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:
“We're explaining things to people who haven't even had biology in high school…”
“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,” says Dan Metzger, an endocrinologist.
“The 14-year-olds, you just... It's like talking [about] diabetic complications with a 14-year-old. They don't care. They're not going to die. They're going to live forever, right? So I think when we're doing informed consent, that's still a big lacuna.”
“14 year old trans female who started transition since she was 4… wants to have Gender Affirming Surgery”
“I’ve recently received questions from an [‘Assigned Female At Birth’] pre-menarche 10 y/o patient about whether blockers will ‘stunt’ his growth…”
“It is very difficult to ask that they wait until age 16...”
A “16 y/o patient…found to have two liver masses… the likely offending agents were the hormones…”
The problem is that drugs can cause tumors, even, apparently, in people as young as 16 years old.
“To what degree… providers discuss actual rates of surgical complications… (e.g., pain…additional surgeries, necrotic tissue, infection, hematomas…”
Many young patients experiencing gender distress do not appear to understand that they may suffer serious consequences from long-term hormone use and genital surgery.
“I feel the best time for surgery in the U.S. is the summer before their last year of high school.”
Despite the widespread and growing expression of concern within the WPATH Files over the negative side effects of gender medicine, WPATH members urge that irreversible surgeries take place when adolescents are just 16 or 17 years old.
“Most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of brain space to really talk about it seriously.”
One WPATH member says, “It's out of their developmental range sometimes to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them.”
“We try to talk about it, but most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of a brain space to really, really, really talk about it seriously.”
Many Parents Don’t Understand What Will Happen To Their Children
“I try to kind of do whatever I can to help them understand best they, best I can,” says a therapist. “But what really disturbs me is when the parents can't tell me what they need to know about a medical intervention that apparently they signed off for."
“In a developmentally delayed 13yo… what is the ethical approach?”
The situation of obtaining informed consent is complicated further when the adolescents are also developmentally delayed and, in the case below, “may not reach the emotional and cognitive developmental bar set” by WPATH’s already very low standards of care.
“Oh, the dog isn’t doing it for you?”
Many gender medicine victims are filled with regret that they were sterilized. Nobody knows this more than the doctors who mistreated them. At times, their response to such regret appears callous.
“I follow a lot of kids into their mid twenties, I'm always like, ‘Oh, the dog isn't doing it for you, right?’ They're like, ‘No, I just found this wonderful partner and now we want kids. So you know, it doesn't surprise me.”
“I’m unaware of an individual claiming ability to orgasm when they were blocked at Tanner 2.”
Many gender medicine patients lose sexual function, including experiencing orgasm. As such, they are not only deprived of sexual pleasure, they are significantly undermining their ability to form long-lasting romantic relationships.
It’s clear from the Files that even many people within gender medicine do not understand this.
On January 14, 2022, the surgeon and President of WPATH, Marci Bowers, explained this reality in a low-key way.
Seven days later, a WPATH member asked Bowers to clarify.
“After 8-10 years of [testosterone, they] developed hepatocarcinomas… died a couple of months after.”
For some gender medicine patients, there are fates worse than both sterility and loss of sexual function.
Part II: Mental Illness
“A Patient Who Became Dangerous”
On an unknown date, a San Francisco-based surgeon named Thomas Satterwhite posted an urgent new message to WPATH’s internal message board.
“I had a patient who became dangerous/threatening to our care team post-op,” he wrote, “which ultimately ended in a restraining order.”
Satterwhite explained that “This patient had undiagnosed mood disorders that did not surface until post-op, after which, she travelled around the country to find other surgeons to provide care.”
It’s a chilling story, and one that raises many questions about the ethics and legality of gender-affirming medicine.
At the top of that list is how did Satterwhite and his colleagues miss the fact that the person they operated upon had a serious psychiatric condition?
But Satterwhite was focused on a more prosaic question: What was the best “medicolegal” way that he could warn other doctors and health care providers that his former patient was “potentially dangerous”?
There is no evidence in the WPATH Files, nor elsewhere, that the experience shook Satterwhite enough to question whether gender-affirming care is, in reality, committed to the maxim, “First, do no harm.”
Our Awful History Of Mistreating Mental Illness
Nations have struggled to care properly for people with mental illness and psychiatric disorders for centuries.
After every past scandal, we pledge to do better next time, relying more on science than ideology.
Readers of the WPATH Files may walk away with the sense that we have learned nothing.
Repeatedly throughout the WPATH Files, we see gender medicine practitioners waive away evidence that mental illnesses and psychiatric disorders have been misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria.
The WPATH Files are a picture of people single-mindedly committed to the hammer of gender medicine and thus seeing every patient who comes to them as a nail.
