Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

Private Footage Reveals Leading Medical Org’s Efforts To ‘Normalize’ Gender Ideology

Published

18 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By MEGAN BROCK AND KATE ANDERSON

 

I have developed a part of my brain that’s very fluid around with some of my folks asking them each week, what name are you going by? What pronouns are we using today? So it keeps us flexible to be doing this work.

This is the seventh article in the “WPATH Tapes” series on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the gender medical industry. Read the overview of our investigation here.

Members of the world’s most prominent transgender medical organization encouraged fellow doctors to push transgender ideology beyond the healthcare field into schools and their communities, according to internal recordings obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

In September 2022, the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) Global Education Institute (GEI) hosted an event that included a series of education sessions for certification in transgender medicine. The event coincided with the release of WPATH’s updated medical guidance, called the Standards of Care Version 8 (SOC 8), and provided additional insights on its clinical applications.

During the sessions WPATH members were encouraged to “normalize” preferred pronoun use as a way to “create societal change” and behave in a way that “affirms” their patients’ gender identity, such as by asking female patients if they have a penis.

Psychologist Ren Massey, the co-chair of WPATH GEI, said clinicians should be ready to act as advocates for “gender diversity” in school settings. Massey earned a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from University of South Florida and is not a physician.

“We want to have the skills to negotiate multiple roles,” Massey said. “Because I have both had to be the therapist and then go talk to the school and be an advocate, or do a talk to the whole community of a school. So, I’m in multiple hats that we get to navigate, if we are advocating and helping and supporting our trans and gender diverse folks we are working with.”

Massey did not respond to requests for comment, and neither did Massey’s psychology practice.

Transgender ideology includes the belief that a person’s sex can be different from their “gender identity,” which SOC 8 defines as “a person’s deeply felt, internal, intrinsic sense of their own gender.” It’s a rejection of long-established scientific understanding of biology that there are only two sexes based on the fact there are only two types of reproductive cells — sperm and ova.

The term “gender identity” was popularized in the 1960s by controversial sexologist John Money, who’s most high-profile experiment involved advising parents of a boy whose penis was damaged in a botched circumcision to cut the rest of it off and raise him as a girl. At age 15, the boy — who was raised as “Brenda” — discovered the truth and rejected further hormone treatments. He eventually committed suicide at age 38.

The very concept of “gender identity” creates the possibility of changing one’s sex — a biological impossibility — through medical interventions, therefore creating a demand for medical sex reassignment interventions.

SOC 8 recommends that gender dysphoric minors be given the opportunity to “change” their sex through medical interventions. The guidance has been used to inform government regulations, insurance policies, and recommendations by numerous medical organizations, increasing minors access to sex reassignment procedures.

‘We Will Facilitate Changes’

The call for clinicians to be involved in local schools was echoed by WPATH-affiliated psychologist Dr. Wallace Wong in a presentation titled “Foundations in Gender Affirming Mental Health Care in Childhood and Adolescence.” Wong explained how therapists can play a pivotal role in facilitating change by helping schools embrace transgenderism and explained that schools need to embrace the use of preferred pronouns.

“A lot of time we will facilitate changes. It’s not unusual that you will go to the school with the parents together and educate the school what to do,” said Wong. “A lot of the times, some school they say, ‘we don’t know what to do.’ You say, ‘that doesn’t fly, I will teach you how to do,’” Wong said.

Wong did not respond to requests for comment, and the Diversity and Emotional Wellness Centre, where Wong works, provided additional contact information but did not provide comment.

SOC 8 recommends that “health care professionals work with families, schools, and other relevant settings to promote acceptance of gender diverse expressions of behavior and identities of the adolescent.”

“Using different pronouns for children is a step towards their social transition. It is now well established that social transition leads to the medicalization of their care,” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb of Do No Harm, a watchdog organization focused on keeping identity politics out of healthcare and medical schools, told the DCNF.

“It is inappropriate for anyone to advocate gender transition in gender dysphoric children unless they have had extensive psychological counseling and are part of some formal research protocol,” Goldfarb said. “This is the new policy in the United Kingdom and in multiple European countries.”

Without naming a specific doctor, Goldfarb said that “for a physician to speak to untrained personnel given the psychological difficulties that these children often experience along with their gender dysphoria, is bordering on malpractice.”

‘The Face Of The Enemy’

As European nations such as NorwaySweden, Denmark, and the U.Khave restricted or halted the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers in minors, WPATH has rallied against similar bans in the United States.

