American Thought Leaders - Leaked Files Reveal Trans Medicine Harms to Children: Mia Hughes

Episode Date: May 20, 2024

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2“They have young teenage patients showing up at the hospital with vaginal atrophy, uterine atrophy, bleeding pain,” says Canadian journalist Mia Hughes, the author of a 70-page report that scrutinizes a series of leaked internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).“This is brand new territory. We’ve never done this to teenage girls before. They’re just making it up as they go along. They’re layering other drugs on top of the testosterone to try to cope with the very side effects that the testosterone has caused, never at any point questioning: is it a good idea to give these girls testosterone?” Ms. Hughes says.In this episode, she breaks down what was revealed in these leaked files.“Health care is supposed to improve health, not destroy it,” Ms. Hughes says.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

They have young teenage patient showing up at the hospital with vaginal atrophy, uterine atrophy, bleeding, pain. Canadian journalist Mia Hughes is the author of a 70-page report that scrutinizes the WPATH files, a series of leaked internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, WPATH. We've never done this to teenage girls before. Healthcare is supposed to improve health, not destroy it. In this episode, she breaks down what was revealed in these leaked files. They know what they're doing. I know I'm talking to a blank wall. They know that there is significant regret. They know that these children don't understand.

And yet, still they do it. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janja Kellek. Before we start, I'd like to take a moment to thank the sponsor of our podcast, American Hartford Gold. As you all know, inflation is getting worse. The Fed raised rates for the fifth time this year, and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is telling Americans to brace themselves for potentially more pain ahead. But there is one way to hedge against inflation. American Hartford Gold makes it simple and easy to diversify your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver. With one short phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k.

American Hartford Gold is one of the highest rated firms in the country with an A-plus rating with a Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. If you call them right now, they'll give you up to $2,500 of free silver and a free safe on qualifying orders. Call 855-862-3377. That's 855-862-3377. Or text American to 65532. Again, that's 855-862-3377. Or text American to 65532. Mia Hughes, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders here at Dissident Dialogues. Thank you so much. My pleasure.

So Mia, you've been kind of doing the circuit, talking about the WPATH files, which you published with Environmental Progress. I want to ask you, you know, you first you spent a lot of time putting them together making sure what you published was correct and then you've spent a couple of months talking about it what's crystallized in your mind at this point what are the most important things so the most important things certainly i i'd say there's maybe four points with the contents of the files. First and foremost, these are doctors who know they are harming children. And I can say that because I've been talking about this for so long, every time I talk about this one particular part of the report, it makes me rather angry because it is so obvious that they know they're harming children and that is we had a panel discussion that was leaked and they're all

talking about children and adolescents and so this pediatric endocrinologist and he and his colleagues are talking about the difficulty of speaking to children about puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and the potential loss of fertility that comes with this treatment pathway. I was just going to say, you know, like, it's always a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-year-old. But I know I'm talking to a blank wall. So he says, first of all, it's difficult because we're explaining it to children who haven't had high school biology yet. So right off the bat, you know that they know these children don't understand. And then he says, when I'm talking to a 14 year old about fertility preservation, I know it's like talking to a blank wall. They'll be like, ooh, baby's gross, you know. And I was once a 14 year old girl. And so I know that that would have been my reaction. Absolutely for sure. That would have been my reaction all the way to my mid-20s in fact that

would have been my reaction and then I hit 30 I it was like somebody flipped a switch inside me I needed to have a baby right away I had three children I was a stay-at-home mother I was breastfeeding I was co-sleeping and so this part particularly really upsets me because they're taking away from these children that chance to grow and mature and go down a normal developmental path like most people arguably do and they know that they're doing it you see but it doesn't stop them from doing it they also know that there's regret. They know that there's fertility regret because the same doctor says he sees it in his own patients, that they come back to him in their 20s and they've met someone

and they want to settle down. And he carelessly says to them, oh, the dog's not doing it for you anymore, is it? Meaning they wanted, they thought they would be happy, always happy with a dog when they were 14 and this doctor was sterilizing them. And now in their 20s, they want to have a baby and they can't because of what these doctors have done. So to me, what is crystal clear in my mind now is they know what they're doing. They know that there is significant regret. They know that these children don't understand.