“Disordered eating,” “purposeful malnutrition,” and a “high prevalence of eating disorders”
A therapist raises concerns in a message about the age of a patient.
“I have an incoming 13yo (soon to be 14 yo)... I was under the impression that is more the exception to start for kids under 16, not the norm…”
But the person has another piece of troubling information.
“A possible complication,” the therapist warns, is that it “sounds like there is some purposeful malnutrition and restrictive eating for ‘a more non-binary appearance.’”
The chief medical officer of a health center in Texas chimed in that the therapist had best hurry the 13-year-old teenager along the gender-affirming path because “waiting appears to increase the rate of suicide,” which is one of several pseudoscientific myths repeated within the WPATH Files.
“Something is off… I am wondering if they might have schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia”
“...I was surprised to find that several of my clients met criteria for dissociative disorders...”
“Someone can have schizophrenia and be ready for surgery…”
“...I have noted a high incidence of dissociative disorders...”
“I have operated on three DID [Dissociative Identity Disorder] patients... All three did okay out to the six month mark....”
“In the last 15 years, I had to regrettably decline writing only one letter, mainly b/c the person evaluated was in active psychosis and hallucinated during the assessment session...”
“They had alters who were both male and female gender and it was imperative to get all alters who would be effected by [Hormone Replacement Therapy] to be aware and consent to the changes."
Part III: Ethics
“I’m not aware of any other medical procedure that requires the approval of a therapist.”
Frequently, WPATH members push back against “gatekeeping,” including the requirement for sound mental health before undergoing a lifelong regime of drugs and surgery.
“If an individual patient feels that they made a mistake… be careful with that not letting that change the way others receive care.”
At times, WPATH members speak of the growing number of “detransitioners” who regret gender medicine.
Some gender medicine practitioners express less concern for the detransitioners than for the threat they may pose to gender medicine.
“Patients need to own and take active responsibility for medical decisions, especially those that have potentially permanent effects."
There is evidence within the WPATH Files of WPATH members, as well as its president, Marci Bowers, blaming their victims.
“Those conversations can be ongoing even after the intervention has occurred.”
Readers of the WPATH Files may be struck, as we were, by how flexible WPATH members were in rationalizing their mistreatments.
Faced with rising amounts of regret and detransition, WPATH members describe what’s happening as a “gender journey” not a single “transition.”
And faced with their own failure to achieve informed consent, WPATH members re-frame it as a “process,” and an “on-going conversation.”
“...informed consent [is a]... process... not one conversation at one point in time ... those conversations don't have to stop once the Medicaid and intervention has been started. Those conversations can be ongoing even after the intervention has occurred.”
“What has been currently happening is, frankly, not what we need to be doing, ethically.”
As we saw above, many WPATH members waive away the evidence of medical mistreatment.
But others appear genuinely concerned by the lack of informed consent.
A therapist describes talking to parents after they meet with a medical doctor.
“I would go in, and say, ‘Okay, so tell me what you learned.’ They would be like, ‘We have no idea what they were talking about.’
“Part of it is that they feel less deferential to the kind of doctor I am than the kind of doctor the medical doctor is.
"And because they really are seeking the care, they're just going to say they know when they really aren't picking up on what's happening.
“And so I think the more we can normalize that it is okay to not get this right away, that it is okay to have questions, is, you know, the more we're going to actually do a real informed consent process than what I think has been currently happening and that I think is, frankly, not what we need to be doing ethically.”
You can tell that her comment had an impact from the long and awkward pause that followed.
In 2022, Obama gave a speech at Stanford Cyber Policy Center advocating sweeping censorship of the Internet. Now, Public has discovered the same Center last month hosted a secret meeting with EU, UK, Brazil, & Australia officials to plot global censorship — including of the US.
In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy addressat Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online.
At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine.
The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress. Elon Musk fired most of the censorship staff at Twitter and has allowed a significantly wider range of speech on the platform. And even before Trump’s election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt stopped funding the Stanford Internet Observatory after Public, Racket News, and House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan exposed its central role in the DHS censorship-by-proxy scheme.
But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets.
And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022.
On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.”
Public emailed all 21 participants and organizers and only heard from four, PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union, which declined to comment because, even though Public gave it over 24 hours, a spokesperson said, “We would need several days.”
The UK government said, “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”
A spokesperson for PLI said it “has made unrestricted gifts to several academic research programs, including Stanford University” and that “PLI does not receive funding from governments, intergovernmental organizations, or large technology companies.”
But PLI’s own policy “blueprint” reveals that it is demanding a single total global censorship regime and intends to use the EU’s market power, known as the “Brussels effect,” to force big tech companies to comply. The blueprint calls for governments to “Recommit to a Single, Global Internet,” with “regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market” and use the large size of the EU market to “drive bilateral and multilateral agendas to formally enshrine reciprocal guarantees.”