The WPATH GEI educational event dedicated an entire session to transgender legal and policy issuesPaula Neira, a biological man who identifies as a woman and is program director of LGBTQ Equity & Education at Johns Hopkins Medicine, gave a presentation titled “Legal Issues & Policy.” During the talk, Neira criticized legislative efforts aimed at stopping child sex changes and protecting women’s sports.

“Numerous states have either engaged in having litigation and legislation proposed or the government has taken actions that are targeting the LGBTQ+ community broadly, and then at least half of these bills are specifically targeting transgender people, particularly transgender youth. The way that these bills are being played out is, one is attempts to ban gender affirming care,” Neira said.

“In Alabama they’re trying to criminalize, by making it a felony, to provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth. The bill is called the “Alabama Child Compassion and Protection Act” so the height of cynicism and hypocrisy,” Neira said.

Neira ended the session by calling on WPATH members to band together and stand firm against “attacks” on the transgender community.

“Being defiant in the face of the enemy is not something that’s unfamiliar to me,” Neria said. “It’s going to take a lot of resolve. It’s going take a lot of resilience. It’s going take a lot of mutual support, to stand firm under these attacks. And that’s what we have to do. And we have to do it with a clear strategic eye. And that means banding together. It means being strategic in how we challenge policy, how we advocate and make persuasive arguments.”

“And together we’re gonna get back to making progress no matter how bleak it looks now, as long as we never give in. And we never surrender,” Neira told the audience, prompting applause.

Neira did not respond to requests for comment. Johns Hopkins Medicine, where Neira works, responded but did not provide comment.

‘Helps All Humans’

Throughout the 30 hours of WPATH GEI recordings reviewed by the DCNF, speakers cast a vision of moving gender ideology beyond sex change procedures and promoting it in other domains such as schools, communities and public policy.

Dr. Scott Leibowitz, a WPATH board member and SOC 8 co-author, said it “helps all humans” to promote the acceptance of transgender ideology in a diversity of settings.

“We recommend health care professionals who work with families. They should work with families, schools, and other relevant settings to promote acceptance of gender diverse expressions of behavior and identities of the adolescent,” Leibowitz said.

“Notice, we don’t say: ‘work with these settings to promote acceptance of transgender people,’” Leibowitz told the audience. “We actually think it’s broader than that because by helping promote acceptance of gender diversity as a whole, we believe that helps all humans, including trans people. It doesn’t reinforce the notion of boxes, which is what we’re trying to move away from.”

Leibowitz declined an interview request through a Nationwide Children’s Hospitals spokesperson.

WPATH’s commitment to social change is captured in its own guidelines.

“WPATH recognizes that health is not only dependent upon high-quality clinical care but also relies on social and political climates that ensure social tolerance, equality, and the full rights of citizenship,” the guidelines read. “Health is promoted through public policies and legal reforms that advance tolerance and equity for gender diversity and that eliminate prejudice, discrimination, and stigma. WPATH is committed to advocacy for these policy and legal changes.”

‘Creating Change By Using Different Language’

WPATH members were also encouraged to use preferred pronouns in healthcare practices, with Massey describing the use of preferred pronouns as a way to create social change.

“I would encourage you in your practices to have universal approaches to correct pronouns. So, training your staff so they’re aware and have good interaction skills. Maybe even have role plays with them,” Massey said.

“We are creating change by using different language,” said Massey.

Massey, who maintains an active psychology practice, said it’s “good clinical practice” to let clients dictate terminology used to describe their sex and gender.

“I’ve had folks that within the same day or within the same week may shift from feeling masculine, feminine, both, neither,” Massey said.

“And so that’s a thing like I have developed a part of my brain that’s very fluid around with some of my folks asking them each week, what name are you going by? What pronouns are we using today? So it keeps us flexible to be doing this work. There is so much evolution and so much exciting work developing.”

SOC 8 recommends that healthcare professionals use the “language or terminology” preferred by the patient.

‘Normalize It’

Dr. Jennifer Slovis, the medical director of the Oakland Kaiser Permanente Gender Clinic, promoted the use of an electronic medical database that collects sexual orientation and gender identity information for all patients. On the form, healthcare providers were expected to indicate a patient’s preferred pronouns and gender identity, as well as take an “organ inventory” for the patient.

The organ inventory asks both men and women to indicate their reproductive organs on a list that includes the cervix, breasts, uterus, vagina, testes, prostate and penis. Clinicians were also asked to indicate which organs were present at birth, had been surgically constructed, or developed by hormones.