And yet still they do it. It doesn't stop them from doing it. 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, I know that that's still a big lacuna of that. We're just, we do it. 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 in a serious way. That's always bothered me, but you know, we still want the kids to be happy, happier in the moment. The second point is it's crystal clear in my mind that this is not health care in that you think of health care as improving health that's the point so you go to a doctor because you you have something wrong an illness and you expect the doctor to improve your health alleviate your suffering maybe heal you that's not what this is and that you can see in the conversations in the WPAP files about the harm of cross-sex hormones, the iatrogenic effects. So iatrogenic means the treatment causes the illness.

And this is evident when there are conversations about the effect of testosterone on the female body. We are not supposed to have large doses of testosterone. And so they have young teenage patients showing up at the hospital with vaginal atrophy, uterine atrophy, bleeding, pain, and they don't know what to do about it because this is brand new territory. We've never done this to teenage girls before. They're making it up as they go along. They're layering other drugs on top of the testosterone to try to cope with the very side effects that the testosterone has caused, never at any point questioning, is it a good idea to give these girls testosterone?

Nobody ever questions the most, nobody asks the most crucial question. And so in my mind, health care doesn't destroy health. Health care is supposed to improve health not destroy it the third point is again like the fertility question they can't face the harm so they see the harm because they see detransitioners and if you see how these people talk about detransitioners. It's so infuriating because they trivialize the experience. They downplay the trauma. They downplay the harm that they've done by calling it, you know, another step on the gender journey or something like that. But then they also try to pass the blame to the victim.

Marcy Bowers, the president of WPATH, says detransitioners have to own and take active responsibility for the decisions that they make, particularly if they are permanent medical decisions. Completely oblivious to the fact that all of the blame lies on WPATH and the gender-affirming care providers. Because WPATH is the group that removed all the guardrails. WPATH is the group that advocated for these young people to have unfettered access to an experimental treatment protocol with no safeguarding whatsoever. And then a whole bunch of innocent kids come along and they get harmed. And then WPATH blames the victims instead of looking at themselves and realizing that they are the ones who did all the harm. And the last one is there is no sign of the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath to First Do No Harm has left the building.

It's not present in WPATH at all. And you can mostly see that in the conversations about non-binary surgeries. So most people think non-binary is blue hair and they them pronouns, but there's a much more sinister side to it and that's the surgical side. So they are creating bodies, smooth sexless bodies in nullification or they're creating second sets of genitals or customized mastectomy scars without any concern for the impact on the person's health. It's not even an experiment. It's not even an experiment because nobody is tracking these outcomes or monitoring technique or patient health. Nothing. There's no sign of the Hippocratic Oath. You know, the obvious example,

I mean, this is heart-wrenching to hear, obviously, and I can see you've done a lot of thinking about this. The obvious question is, how is this possible? How is this possible that we are here today? And in this country, we still have this approach that's quite different from, say, what's happening in the UK, especially since the shutting of the Tavistock Clinic and the CASA report coming out and people going, oh my God, what have we done? Right? And a moratorium on these types of procedures. We're not there yet here. In some states, there's some action in that direction. So again, how is this possible? It remains a constant source of amazement to me that the medical world could have been so duped by WPATH. And I think because the medical world exists within the wider culture, it is

definitely a cultural issue in that the modern trans rights movement, it's a civil rights movement like no other, in that it has infiltrated all layers of society and with a very aggressive approach to activism in that all disagreement is considered bigotry and transphobia that must be viciously punished swiftly to send a message to everyone else. So nobody has ever been allowed to disagree with anything the modern trans rights movement has said. So that's part of why society let this happen. But WPATH, as much as I dislike the group, they have done a brilliant job at presenting themselves to the world as being a real scientific and medical group. It's actually the stunt that they pulled is incredibly impressive.

