Fact Check: 216 Instances Of Factual Errors Found In Right-Wing "WPATH Files" Document

Fact Check: 216 Instances Of Factual Errors Found In Right-Wing "WPATH Files" Document
On Monday, anti-trans groups released a set of highly editorialized and decontextualized leaks dubbed the "WPATH Files." A fact check reveals 216 errors, misrepresentations, and faulty citations.

ERIN REED
MAR 5, 2024

On Monday evening, prominent right-wing activist Michael Shellenberger, known for pushing anti-scientific views, released what he dubbed "the WPATH files." In this highly editorialized document, select decontextualized images of forum posts from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health were made public. The document, replete with 37,569 words of editorial commentary before even presenting the so-called leaks, leans heavily into opinion and pseudoscience, urging readers to view it as a "groundbreaking scandal." However, a closer inspection of the actual messages, achievable only after wading through the equivalent of a novella's worth of editorial content, reveals rather mundane and often almost dull exchanges between doctors, psychologists, and therapists. These professionals are seen asking about edge cases and seeking advice from colleagues on patient circumstances. Despite attempts to cast the messages in a negative light, the report significantly misses the mark. In a thorough fact-check of the document, I have uncovered 216 instances of factual inaccuracies, erroneous citations, misinterpretations of what is “leaked,” and purposeful omissions contradicting the authors central editorialized claims.

The files were quickly shared by nearly every major anti-trans organization and journalists aligned with them. Genspect described it as “one of the worst medical scandals in history.” Riley Gaines claimed it unveiled “one of the most profitable yet destructive social experiments in history.” The Alliance Defending Freedom termed it a “deep-rooted medical scandal.” Given the rapid pace at which news stories emerged from these and other organizations, it likely was the result of a coordinated and organized embargo campaign, leaving those in support of care with scant time to review the voluminous documents and respond. In anticipation of such a response, the right-wing, Edelman-funded anti-trans organization FAIR in Medicine even published a fake screenshot of their own analysis of the report, labeling it “true” in a "fact check" with a big red bar—a direct nod to the fact checks presented in my own reports.

See here:


The factual inaccuracies, incorrect citations, and misrepresentations of both the literature and the "leaks" in the report are pervasive, affecting every section. In many instances, the authors reference their "leaks," which are not searchable without optical character recognition (OCR) processing, presumably banking on the assumption that readers will not verify the context, thus missing the misrepresentations. The editorial section serves as a prime example of a "Gish gallop"—a tactic where numerous errors are thrown at once to overwhelm those attempting to critically respond, a strategy first attributed to creationist debater Duane Gish. Given the sheer volume of errors, it is impractical for a single fact-check to address each one comprehensively. Instead, this fact-check will highlight clear examples of each type of error to illustrate the wide chasm between the documented evidence and the report's exaggerated claims.

Misrepresented Citations

The editorialized report relies heavily on citations that are misrepresented, either in terms of what the citations actually claim, their quality, or whether the arguments in the citations support the point being made by the author. For example, one section claims that the WPATH Standards of Care 8th revision “sent shockwaves through the medical profession,” and “provided the catalyst for the Beyond WPATH declaration, now signed by over 2,000 concerned individuals, many of whom are clinicians working with gender diverse young people.” A closer examination of the “Beyond WPATH” letter itself reveals signatories such as “John Howard - DJ” and “Collin Wynter, yoga instructor.” A majority of the signatories appear to be from non-relevant categories, and a significant chunk are not medical providers at all, such as “concerned grandparent” or “parent.” While the report presents the “declaration” as a document of primarily medical professionals, it omits that it is essentially a freely available online petition form.
[…]