Slovis explained that to “normalize” the organ inventory, this data needs to be collected for all patients, including “cisgender” patients.

“Cisgender people too, we should be doing this for everybody. That’s the only way we’re going to normalize it, if we do it for everybody,” said Slovis.

Slovis did not respond to requests for comment, and neither did Kaiser Permanente, where Slovis works.

In a presentation titled “Foundations in Primary Care,” Dr. Erika Sullivan said organ inventories needed to be constantly taken because patients’ organs “change.”

“One of the things I always like to illustrate with this is that you don’t just ask this question once, right? Because this changes. And so sexual practices change, pronouns change, organs change,” said Sullivan.

“You kind of have to constantly take that inventory to find out like, what’s what, what’s where, what are we doing?” Sullivan said.

WPATH’s SOC 8 supports the use of organ inventories.

“In electronic health records, organ/anatomical inventories can be standardly used to inform appropriate clinical care, rather than relying solely on assigned sex at birth and/ or gender identity designations,” the guidelines read.

Sullivan also explained the importance of using preferred pronouns and not assuming a patient’s pronouns based on outward appearance.

“I should be asking this of everybody and introducing myself this way, ‘Hi, I’m Erica, I use she/her pronouns,’” Sullivan said. “Because I think if we are going by sort of presentation, we are taking so much bias and so much judgment into that space. It’s really important to just wipe that away. So asking everyone’s pronouns is important because really, ultimately, you have to question your assumptions.”

Sullivan did not respond to requests for comment, and neither did the University of Utah, where Sullivan works.

Goldfarb said doctors should focus on patient care, not promoting gender ideology.

“It is not the job of physicians to create a culture of gender ideology. The job of physicians is to care for ill people,” Goldfarb said. “The proper care for children with gender dysphoria is intensive psychological treatment. The idea that all this should be normalized represents pure ideology and is not based on hard science or valid clinical research.”

WPATH did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Health

Kennedy sets a higher bar for pharmaceuticals: This is What Modernization Should Look Like

Published on

James Lyons-Weiler's avatar James Lyons-Weiler

What People, Universities, and Pharma Do Not Yet Understand About the Kennedy Regulatory Bar: It Signals the End of the Regulatory States of America.

Science must outlive the PR cycle.

Modernization, as used today by industry lobbyists and public health officials, often amounts to a euphemism for deregulation: fewer checks, less transparency, and faster product pipelines with fewer questions asked. In contrast, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s approach to public health modernization is actual modernization—where rigorous science, true accountability, and unwavering public safety form the non-negotiable baseline.

The Kennedy Regulatory Bar isn’t a buzzword, and it’s certainly not a rhetorical device. It’s an operating philosophy grounded in scientific integrity and public duty. For those who understand regulatory policy only as an obstacle to commercial throughput, the Kennedy Bar feels like a threat. But to those who understand what science is—a falsifiable, ethical, and reproducible method of discovering truth—it represents nothing less than the restoration of sanity.

Defining the Kennedy Regulatory Bar

Secretary Kennedy has made his expectations perfectly clear. In his own words:

“Journalists like yourself assume that vaccines are encountering the same kind of rigorous safety testing as other drugs, including multiyear double-blind placebo testing. But the fact is that vaccines don’t.”
— Interview, STAT News, Aug. 21, 2017

“By freeing [vaccine makers] from liability for negligence, the 1986 statute removed any incentive for these companies to make safe products. If we want safe and effective vaccines, we need to end the liability shield.”
— Press Statement in Support of HR 5816, Sept. 26, 2024

“Mr. Kennedy believes vaccination should be voluntary and based on informed consent. For consent to be truly informed, the underlying science must be unbiased and free from corporate influence.”
— Campaign FAQ – Vaccines, Kennedy24.com, Aug. 15, 2023

“My mission over the next 18 months… will be to end the corrupt merger of state and corporate power.”
— Campaign Announcement Speech, Boston, Apr. 19, 2023

These principles, articulated repeatedly by Sec. Kennedy across media interviews, press events, and official communications, form the foundation of what we now call the Kennedy Bar.

The Kennedy Regulatory Bar: Five Core Standards

Rigorous Science: Long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard and must not be circumvented. This is but one example. All of biomedical science should be upgraded to highest standards.

Restored Liability: No blanket immunity for manufacturers; liability is essential to safety. This flies in the face of concerted efforts by Pharma to expand liability exemptions (e.g., PREP Act).

Transparency: All trial data must be made publicly available in machine-readable form—no redactions, no gatekeeping. Collins failed to enforce this, and the failure was noted.