So they had a few decades to build up to it where not much was going on and they were very obscure. But then when they rebranded in 2007 as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, they self-identified as a global leading health care group. So Mia, let me jump in. OK, so let's let's stop at this moment for a sec. And why don't you trace for me that origin to that point in 2007 where WPATHATH rebrands and then you'll tell me what happened next. But where do we come from to get to that point? What were they before that? Right. So they started in 1978 and they were the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, HIBIGDA. It's not an easy acronym to remember. And back then, it was a very obscure field of medicine. But I would like to think that they really actually were pursuing science,

at least attempting to find the best scientific way to help the people who were suffering from what we now call gender dysphoria. Whether or not that's a real diagnosis is up for debate, but what we can all agree on is the suffering is real and the pain is real. And Hibikda in the early days was trying to find a way to alleviate that suffering. I believe it's always been dubious and misguided, but something happened to Hibikda around the late 1990s, which was exactly the same time that the modern trans rights movement

was really starting to form and come together. And so trans activists started to join Hibigda. The group's goals became predominantly political and less scientific. So throughout the first decade of this century, more and more activists join Hibigda. And in 2007, they changed their name. They rebrand and they self-identify as a world-leading transgender healthcare group. From that point on, politics rules the day. I mean, the science has always been weak. The evidence has always been weak.

But from 2007 onwards, it's all about political goals in that they call it de-psychopathologization, which is they decided to reframe gender. At the time, it was called gender identity disorder. They decided to reframe it as a perfectly natural, healthy state of being to be transgender. It's natural, it's healthy, it's to be celebrated. It's definitely not a psychiatric disorder. They made that decision. In 2010, they make this announcement being transgender. It's

not a mental disorder. It's not a psychiatric disorder. And so when they made that decision from that point on, you could only affirm the gender identity. If somebody says they are trans, that's great. Celebrate it.'s wonderful it's brilliant the disorder then becomes the distress that you feel because you are transgender and because your mind and body don't don't match you can't they think you can't do anything about the mind because that's innate and it's it's to be celebrated so the only thing you can now do is alter the body with hormones and surgeries. And from that point on, we have affirmation. The affirmation model, gatekeeping is transphobic, safeguarding is transphobic, access to drugs and surgeries

on demand for anyone who says they are transgender. But the problem is this is 2010. This is a different landscape. It's still a rare disorder. We still don't have the teenage cohort that later came. So it may not have been that devastating if the social contagion had not exploded in the 2010s. But because at the same time that this was happening, the modern trans rights movement was getting ready to unleash upon us the relentless messaging, the relentless propaganda that, you know, some people can be born in the wrong body. Everybody possesses a gender identity. Boys, you can be a boy with a girl brain, a girl with a boy brain. That, when the modern trans rights movement, that was in 2014,

that they unleashed that messaging upon children and adolescents. When they did that, nobody stopped to question what would happen if we untether a whole generation of children and adolescents from reality at a crucial stage in their identity development. Nobody asked that question. We now know the answer to the question that was never asked. And that is, you get a social contagion, you get an epidemic of young people mistaking their normal pubertal woes, the distress of being a teenager, maybe, you know, discovering a homosexual identity,

maybe they're autistic, whatever discomfort and distress they have, many of them are interpreting it as a sign that they are transgender precisely because of the messaging that the modern trans rights movement is bombarding them with. And when that met WPATHs, no safeguarding, unfettered access to hormones and surgeries. When the two things collided, we ended up with a catastrophe. It's hard to imagine, and I've looked a bit through the WPATH files. I haven't gone through them all, but it's obviously highly ideological, unquestionably. So the question is, how is this that this made it into being the approach of many of the most important medical associations in the world? You see, that is the remarkable thing, because I can understand why we were duped. We as non-medical people, I can understand why we

fell for it because we don't know anything about science or studies or whatever. But the fact that the entire medical world fell for it completely will never cease to amaze me. It astonishes me because basically it all stems from WPATH. So in 2001, they produced Standards of Care 6. That was the first ideological Standards of Care, their guidelines. You could see the shift with removing the mental health referral letters and such things. And then standards of care six influenced the endocrine society's 2009 guidelines. The endocrine society, those guidelines were drawn up largely by WPATH members who were also members of the Endocrine Society. So you've got overlap, you've got crossover already. Endocrine Society Guidelines 2009, also not based on any science whatsoever,

based on ideology. And then the 2012 WPATH Guidelines then cited the Endocrine Guidelines, which cite WPATH guidelines, then cited the endocrine guidelines, which cite WPATH standards of care six. So you've already got a circular citations, they're citing each other giving each other legitimacy, when in the center, there's an empty shell, devoid of anything that looks like science. But then from that point on, because you have those three and they look like legitimate guidelines, incredibly, the rest, all of the other major medical associations looked to those guidelines and just regurgitated them.