A spokesperson for the Australian government said, “Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ This roundtable did not involve any discussion of compliance coordination or regulatory information sharing.”
The Australian spokesperson claimed that “eSafety has no role in regulating hate speech or disinformation. eSafety has no remit or interest in regulating the affairs of other nations, nor does it have any role in diplomatic, trade or other government-to-government relations.”
But it also said, “As the internet is global and functions irrespective of national borders, by necessity eSafety collaborates with law enforcement, other government agencies, and non-government partners around the world, including in the United States.”
The leaked agenda’s stated purpose was to “discuss the state of compliance and enforcement” in order to “identify where data, research, and expertise can enable more effective compliance with and enforcement of existing policy.”
Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (“regulation”) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies.
And, the head of Australia’s eSafety, Julie Inman-Grant, who was a keynote speaker at Stanford’s foreign censorship meeting, is also the head of a global government censorship network that serves as forum, she told the World Economic Forum, “to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that…. We use the tools that we have, and can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go, much further, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.”
As such, the people who are demanding censorship are once again spreading disinformation about what they are doing.
All of this is happening in a context of global censorship intensifying. The UK government arrests 30 people per day for “offensive” social media posts, is attempting to censor 4Chan, which has no servers in the UK, and will mandate digital IDs for employment, which may give unprecedented control to politicians and bureaucrats to censor. The Brazilian government has, for year,s been censoring journalists and policymakers, incarcerating people for legal social media content, and threatening prosecution of journalists, including this author. And several European nations are censoring and arresting their citizens, preventing opposition political candidates from running for office, and preparing to implement digital IDs.
Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision?
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigatie journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
Here is the leaked agenda from the Stanford Cyber Policy Center's secret foreign censorship meeting on September 24, 2025:
Fifty-five percent of people on the Left justify the murder of Trump, five times more liberals than conservatives defend political violence, and not a single high-profile Democrat has called for @jonesjay to drop out. The Left truly can not make its intentions any clearer.
The person whose legacy is most being destroyed by this is @BarackObama . He must demand that @jonesjay step down. Now. And he should take extraordinary efforts to demand the Left back down from its utterly crazed support for violence. This building should not open until he does that.
Mind-blowing. In 2014, VP Biden attacked corrupt developer in Romania who owned land around US embassy. In 2015, Hunter goes to work for the corrupt developer, lobbies US ambassador to pressure Romanians to drop case, then proposes to settle case by cutting in his China client 😳
This appears to have been a straight-up mob-style shakedown by the Biden family done under the auspices of Obama foreign policy and in a way the directly jeopardized US national security.
The lawyers for Hunter’s corrupt developer client first threatened to jeopardize the land upon which the embassy sat, and then proposed a deal whereby prosecutors dropped the case in exchange for the corrupt developer selling nearly half his stake to a state-owned Chinese energy company, that was also Hunter’s client.
Good god. The Swiss people just approved digital IDs. Australia implemented them in Dec. UK last week. In all 3 nations, deep state-allied politicians are behind them. This is a digital ID/censorship emergency. Please share and reply below with info about other nations.
The deep state swamp creatures know that digital IDs are unpopular and so they are trying to rush them through before anyone realizes what they are doing. The good news is that the more people learn about them the more alarmed they become.
Polling in Switzerland showed 60% backed digital IDs which both houses in parliament had already approved. The final vote was just 50.4%. It almost lost. I hope the Swiss people are carefully scrutinizing the vote count.
Same dynamic in UK. Opposition to digital IDs is low and will rise. Digital IDs can and must be killed.
From a Swiss source: "Palantir and Mercator sponsored the Yes Campaign. Palantir is a member of Digital Switzerland, alongside other tech companies. Digital Switzerland lobbied for the E-ID/digital ID in Switzerland in this vote.
The man behind the digital ID push is Larry Ellison, owner of Oracle, CBS, CNN, and, soon, TikTok. He wants data centralization and total surveillance. "Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly watching & recording everything that's going on." Terrifying.
Ellison: We need to unify all of the national data. Put it into a database where it's easily consumable by the AI model, and then ask whatever question you like.
Blair: So you're really through the use of this, you're revolutionizing the way government works, right? The services it provides, the way that it operates.
Why bother having democracy at all? Why not just let Ellison and WEF and AI run things? What could possibly go wrong?
And after the government combines your personal, banking, and voting data under a single digital ID, it will add social media and vaccine information. Same with Real ID in the US. The Censorship Industrial Complex was dress rehearsal for digital ID.