Independent Oversight: Regulatory decisions must be made by individuals and boards free of industry conflicts of interest. This includes, but is not limited to, vaccines, drugs, devices, and procedures.

Informed Consent: Patients must receive full, truthful information about benefits and risks—without coercion or censorship, and their rights to free, prior, informed consent are absolute.

These are not radical ideas. They are what science used to be before it was rebranded as a partner to commerce.

Why “Banning the mRNA Vaccines” Isn’t Necessary—If the Regulatory State Is Fixed

Some critics ask: Why not just ban mRNA vaccines outright?

The question misunderstands both the Kennedy Bar and Secretary Kennedy’s governing philosophy. Banning an entire class of biomedical products by executive fiat would mirror the very authoritarianism that corrupted the regulatory state in the first place. The goal is not to replace one top-down mandate with another—it is to restore bottom-up scientific validity, where products succeed or fail based on their actual merit, risk profile, and necessity.

Under the Kennedy Bar, no product—mRNA or otherwise—can bypass the full burden of proof:

  • Did it go through long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials?
  • Were all adverse events transparently reported and analyzed?
  • Was there independent oversight?
  • Can the public access the raw data?
  • Was informed consent meaningfully obtained?

If the answer is no—as it has been for many mRNA formulations—then the product simply fails to meet the regulatory standard. No ban is needed. Reality disqualifies it.

The Kennedy strategy is structural, not performative. It focuses on building a regulatory ecosystem that is incapable of licensing unsafe or ineffective products. This is a stronger safeguard than any prohibition. Rather than banning, Kennedy’s approach makes bad science impossible to pass off as medicine.

Once transparency is non-negotiable…
Once liability is restored…
Once regulatory capture is dismantled…

Then any product built on hype, shortcuts, or undisclosed risks—whether mRNA or otherwise—will collapse under the weight of real scrutiny.

That is not censorship. That is civilization defending itself by enforcing its own standards.

Integration Over Isolation

What sets Kennedy’s approach apart is not only the bar he sets for scientific integrity, but it is obvious this is how he is implementing it across government. As Secretary of Health and Human Services, he is already working to integrate the work of all HHS agencies—CDC, NIH, FDA, CMS, HRSA, and others—into a coherent, collaborative ecosystem. No longer will one hand of government ignore the consequences of the other.

Where prior administrations tolerated bureaucratic silos and jurisdictional loopholes, Kennedy insists that scientific rigor be institutionalized—not merely idealized. Under his leadership, agencies are being asked to communicate better, share safety signals earlier, co-design surveillance systems, and synchronize risk communication strategies.

This is not just about stopping regulatory failure. It’s about building functional synergy between the very institutions tasked with protecting public health.

The Academy’s Crisis of Conscience

Many universities have not yet recognized that the Kennedy Bar creates a mirror they cannot easily turn away from. For decades, medical schools and public health departments have received lavish funding from pharmaceutical companies and government agencies with revolving doors. This arrangement has subtly—sometimes overtly—coerced researchers to conform to sponsor expectations, burying negative results and rewarding compliance with publication and promotion.

Secretary Kennedy has quietly changed the rules of engagement. Prestige will no longer in the place of principles. A new standard is emerging, and it doesn’t care what editorial board endorsed your work—it asks what you measured, how long you observed it, and who paid you to interpret it.

I recently gave a speech “How to Speak MAHA” to a collection of research administrators at midwestern state Universities. They did not grasp the reality that those Universities who are cheerleading their researchers to submit more, not fewer, grant proposals in response to calls for proposals to transform medicine will be scheduled for prestige and more funding. Good actors will be rewarded. Those obsessed with their bottom lines will have to find funding elsewhere. Those publishing in sketchy journals against the recommendations of HHS might suffer a ding in their grant scores.

The message from this administration is simple, and our universities now face a choice: modernize into true scientific integrity, or double down on performative consensus. The Kennedy Bar forces the question: Is your institution educating scientists—or training enablers? No grant is worth the erosion of public trust. No journal impact factor outweighs the duty to truth. The age of science as branding is over. The age of science as science—open, accountable, and rigorous—has returned.

The Industry’s Real Dilemma

Pharma does not fear Kennedy because he’s against innovation. They fear him because he demands real innovation—scientific advancements that can survive public scrutiny, not just regulatory maneuvering.

