Erin Reed is Lying to You - Part I

After the release of the WPATH Files, cult trans activist Erin Reed published a ‘fact check’ labeling the files as ‘false’. Here’s everything he left out.

Among the trans-identified, journalist and activist Erin Reed is like a kind of messiah. On his Substack account, Reed covers “news and discussion on transgender life and law”, which has become a sort of living bible for trans activists on everything trans-related, from proposed bills to the latest J.K. Rowling tweet. In the eyes of the trans community, Reed has come to deliver his people from bondage and lead them to glory. His word is law.  

So when the WPATH Files came out on March 4th, Reed knew he had to act fast. The files presented a mountain of damning and indisputable evidence that WPATH is an activist organization with no real medical authority experimenting on patients, conveyor-belting children through medical transition, and upholding ideology over patient well-being. Aware of the authority he holds among his followers, Reed quickly set out to fact check the files. 

While Reed’s fact-checking efforts were dishonest, cursory, and avoidant, his followers considered the files thoroughly debunked. Any mention of the files thereafter was immediately shot down with some version of “um, have you seen Erin Reed’s reporting on them? The ‘WPATH Files’ are junk journalism and should be treated as such,” with many refusing to read the files for themselves. Erin Reed already debunked them, so why bother? 

I’m here to tell you that Erin Reed is lying to you. In this series, I’ll go through each of the claims Reed presents about the files, why they’re incorrect, misleading, or dishonest, and why you shouldn’t let anyone–but especially not trans activists—do your thinking for you.

Gish Gallop 

Before getting into the files themselves, Reed frames the attached report as 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.” This claim is completely erroneous, as a Gish Gallop is defined explicitly as a debate tactic in the very source Reed cites. The files are not a debate. The report is not debating with Reed. It’s a document that presents a thorough and sobering analysis on leaked communications between WPATH members. If Reed finds them too overwhelming to respond to, that’s on him. 

“Given the sheer volume of errors, it is impractical for a single fact-check to address each one comprehensively,” writes Reed. How convenient. “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.” Rather than address or even present the supposed 216 errors, misrepresentations, and faulty citations Reed claims to have identified, he opts to “highlight clear examples” of each “type” of error instead. I’ll address the first of these here. 

Beyond WPATH Letter

Right out the gate, Reed claims that the “editorialized” report by journalist Mia Hughes 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.” This is a serious claim. Does Reed present us with a clear cut, irrefutable example of the report egregiously misrepresenting a citation to back this up? Nope. 

Instead, as an example of a “misrepresented citation”, Reed writes:

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.

There are several things wrong with this. First, Reed leaves out exactly why the WPATH Standards of Care 8th revision (SOC8) sent shockwaves through the medical community by omitting critical context from the quotation, which in full reads:

Of note, an earlier draft of SOC8 had contained a chapter on ethics, but this was cut from the final version. However, it was the inclusion of a whole chapter on eunuch as a valid gender identity, eligible for hormonal and surgical castration, that sent shockwaves through the medical profession and provided the catalyst for the Beyond WPATH declaration.

I suppose Erin didn’t think this was relevant to include? Or perhaps he realized how  indefensible WPATH’s position is and decided to ignore it and hope it goes away. It’s not like any of his followers were going to read the report. 

Next, Reed describes the signatories of the Beyond WPATH Letter as mostly from “non-relevant categories” and therefore not credible. To back up this claim, Reed provides this photo displaying a small sample of the letter’s signatories.

Reed’s highly selective and narrow screenshot

Further examination of the list of signatories reveals that it is replete not only with medical professionals representing a range of relevant fields from psychotherapy to urology, but that the concerns raised by WPATH extend far beyond the clinic. This fight is so big, and the stakes so high, that concerned interest groups as diverse as stay at home moms and lesbian rights activists are reaching across the aisle to stop this destructive ideology in its tracks. 

My screenshot of the first page of signatories

Second screenshot of signatories

By presenting his readers with an incredibly narrow window into the signatories and their credentials, Reed attempts to discredit the letter in its entirety. He’s likely banking on the fact that very few if any of his followers will scroll through the list themselves. 

Last, Reed asserts that the report presents the letter as a document signed primarily by medical professionals but “omits that it is essentially a freely available online petition form.” While the report doesn’t state that the letter is freely available outright, it doesn’t try to misrepresent it as anything else. It simply mentions that the letter is signed by “more than 2,000 concerned individuals”. Anyone skeptical of the letter is free to read it, scroll through its signatories, and decide for themselves whether or not they find it credible. 

It’s ironic, however, that Reed attempts to discredit the Beyond WPATH letter on the grounds that anyone is welcome to sign it—since this is exactly the case with WPATH itself. As is made clear in the report, WPATH is not a medical organization. It is an activist coalition that anyone can join simply by paying $225. On their website, WPATH clearly states: “​​Supporting membership is available to individuals who do not work in the professional disciplines listed above, but still have an interest in being an active member of the organization,” opening up membership to “non-relevant categories”, a significant chunk of which “may not be medical providers at all”, to borrow a phrase. 

Stay tuned for part II, and thank you for reading!