The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) presents itself as an authority in the realm of transgender health care, aiming to provide guidelines and standards of care for individuals claiming to be transgender. However, a closer examination reveals several reasons why WPATH cannot be relied upon as an arbiter of good practice.

It has been known for some while that WPATH is an activist-led organisation, and there have been plenty of articles written about how its so-called Standards of Care do not qualify for that title. However, in March 2024 a large collection of evidence was assembled and passed to Michael Shellenberger. His associate Mia Hughes consolidated this evidence and produced a report called the WPATH Files.


• WPATH is conducting an unregulated experiment on some of the most vulnerable people in society.

• WPATH members are violating the ethical and legal requirement of obtaining informed consent.

• Members appear to have little concern for the long term outcome of patients.

• Members are aware that cross-sex hormones have debilitating and potentially fatal side effects.

• WPATH members know that puberty blockers are experimental and have adverse consequences.

• Young patients do not understand the physical effects of sex-trait modification interventions and, therefore, cannot give cognitive consent.

• WPATH members are aware that adolescents are not developmentally able to consent to iatrogenic fertility loss.

• WPATH has no respect for the Hippocratic Oath.

• WPATH members dismiss stories of detransitioner regret.

• WPATH doctors are knowingly experimenting on patients with hormones and surgeries.

• Patients with severe mental health issues are being allowed to consent to invasive, life-altering medical interventions without any attempt to first address their mental distress.

• WPATH members know there is significant regret in young patients.

WPATH Files: https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files

For shorter articles explaining the shortcomings in WPATH:

Clinicians publish their views in the British Medical Journal:

WPATH Standards of Care: A new edition using outdated methods weakens the trustworthiness of content

Our Duty published a handout for the American Academy of Pediatrics conference:

WPATH’S Guidelines Are Junk Science