Politicians and activists repeating platitudes in support of the transgender agenda have become accustomed to going unchallenged. Their casual endorsement of sex change procedures on minors has resulted in scores of children having their genitals mutilated, other parts of their bodies surgically disfigured, and their fertility extinguished before they even reach adulthood.

At best, these children become lifelong consumers of the services offered to them by the same medical industry that brutalized them. Too often and too late to reverse them, they regret the “choices” they made and are forced to reconcile themselves to a body which the adults in the room should have protected, but chose instead to exploit.

In June of this year, one of the leading medical organizations promoting these procedures received a stunning blow in the courts. A treasure trove of documents, ordered to be released by an Alabama judge, revealed that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) had worked with high ranking officials in the Biden administration to promote unscientific guidelines for transgender-identified children. The revelation was possibly one of the most significant stories to date pointing to a medical community that placed political trends over scientific fact.

Sex-change procedures, including mastectomies, phalloplasties, vaginoplasties, and facial reconstruction surgeries, are endorsed whole-heartedly by the major medical organizations which set the standards of care for medical practice. The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and WPATH  all endorse child sex changes in one form or another.

The AMA released a statement in 2021 condemning laws that restrict what they termed “medically necessary” sex changes on “transgender and gender-diverse youth.” The AAP, even while recommending a “systematic review” of the evidence for child sex changes in 2023, reaffirmed their 2018 policy which endorses some sex change surgeries for minors. WPATH has consistently endorsed the most radical views, writing in their Standards of Care that children “as young as age two may show features that could indicate gender dysphoria.”

The pro-sex-change tilt of the major medical organizations has allowed activists to hide behind them, giving their acitivism an aura of credibility as they promote irreversible procedures for minors who otherwise would not be permitted to make decisions of such life-changing importance. Assurances that advocacy for pediatric sex changes is “evidence-based” have been a key plank of left-wing efforts to make these procedures commonplace and accessible.

In recent years, however, a steady drip of devastating reports have begun to erode the credibility of these organizations. Journalist Aaron Siberium at The Free Press first reported in 2022 how a small group of doctors with fringe opinions at the American Academy of Pediatrics hijacked the organization’s recommendations for care, circumventing the normal scientific process for pediatric guidance.

Recently, the American Academy of Plastic Surgeons released an unprecedented statement opposing  so-called gender affirming surgeries. The organization wrote that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions,” describing evidence in favor of these surgeries as “low quality/low certainty.”

“This is the first major medical society to make such an announcement, and this does give me some encouragement,” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, board chair of Do No Harm, said.

In 2022, the Department of Justice filed a complaint challenging an Alabama law which would bar doctors from offering puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and transgender surgeries to minors. During litigation over the law, plaintiffs pointed to “evidence” offered by AAP, WPATH, and the Endocrine Society to bolster their arguments in favor of child sex changes.

WPATH’s guidelines in particular were hailed as the “gold standard” during court proceedings, causing the judge to rule in in March 2023 in favor of a motion to unseal documents pertaining to how WPATH came up with its guidelines for minor sex changes. After more than a year of litigation over the motion, WPATH finally released the first installments of documents regarding their guidelines in June.

Perhaps one of the most stunning revelations in the unsealed WPATH documents was that, despite the Biden-Harris administration’s attempt to appear nonpartisan on the issue of child sex changes, Secretary of Health and Human Services Admiral Rachel Levine (himself a male-to-female transsexual) personally pressured WPATH to maintain guidelines in favor of these procedures.

The emails revealed WPATH members saying they sent drafts for their proposed standards of care to Levine for his approval. Levine “was very concerned that having ages (mainly for surgery) will affect access to health care for trans youth,” according to the emails. Levine even advised WPATH on how they might hide their age guidelines from the general public by creating, “an adjunct document … that is published or distributed in a way that is less visible.”

While the Biden-Harris administration has claimed that it does not endorse sex change surgeries for children, Levine has made a point of putting his finger on the scale in favor of pediatric sex changes. During his time as HHS secretary, Levine, himself a transgender person, has hosted a Pride Month web series that directly endorsed cross-sex procedures for kids. In interviews, Levine has argued that minors should not have to wait until adulthood to start undergoing sex change treatments, claiming that they are necessary to prevent suicide.

