people you disagree with like being racists, white supremacists, antivax, etc.

    Why do you continually try to cover for these frauds?

    It violates their freedom of association? Not quite. How is the government forcing them to include things they don't want to include?

    From what I've seen it's the opposite. The government pressures the social media companies to censor and remove.


    Lol. It's not about forcing people to hear any views but with the 1st ammendment views that you don't like, including hate speech, are protected by the 1st ammendment.
    Nobody’s reading comprehension can be this bad, can it? 🤦‍♀️
     
    Everytime you guys talk about this I think about Matt Walsh getting fact checked by Joe Rogan.

    How many kids?

    It has to be millions.

    Jamie, look that up.

    It's 4,000.
     
    SFL continues to pound this and other topics. Even after we had a senior member here share a poignant personal story about their family and how a small amount of hormonal treatment made all the difference in their child.

    Yet, because somebody voices opinions SFL crusades against helping these kids. Something he knows actually nothing about. It’s disturbingl
     
    Wait till you hear what the St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital does all day, every day.
    This is not an appropriate comparison. St. Jude's is treating kids with deadly diseases. I know some people say that sexual dysphoria can be deadly since some kids commit suicide, but it is not comparable. In the vast majority of cases, I think counseling is more appropriate for sexual dysphoria, rather than treatments that can cause permanent psychological and physical problems. The same can't be said for the majority of the St. Jude's kids who would die without treatment.
     
    This is not an appropriate comparison. St. Jude's is treating kids with deadly diseases. I know some people say that sexual dysphoria can be deadly since some kids commit suicide, but it is not comparable. In the vast majority of cases, I think counseling is more appropriate for sexual dysphoria, rather than treatments that can cause permanent psychological and physical problems. The same can't be said for the majority of the St. Jude's kids who would die without treatment.
    You should read what UTJ shared a while back and then come back and dismiss medical treatments for these kids. My guess is you wouldn’t be so cavalier about denying them treatments that are helping them and easing their pain.
     
    In the vast majority of cases, I think counseling is more appropriate for sexual dysphoria, rather than treatments that can cause permanent psychological and physical problems.
    Sincere question, what are you basing your opinion on?

    Is your opinion based on years of extensive medical and/or psychological study, research or clinical practice?

    Is it based on first hand experience with someone you know?
     
    It should be illegal for minors to have sex transition surgery as well as puberty blockers.




    The political pressure that Admiral Rachel Levine put on @WPATH to remove age restrictions on pediatric sex-transition treatment is already starting to show up in litigation. A U.S. district court granted a stay and injunction of Florida's effort to avoid being subject to Biden administration rules requiring Medicaid coverage of such treatment, per what's known as Section 1557 under the Affordable Care Act.

    In the injunction, the district court judge referred to Levine: "At times the HHS position about 'gender affirming care' seems to be political. It is no surprise to any observer that politics on both sides of this issue are prevalent. Concerning the parties here, HHS’s Assistant Secretary Levine previously urged the medical/advocacy group World Professional Association for Transgender Health ('WPATH') to drop proposed age limits for minor transgender surgery. The age limits in the proposed WPATH guidelines were 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for hysterectomies. Levine’s staff informed WPATH that Levine was 'confident, based on the rhetoric she is hearing in D.C., and from what we have already seen, that these specific lists of ages, under 18, will result in devastating legislation for trans care. (Levine) wonders if the specific ages can be taken out.' Levine’s staff went on to tell WPATH that Levine 'was very concerned that having ages (mainly for surgery) will affect access to care for trans youth and maybe adults, too…” Levine’s staff asked WPATH to remove the age limitations in the guidance for gender transition.12 The WPATH has removed age limitations for minors on its guidance for transition surgeries.'"
     
    It should be illegal for minors to have sex transition surgery as well as puberty blockers.




    The political pressure that Admiral Rachel Levine put on @WPATH to remove age restrictions on pediatric sex-transition treatment is already starting to show up in litigation. A U.S. district court granted a stay and injunction of Florida's effort to avoid being subject to Biden administration rules requiring Medicaid coverage of such treatment, per what's known as Section 1557 under the Affordable Care Act.

    In the injunction, the district court judge referred to Levine: "At times the HHS position about 'gender affirming care' seems to be political. It is no surprise to any observer that politics on both sides of this issue are prevalent. Concerning the parties here, HHS’s Assistant Secretary Levine previously urged the medical/advocacy group World Professional Association for Transgender Health ('WPATH') to drop proposed age limits for minor transgender surgery. The age limits in the proposed WPATH guidelines were 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for hysterectomies. Levine’s staff informed WPATH that Levine was 'confident, based on the rhetoric she is hearing in D.C., and from what we have already seen, that these specific lists of ages, under 18, will result in devastating legislation for trans care. (Levine) wonders if the specific ages can be taken out.' Levine’s staff went on to tell WPATH that Levine 'was very concerned that having ages (mainly for surgery) will affect access to care for trans youth and maybe adults, too…” Levine’s staff asked WPATH to remove the age limitations in the guidance for gender transition.12 The WPATH has removed age limitations for minors on its guidance for transition surgeries.'"

    Hypocrite. You know nothing about what you are talking about.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom