The first installment of this survey described the landscape in which the WPATH Institute stands as the global benchmark for guidelines on the treatment of gender dysphoria. However, the revelation of chats and meetings among members of this organization showed how ideology largely prevails over medicine and irreversible treatments are administered to patients wholly or partially unable to understand the consequences of what they are about to undergo.
Medicalizing minors and mentally fragile people
Despite the knowledge that informed consent is a chimera, in WPATH chats, the possibility of performing a vaginoplasty on a 14-year-old boy is talked about without question. “Better to intervene before kids go to college, while they are still under parental supervision,” advise experienced transgender surgeons, including WPATH president Marci Bowers herself. Christine McGinn, another trans surgeon who says she has performed some 20 vaginoplasties on minors, agrees, arguing that waiting until the age of majority is “problematic” because in college kids may have trouble remembering to proceed with dilatation.
It is disturbing, consulting the files, to see the levity with which WPATH doctors talk about the bodies and lives they are destroying. To give just one example, in a WPATH forum discussion dating back to May 2023, a gynecologist mentions a patient in severe pain following vaginoplasty with penile inversion. To the doctor's concern due to leakage of prostate secretions from the urethra in his patient, a self-styled “woman with trans experience” (a man) suggests telling the suffering patient to “enjoy the ride” and that the loss of secretions “is the ultimate sign of an orgasm, what's not to like?”
Reading the WPATH Files we often find similar stone-cold callousness and lack of scruples toward their vulnerable patients, both children and mentally ill adults.
In one conversation, a nurse exposes a case that causes her to question the right thing to do, the case of a patient with severe mental illness, including PTSD, depression, dissociation, and schizoaffective traits. This patient wanted to undergo hormone replacement therapy at all costs, but the nurse admits that since she bases her work entirely on informed consent, this case puzzles her. Whereupon psychiatrist Dan Karasic, lead author of the chapter on mental health in the most recent WPATH Standards of Care, downplays her concerns by reiterating that the mere presence of a psychiatric illness should not limit the chances of initiating a medical transition with irreversible effects. Karasic is known in the milieu for having no problem with providing hormones and surgery to patients with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder).
In this regard, in the WPATH Files, a so-called “gender therapist” says that with a patient with dissociative disorder they worked with all the “alters” (i.e., all the identities in the head of the sufferer) in order to get everyone's consent to hormone treatment. This is because if you do not get consent from all the personalities, you may run into legal issues later if any of them reconsiders. Another marriage and family therapist, in the same vein, reveals that she has denied transition to only one person in her 15-year career, and only because the patient in question was in active psychosis and hallucinating during the assessment session.
Then again, the ideology animating the work of these professionals is clear: hormonal and surgical transition is conceived as a medical necessity on equal footing with cancer treatment, a condicio sine qua non for avoiding suicide. The “transition or suicide” rhetoric, as we mentioned in the first part of the survey, is the justification par excellence that allows the destruction of the bodies of children and fragile people in the name of supposed empathy. The rationale is that of harm reduction: the WPATH experts are well aware of the consequences of the treatments they administer, but they are convinced that by not administering them the patients would suffer even more, to the point of extreme gesture.
Stating in any case: the new “non-standard” and “non-binary” procedures
The guidelines established by WPATH through its most recent Standards of Care (version 8), call for the affirmative approach regardless of age or any mental disorder. As we have also seen in the position of the Italian Society of Pediatrics, any alternative approach, such as exploratory psychotherapy, is seen as gatekeeping and conversion therapy, a real attack on human dignity and the individual's right to self-determination.
Such “gatekeeping” is not permissible under any circumstances, not even for those who identify themselves as neither men nor women, but as “non-binary,” “neutral,” “fluid,” and claim to align the body with the idea of themselves in their minds. In Standards of Care 8 there is a whole chapter on new nonbinary surgeries, including gender nullification procedures to create a neutral, asexual, smooth body without genitals, mastectomies that remove nipples, or vaginoplasty surgeries that also preserve the penis, for those patients who wish to have a double set of genitals.
Even with hormone therapies, grotesque experiments are made to pander to neutral identities. In leaked files, a surgeon, Cecile Ferrando, claims to do experiments with microdoses of testosterone on the bodies of girls and young women who desire a stop to their menstrual cycle but not complete virilization. Such experiments, she says, improve the well-being of girls on the “masculine gender spectrum.” In gender identity ideology, in fact, male and female, man and woman, are not conceived as a pair of opposites, but rather as the extreme poles of a “gender spectrum.”