“While the initial reaction of the gender affirming medical community has been to deny the importance of these documents, it’s inevitable that they will eventually have to acknowledge the facts,” psychotherapist Joseph Burgo told Chronicles. “More importantly, these leaked documents will work their way into other cases currently being litigated, and the courts will soon realize that the so-called consensus has been manufactured. The recent decision by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons shows that the consensus has already begun to crack.”

Levine’s political pressure evidently worked, as the WPATH’s Standards of  Care 8 (SOC-8) document completely removed all age restrictions in a manner recognized even by organization’s own board members as an unprecedented violation of the regular process, according to the released documents. The AAP also weighed in, issuing an ultimatum that amounted to an unscientific collusion between what were once credible medical organizations—WPATH would either delete the age minimums, or the AAP would launch a full-scale public opposition to the new standards of care.

“Anyone who follows this issue knows that globally, there never has been a scientific consensus on the benefits of ‘gender affirming’ drug and surgery interventions for minors,” Jay Richards, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said. “How could there be? These kinds of interventions didn’t start until the second decade of the 21st century. There hasn’t been enough time for a genuine consensus to develop. What there has been is an institutional capture of medical organizations in the U.S., as well as credential laundering between orgs such as WPATH and the American Academy of Pediatrics.”

The subpoenaed documents revealed what advocates against child sex changes had been suspecting all along—that WPATH’s goal was not to follow where the scientific evidence led, but to start from a conclusion and reject all evidence that opposes that conclusion. Dr. Eli Coleman, the Chair of the SOC-8 Steering Committee, listed “academics and scientists who are naturally skeptical” and “pressure in healthcare to provide evidence-based care” as opponents to transgender “healthcare.”

The lack of concrete evidence in favor of pediatric sex changes is perhaps why European countries have long urged caution regarding the procedures. Norway has all but banned puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex change surgeries, restricting them to clinical settings. Finland and Sweden have urged an approach towards transgender-identified youth that prioritizes therapy and noninvasive approaches over surgical or other interventions.  England’s National Health Service (NHS) banned puberty blockers in 2023, almost a year after the NHS shut down its only youth gender clinic, Tavistock.

WPATH issued a statement in 2022 which strongly condemned the NHS’s cautious approach towards irreversible procedures. The organization wrote that the NHS’s desire to conduct a “careful exploration” of a minor’s mental health before embarking on a treatment plan was “inequitable, discriminatory, and misguided.” But the recent revelations regarding the way WPATH comes up with its own standards of care call into question the organization’s credibility to question other health organization’s approaches.

“In the court of public opinion, [the revelation about WPATH] hasn’t yet made much difference because the gender affirming professionals are denying that any of this matters. But I believe it will very soon start influencing the courts that are hearing cases brought by detransitioners,” Burgo said. “Many courts understandably want to defer to the expertise of medical authorities, but once they hear that there is actually disagreement within the medical community, they will defer less to the gender affirming side.”

Many advocates believe that WPATH’s demise will boost the prospects for the cases of the many detransitioners bringing lawsuits against the doctors who prescribed them irreversible treatments they now regret. Some are targeting these medical institutions in their lawsuits. One detransitioner specifically named the AAP in her lawsuit, claiming the organization knowingly circulated false information in their 2018 policy statement endorsing so-called “gender-affirming care.”

“I think the biggest event [turning the tide against pediatric sex changes] will be a major lawsuit that has been declared in favor of a detransitioner,” Goldfarb said. “The facilities that are supporting these activities will suddenly realize the great risk that they are under economically if they continue to support this kind of unproven treatment.”

“[A]ll we need are a couple of large malpractice verdicts against practitioners of gender affirming care,” Burgo said. “Once that occurs, health insurers will stop providing coverage, doctors will realize that their livelihoods and assets are on the line and so will pull back from providing this type of care, and malpractice insurance for these doctors will go through the roof. That’s when it will end.”