They didn't investigate, is this, is what they are saying true? And what they were saying was really remarkable. They were saying that, you know, an experimental treatment pathway that can leave adolescents infertile, that can leave them missing body parts. This is, this should be the first line of treatment and so I think it can only be described by we're in something like a period of mass psychosis where large portions of society have lost sight of reality and they live in an alternate reality that because WPATH and trans activists are so aggressive in punishing anyone who questions them, this mass psychosis can be sustained because nobody was allowed to ask any questions. In the report, I talk about the chain of trust.

So in medicine, I got this idea from Dr. Stephen Levine, someone I completely adore. He was one of the early members of Hibigda. And he actually left Hibigda when he saw that activists were overrunning the group and that they were no longer pursuing science. In 2002, he left. And so I got this idea from him. He says, in medicine, every set of guidelines is legitimate. You don't have time to research all of the studies, all of the drug interactions, the FDA approval. You don't have time trust that someone above you has done all of the science, rigorously researched, and that the information you are being given is the best available science.

And WPATH has broken the chain of trust in medicine because they present themselves as being a scientific organization. They have standards of care that have hundreds of citations. It all looks legitimate. And to the busy doctor or the busy med student, they just, they accept it because this professional body that looks legitimate says that this is the best way to treat children and adolescents and vulnerable adults. They accept it. And so they broke the chain of trust. that this is the best way to treat children and adolescents and vulnerable adults, they accepted. And so they broke the chain of trust.

And now Europe has figured that out. They've looked at the evidence. They realize, goodness me, there's no evidence at all to support this. But North America, Canada, the U.S., I think it's going to be very difficult for these organizations to admit that they have been duped, that they got this wrong. On an institutional level, it's going to be very difficult. Why do you think it will be more difficult for the American organizations than it is, say, for the UK organizations or Sweden, Norway, these countries, where Denmark, I think this is where a shift has happened already.

Very much so. So many European nations. The problem is the major medical associations. So in England, well, in all of the European nations that have pivoted away from the adolescent puberty suppression, cross-sex hormones, they have done so because their own national health boards have spent years examining the evidence and the treatment protocol and found it to be completely, there is no evidence, you cannot justify doing this to children, but they don't have this, you know, all of these very powerful medical associations who they, in North America, they took a stand trusting WPATH starting in around 2012. It's going to be very embarrassing for them to admit their mistake.

And as well, they have typically vilified their own members who try to speak up. There have been a number of, inside the American Academy of Pediatrics, a number of pediatricians spoke up and got vilified for doing so. And I think when you have vilified your enemy first of all when you've made a terrible mistake a stupid mistake and a lot of people were harmed because you made that mistake and then on top of that you vilify the people who tried to warn you that you made that mistake it makes it even more difficult to then look at the mistake that you made. And so it is the powerful major medical associations that are sustaining this and sustaining WPATH. And Europe just doesn't

have that problem. They just looked at the evidence. They don't have these associations. So traditionally, the condition was called gender identity disorder. And it was more often men. And it was people who really struggled for a very long period of time and eventually might have taken some steps to try to deal with it. But they didn't imagine. It wasn't this idea that they were actually transforming themselves into the other sex or into something else. Okay? Today, it's mostly younger girls, as I understand it, because of this social contagion, which I want to get you to tell me about.

And there's very much this idea that somehow, I mean, a really crazy idea that somehow you can transform into the other sex. I really want to touch on this because, you know, the moment you think about it a little bit rationally, obviously there's no way that can happen. But when it comes to these children, as I've come to understand, they really believe that they can become the other sex based on what the adults are telling them. So and I find that difficult to process would be a good way to describe it. Yes, they used to be realistic to a certain extent in this field of medicine. When it was gender identity disorder, you're right. There was never any assumption that the sufferer believed to themselves to actually be a member of the opposite sex. It was just that there was a deep felt discomfort with the body

and medical transition, the hormonal and surgical interventions were to alleviate that suffering. Now, you've got to understand that there is more than one pathway to developing issues with your gender. So autogynephilia is a really important piece of the puzzle in that the vast majority of men who seek hormonal and surgical interventions are heterosexual men with a paraphilia called autogynephilia, which means they are aroused by the image of themselves as women. But a significant part of that fantasy is actually becoming a woman. It's not dressing like a woman.