This idea is by no means new: the first to hypothesize the existence of sexual identity as a spectrum of shades was the sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1930s, with his theory of bi-sexuality. Hirschfeld's theories, later followed by the infamous John Money (not coincidentally referred to by many as “the father of gender ideology”) and reworked in the academic field by queer theories, confused biological sex with the newly born concept of “gender” or “gender roles and stereotypes,” that is, those sociocultural characteristics associated with being male or female. Trivially, gender ideology confuses being male with masculinity and being female with femininity: consequently, if a man does not performa masculinity he is not a man, but can only be a woman because he claims to “feel” like one. Following this logic, the possible gender identities are infinite, as billionaire transgender transhumanist Martine Rothblatt declares “potentially as many as the inhabitants on earth.” The body, for such an ideology, must be able to be modified, disfigured and mutilated on demand in order to satisfy the individual's desire to conform to the self-perceived identity.
In WPATH's Standards of Care 8 we even find a chapter devoted to “eunuch” gender identity. The “experts” inform us that eunuchs would be “AMAB individuals,” literally “assigned male at birth,” who wish to shed their masculine traits, male genitalia or sexual functions through chemical and/or physical castration. It is clear that the concept of gender identity is the ultimate justification for being able to fabricate neutral and asexual bodies, to experiment with new treatments, drugs and body modification surgeries, all in the name of “human rights” and “science.”
21st century lobotomies: the betrayal of the Hippocratic Oath
In the WPATH Files, treatments called “gender medicine” are compared to the lobotomies of the last century, at the time considered the most effective and humane treatment against mental illness. When we consider that in 1949 the inventor of lobotomy, Antonio Egas Moniz, won the Nobel Prize for his contribution to medicine, we cannot be surprised that today “official science” supports the destruction of healthy bodies and healthy reproductive systems. Even back then, there were few who dared to criticize the ethicality of those barbaric treatments, just as there are few today who criticize so-called “gender medicine.”
Physician-activists who carry out these experiments on the skin of fragile people constantly betray the Hippocratic Oath, which is based on the fundamental principle of primum non nocere, first do no harm. The question, of course, arises: why do they do it? Is it a mere matter of gain? Is it only vile money that moves transgender medical professionals?
The activist roots of WPATH
Although the money and opportunities for a prosperous career tempt many - if not all - of the professionals involved, it is essential to understand how the protagonists of so-called gender medicine are driven by a particular ideological fervor. It is no accident that many of the WPATH components are LGBTQIA+ activists.
The fact that the world's leading authority on transgender health is composed of ideologized activists may be puzzling, but if one knows the historical roots of WPATH the picture becomes clearer. What has been called the World Professional Association for Transgender Health since 2006, in fact, originated in the 1970s under the name “Harry Benjamin Foundation.” Harry Benjamin was a German endocrinologist who was quite controversial in his day for selling had been fake tuberculosis vaccines and testosterone supplements and vasectomies passed off as anti-aging treatments (treatments he even experimented on himself).
It is important to know that Benjamin was following Magnus Hirschfeld's theory of bi-sexuality, which as we have written before considers male and female not as biological realities but as mere mental abstractions, the extreme poles of a spectrum of nuance within which fall all those who diverge from the more extreme stereotypes of masculine and feminine, including homosexuals and those who at the time were called “transvestites,” who later came to be called “transsexuals,” and who today are called “transgender.”
Dr. Harry Benjamin, an ardent supporter of this theory, in 1963 met Reed Erickson, at birth Rita, a transsexual FTM with a large fortune and a strong personal and ideological motivation to fund the cause. And so it was with Erickson's money and Benjamin's ideology that the Harry Benjamin Foundation, now WPATH, was founded
The silence of the Italian media
Italian media silence on the WPATH scandal has been unanimous, except for a few isolated voices. No media resonance has been given in our country to the issue of the leaked files, which should not surprise us, since this story does not paint the “cure for gender affirmation” in a very flattering light
The official Italian press constantly bombards us with the rhetoric of the “rights of the LGBTQIA+ community,” a community of marginalized and oppressed people in need of protection, and insists on the cloying and distorted narrative of the “born in the wrong body” who need to undergo hormonal and surgical transition and validation by society as a whole in order to survive.
Those who challenge this misleading narrative are called “transphobic” and relegated, with the usual tactic of reductio ad hitlerum, to the cauldron of bigots, retrogrades and fascists. Those who criticize these experimental treatments, especially when performed on minors and mentally fragile people, are accused of wanting trans people to die, just as those who criticize the ideology of gender identity are accused of wanting to “deny its existence.”
In a climate like this, making correct information is essential. Only by fully knowing the horrors of “transgender medicine”-horrors that, as the WPATH Files point out, come straight out of the mouths of the professionals involved-can we understand the extent of them and engage in truly informed criticism.
Elisa Boscarol is a popularizer, an expert on the "gender" phenomenon and founder of the channel The New World 2.0.
Italiano 
English
Scrivi un commento