For decades, the vaccine industry has relied on two tricks: (1) measuring success through surrogate endpoints like antibody titers rather than clinical outcomes, and (2) conducting studies in silos—never long enough, never with full data access, and almost never with independent safety boards. This system has produced a torrent of marginally tested products with maximum immunity from liability and minimal transparency.

Under the Kennedy Bar, the era of “emergency forever” is over. The industry must either meet real scientific thresholds or lose the public’s trust—entirely. This is not punishment. It’s evolution. It’s the grown-up phase of medicine. A moment of maturation for a sector that has long preferred speed over scrutiny, revenue over rigor.

And it comes with a choice: evolve or… be revealed.

Outflanking the “Modernization” Rhetoric

The PR pivot has already begun. Corporate spokespeople and foundation-backed academics are working overtime to redefine “modernization” as “streamlining,” “accelerating,” or “expanding access.” But these are euphemisms for lowering standards, usually without public debate.

Kennedy’s modernization is not deregulation. It is re-regulation—the restoration of the scientific method, the demand for data, and the end of special pleading. His is not a revolution in tone, but in epistemology. He is not rebranding trust—he is rebuilding it.

Science Must Outlive the PR Cycle

Regulatory systems that abandon the scientific method for public relations will inevitably collapse. The people know. They have lived the adverse events. They have watched silence fall where transparency was promised. They’ve seen academic journals censor, media outlets spin, and regulators hedge their language to protect careers rather than lives.

The Kennedy Bar is not a barricade—it is a foundation stone. It does not prevent innovation. It ensures that innovation is real.

So to the regulators: Your authority does not come from secrecy—it comes from public trust.
To the industry: Your survival depends on the integrity of your products, not the slickness of your press kits and forward-looking statements.
And to the universities: Your legacy will not be measured in grants received, but in truths defended.

Those who come up to the bar will see not only translational success, but will also transformational success.

And they will sleep better at night.

Share

Popular Rationalism is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Popular Rationalism.

And check out our awesome, in-depth, live full semester courses at IPAK-EDU. Hope to see you in class!

Continue Reading

Business

RFK Jr. planning new restrictions on drug advertising: report

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration is reportedly weighing new restrictions on pharmaceutical ads—an effort long backed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Proposals include stricter disclosure rules and ending tax breaks.

Key Details:

  • Two key proposals under review: requiring longer side-effect disclosures in TV ads and removing pharma’s tax deduction for ad spending.

  • In 2024, drug companies spent $10.8 billion on direct-to-consumer ads, with AbbVie and Pfizer among the top spenders.

  • RFK Jr. and HHS officials say the goal is to restore “rigorous oversight” over drug promotions, though no final decision has been made.

Diving Deeper:

According to a Bloomberg report, the Trump administration is advancing plans to rein in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising—a practice legal only in the U.S. and New Zealand. Rather than banning the ads outright, which could lead to lawsuits, officials are eyeing legal and financial hurdles to limit their spread. These include mandating extended disclosures of side effects and ending tax deductions for ad spending—two measures that could severely limit ad volume, especially on TV.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long called for tougher restrictions on drug marketing, is closely aligned with the effort. “We are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers,” said HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon in a written statement. Kennedy himself told Sen. Josh Hawley in May that an announcement on tax policy changes could come “within the next few weeks.”

The ad market at stake is enormous. Drugmakers spent $10.8 billion last year promoting treatments directly to consumers, per data from MediaRadar. AbbVie led the pack, shelling out $2 billion—largely to market its anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq, which alone earned the company over $5 billion in Q1 of 2025.

AbbVie’s chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart admitted during a May conference that new restrictions could force the company to “pivot,” possibly by shifting marketing toward disease awareness campaigns or digital platforms.

Pharma’s deep roots in broadcast advertising—making up 59% of its ad spend in 2024—suggest the impact could be dramatic. That shift would mark a reversal of policy changes made in 1997, when the FDA relaxed requirements for side-effect disclosures, opening the floodgates for modern TV drug commercials.

Supporters of stricter oversight argue that U.S. drug consumption is inflated because of these ads, while critics warn of economic consequences. Jim Potter of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication noted that reinstating tougher ad rules could make broadcast placements “impractical.” Harvard professor Meredith Rosenthal agreed, adding that while ads sometimes encourage patients to seek care, they can also push costly brand-name drugs over generics.

Beyond disclosure rules, the administration is considering changes to the tax code—specifically eliminating the industry’s ability to write off advertising as a business expense. This idea was floated during talks over Trump’s original tax reform but was ultimately dropped from the final bill.

Continue Reading

Trending

X