It's not being treated as if you are a woman. It's actually becoming a woman. That is the fantasy. And they, autogynephilic men, are the ones who shaped the modern trans rights movement. They are front and center in the modern trans rights movement. And so that's where this magical thinking comes from. These men desperately desire more than anything else in the world to be women. And so when they create a rights movement that enables them to actually become women, they create this, well, they revive the concept of the gender identity. They push it upon everyone that we all have a gender identity and that you can be in a male body, but have a female gender identity.

And therefore you are just as much a woman as I am or your mother or whomever. So that's why we're so detached from reality, because these men desperately desire to be women. But the problem with that is children then get the same messaging, which means children are then told that a boy is told that he can become a girl. And of course, a boy is going to believe you. He's a child. He doesn't yet understand the world. He's going to trust what adults tell him. You see this in the case of

Jazz Jennings. Have you watched I Am Jazz? I haven't, but I'm aware of the case and I'm aware of some of the medical complications. Right. I'll try and give it a very brief. It's really the story, you know, this was filmed for all to see, for the world to see. This is a young boy who was, he liked a sparkly bathing suit, princess gowns, Barbie dolls. So his mother told him that he was a girl, changed his name, changed his pronouns, raised him as a girl. And then the reality TV show I Am Jazz starts when Jazz should be in puberty, but he's not in puberty because they blocked his puberty. And that's the first thing that you see. He is a teenager and his friends are all dating, but Jazz has no feelings, no crushes, no sexual feelings at all

because they blocked his puberty. Then he starts taking estrogen and, you know, he starts to develop and he looks like a girl because they blocked his puberty and they put him on estrogen. But he can't date because none of the high school, the boys at his high school are interested in dating the girl with the penis. He says that in the show. None of the boys want to date the girl with the penis. So he puts his life on hold until he can get the surgery to invert his penis and turn it into something that looks like a vagina. And so he thinks that after he has this surgery, he will be a girl just like any other,

and all of his problems will be solved. The surgery was performed by the now president of WPATH, Marcy Bowers. It's botched because he had his puberty blocked. He had to have a far more complicated surgery. It's botched. He has complications. And then after the fact, you see the light go out of his eyes because you see reality hit. He's still not the same as the other girls. He's still not, the boys are still not interested. There's even one boyfriend that he has who, when he tells the boyfriend about the surgery the boyfriend actually physically recoils on on camera because an inverted penis is not a vagina and we all know that but poor jazz had no idea jazz thought he would be a girl like anyone else he was sold a

lie by the adults in his life, by the doctors that treated him. And there's no going back now. There's no going back. This is, you know, again, a heart-wrenching story. But you have to ask yourself, what's happening with the mother here? And ostensibly, this is also on camera. I try, when I'm in this debate, when I'm researching, I try to be as generous as I can with the parents because, well, certainly the parents who've got the, we'll get to the social contagion in a minute, the teenagers who suddenly announced that they're trans, these

parents, we cannot place any blame on them whatsoever, no matter what decision they make. Jeanette Jennings is something else entirely because she diagnosed her own son. So Jazz was displaying very extreme gender nonconforming behavior. Jeanette Jennings pulled the DSM-IV off the library shelf, flipped the pages, found gender identity disorder, diagnosed her own son as suffering from gender identity disorder, and then went and found a therapist that would affirm her son as her daughter, and then puts him on television so I do not extend my generosity as far as Jeanette Jennings because I think she really did make this decision for her son and

perhaps she was trying to alleviate his suffering in the moment because when you're a child and you're different that is difficult no question however she made a terrible decision it is honestly child abuse and she then made the decision to have it all filmed and broadcast to the world which brings us kind of neatly to the social contagion because I Am Jazz, the jazz effect, was that not only did she do it to her own child, but then she was a major role, she played a major role in triggering the social contagion that has ravaged the adolescent

population ever since I Am Jazz started in 2015. This is precisely getting to the second part of my question earlier, which was, you know, we started with mostly men, rare. And today we're in this situation where it's mostly young girls and it's not rare at all in fact it's been hockey stick you know effect on the graph i think it's still going that way and obviously it's not just the mom we're talking about the producers the people you know there's there's a whole bunch of people involved in getting a show like this, you know, onto primetime television or whatever it's shown. Wow. hard for me to be generous on this one but if I am the aim was that okay first and foremost they believe in the concept of the transgender child which I do not but because all of the people involved in the making of the show I am jazz believe in this non-existent type of child

they if their good intentions perhaps were that if other children are also struggling and they are transgender, they can see themselves represented in this show and therefore that will make their life easier. They will be more comfortable coming out. I think that was the intention if I give them the benefit of the doubt. However, the problem is nobody in the making of the show seems to have had any idea of how social contagion works. And basically, social contagion, Richard Dawkins is here somewhere. We can talk about it in the Dawkins is here somewhere we can we can talk about it in the Dawkins sense of the meme way back in the 1980s Richard Dawkins was talking about the meme which is like a unit

of cultural information that spreads from mind to mind it goes viral from mind to mind to mind we are social creatures so ideas and behaviors they and emotions they they spread from person to person they course throughout the social network and so the they the the likes of i am jazz the concept of the transgender child the concept of adolescence transitioning is the idea that seeped into society and it spread from mind to mind to mind. And what happened then is a whole bunch of teenagers, they were struggling. Puberty is no fun for anyone. And they because the idea that if you hate your body, it could be a sign that you are transgender. Think about the fertile mind that the idea has to land in a fertile mind. There is no more fertile mind than the pubescent mind for the idea that if you hate your body it could be a sign you're transgender every kid going through puberty probably hates their developing body so what happened is a whole bunch of innocent teenagers interpreted their distress through the lens of gender that was provided to them by I Am Jazz,

by the modern trans rights movement, and they came to the wrong conclusion that they are transgender. We see this in every, like you mentioned, every graph for the referrals to gender clinics. There's almost no referrals. 2014, 2015, when I am jazzed first, as you see an enormous spike, the inflection point, and then we're off. We have an epidemic. The remarkable thing is we've seen plenty of social contagions in the past. We've had epidemics of anorexia, bulimia, cutting. We had in the 1980s, multiple personality disorder. Way back in the, you know, the 19th century, we had hysteria. We've had social contagions before. And we understand that adolescent girls, teenage girls typically are at the forefront of every social contagion in history and yet we failed to recognize that this sudden explosion of teenage girls a five thousand percent increase in teenage girls identifying as trans in the space of one

decade we failed to see that that was a social contagion and that is because of again the the mass psychosis that the society lost touch with reality and believed in this fictional world in which there's such a thing as a transgender child therefore when the five thousand percent increase suddenly happened we were all expected to celebrate it because it's it's all of these transgender children who in in times past could never have come out because society was not accepting now they can all come out but that explanation doesn't work at all if it is a randomly occurring trait you it has to be randomly occurring throughout the population it can't just strike teenage girls predominantly between age 15 and 17 many of whom

are lesbian many of whom are autistic almost all have multiple psychiatric comorbidities that is not how randomly occurring traits present themselves in society. That's how social contagion presents itself in society. And I think, imagine if we had a 5,000% increase in middle-aged men suffering from breast cancer, right? Because that's basically what happened. This was a disorder that struck predominantly middle-aged men. And all of a sudden, it's striking teenage

girls. Flip it the other way around. If we had a 5,000% increase in middle-aged men suffering from breast cancer, the medical world would investigate, why is this happening? What's the trigger? What's the cause? But nobody thought to ask the question, why is this happening to these teenage girls? And that's because of trans activism and the climate of fear that the trans activists created that prevented people from asking even the most basic questions and prevented people from protecting these girls. So I'll just get you briefly to explain to me, what does it mean that you don't believe in the concept of a transgender child? And I also noticed, I think this is connected, that you're not using their preferred pronouns, or you probably don't believe in the concept of preferred pronouns either. So just, if you could clarify that very briefly for me. Well, the transgender child, it's very simple. So I believe that being transgender is not something that you are. It's something that you do.

It is a type of person brought into existence by medical technology, you can alter your body with hormones and surgeries, but that is a decision that only an adult can make. sacrificing their fertility, sacrificing their sexual function, their healthy body parts. Therefore, a child could never make that decision. And therefore, there cannot be such a thing as a transgender child. Many people think it's okay to socially transition a child. Like jazz, you tell a little five-year-old boy that he's a girl, and you give him female pronouns, and you give him a female name. They raise the child thinking, if this is not a transgender child, the child will tell me.

The child knows best. Without understanding the power of social transition, the moment you tell a little boy that he's a girl, the moment you call him she, and the moment you give him a girl's name, you lock in that gender identity. There's no going back for this little boy. You're untethering him from reality when he's so tiny that he doesn't understand anything about the world yet. And he thinks he is a girl. He believes you so it's even wrong we should never socially

transition any children no matter how strong their gender non-conformity is children deserve a childhood grounded in truth so raise your child in reality tell your child the truth let them become a fully mature adult at least age 25 the brain is not finished maturing until age 25 if then there's still a desire to transition i still think that there need to be strong guardrails around the treatment pathway because of how experimental it is because of the lack of science and because it's irreversible and has a very dramatic impact on your functioning as an adult. But it's a decision that only an adult can make, so therefore there cannot possibly be such a thing as a transgender child. And the pronoun thing ties in with that because it's not harmless to call, well, even for adults.

Okay, so I don't use, I use accurate sex pronouns at all times because the moment you call a man she, you are suggesting that a man can become a woman. We all know, we all instinctively use gendered pronouns. We know that she means a woman and he means a man. If you call a man she, you are playing along with this idea that it is possible for a man to become a woman. And it's not. And in my mind, the truth matters. I don't use the so-called misgendering, but I don't do that to be offensive. I do that because I think the truth matters.

And I think that the ideology that says a man can become she is truly one of the most dangerous and harmful ideologies, harmful ideas in society today. And it's doing immeasurable harm to young people. And I can't be a part of that. In Canada right now, there are people who are working on having both sets of sexual organs or facsimiles developed. And I believe the Canadian health system is required, or at least in one case, to pay for that. So can you explain this to me, this whole picture? Right, I can. You see, nowhere is there a better example of how far

off the rails gender medicine has gone than these two cases in Ontario. And in the WPath files there are conversations about this type of surgery. So both cases are in Ontario. The first case actually didn't get that much media attention. It slipped under the radar and it's a woman who identifies as non-binary. So she believes herself to be both male and female. Now, she wanted to have the most gruesome of all surgeries. This is, it's called phalloplasty, and it's where they take the skin and the flesh from the woman's forearm and shape it into an appendage and sew it onto her groin as some sort of pseudo-penis. But usually when they do that, they have to remove all of the internal reproductive organs, including removing the vagina, the ovaries, the uterus, because there's a cancer risk apparently. But this woman, because she identified as non-binary she wanted to have

both set she wanted to keep her vagina and have the the appendage and that one they initially turned her down they said they wouldn't pay for it and then she kicked up a tiny bit of a fuss and they gave in right away and they approved it that's that case closed so then that opens the doors then doesn't it to other people wanting the same type of surgery so we have a man now the flip side this is a man who um he identifies as non-binary but with a feminine dominant identity. So he's non-binary but somewhat feminine, whatever that means. He wants to keep his penis and have a surgically created vagina.

Normally when they do that, they use the penile tissue, they invert the penis and they use the penile tissue to line the cavity of the pseudo vagina. But he wants to keep his penis and have the vagina made out of a section of his colon. Now, Ontario Health said, no, we're not paying for it. So he appealed. And the basis of his appeal was forcing a non-binary person to go through binary surgery is conversion therapy under Canada's conversion therapy ban. And remarkably, the appeal board ruled in his favor. And the appeal board quoted WPATH all the way through the ruling there's a there's a non-binary chapter in WPATH's latest standards of care no version 8 and it's about um individually customized bodies these are surgeries to create individually customized bodies so the Ontario

health authority looked to WPATH. WPATH says, yes, this is medically necessary, life-saving care. So they approved it. And then the Ontario Health Insurance, they appealed one more time. They said, no, we're not paying for this. And then we just had the ruling. The final decision is that, yes, it is medically necessary it's gender affirming care so the Ontario taxpayer must pay for a very mentally unwell man to have a surgically created vagina using a section of his colon and to make just to add insult to injury we are paying for him to have it done in texas because we don't have surgeons that do this ghoulish frankenstein surgery in canada so we pay for this man to go down to a very dubious gender clinic in texas to have it done there i think it's important for people to understand what happens when you never say no to trans activists.

Because the truth is WPATH is not a medical group. It's not a scientific group. It's a group of extremist trans activists. And these non-binary surgeries are an example of what happens when you don't ever say no to them and you let trans activists do whatever they want. This is medicine with no rules. There's no greater violation of the Hippocratic Oath. And if there's no barriers, is this kind of escalation that you're describing, I guess? Of course. What's next? I mean, it's almost impossible for me to think what's next.

What goes beyond the non-binary surgeries? Although we did have a man in Quebec, that story about the man in Quebec, a 21-year-old who had two or three fingers amputated because he didn't feel like he should have all his fingers. So maybe that's the next frontier. Let's talk about what's next, but from the other side, right? Because now we have in the UK recently, actually since the WPATH files came out, we have the CAST report, right? And so the CAST report is a with what WPATH has done? Presumably you've thought about this. And then where do we go from here? The CAST report, well, first, you see, my WPATH report came out in March and then the CAST report came out in April.

The CAST report is the culmination of four years of investigation into the Youth Gender Service in London. So it is as comprehensive as it gets. It is complete. It is rigorous. It is chock full of systematic reviews and evidence. And it's grounded in real science. And everything that it said vindicates what we said a month earlier about WPATH and how there is no science and this is an unregulated medical experiment on children adolescents and

vulnerable adults the Cass report was so damning in that it basically Hillary Dr. Hilary Cass found that children had been, well, they had been let down. That a branch of medicine with absolutely no good quality science to back it up had been placing children on an irreversible treatment pathway with no scientific justification whatsoever and that children had been let down they were coming to terrible harm at the same time one of the best parts of the cast report for me was there were a few pages where okay so most of the cast report was very measured written in very very neutral language but there were a few pages where it really did feel as though they were just taking a shot at WPath because they were angry with WPath and everything that I explained earlier

about the the sort of citation the circular citations, the guidelines, the lack of evidence, and it's all WPATH's fault. That is in the CAST report. They did a review of all of the guidelines and they found that there's no science to them whatsoever. And then they just criticized the complete lack of scientific rigor that went into the formulation of their standards of care. So nothing in the CAST report contradicted what I said. What the CAST report now, I mean, Europe has abandoned WPATH. We can say that pretty much certainly now, like Europe has pivoted away from WPATH. They do not follow WPATH standards of care. And they're not afraid to say so.

They're not afraid to criticize WPATH. We now have to somehow bring the spirit of that to North America. And that is the major challenge. I'm in Canada. The CAST report got almost no media attention whatsoever. And we still have Justin Trudeau. Although health is provincial and there's signs, Alberta banning puberty blockers, there are signs that provinces may actually individually, one by one, pay attention to the evidence. So there's a line in the Cass report, Hillary Cass

says some activists wanted the NHS to practice social justice medicine, but that's not how the NHS works. The NHS is interested in evidence-based medicine. So we here in North America are still practicing social justice medicine. And that is completely in contradiction to all of the evidence. So we now have to wake up our politicians in our provincial health departments in the U.S. It's going to be an uphill struggle, but eventually this has an end date maybe in the u.s it happens with malpractice lawsuits maybe it happens with um what i i always forget which two states two states have increased the statute of limitations to 30 years after the child turns 18. If you transition a child, the statute of limitations is open until that child turns 48 years old. That's the way to do it in that you

don't need lawsuits because just the threat of lawsuits makes health insurance companies very uneasy and they typically stop funding the procedure. I think perhaps that's the answer. In the meantime, while we somehow make these medical institutions see face up to the harm that they have done, face up to the mistake that they have made. Well, Mia Hughes, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. Thank you so much. The pleasure's all mine. Thank you all for joining Mia Hughes and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Janja Kellek.