The WPATH Guideline Steering Committee provided oversight of the guideline development process for all chapters of the Standards of Care. Except for the Chair (Dr Eli Coleman) who was selected by WPATH to provide continuity from previous SOC, the two co-chairs were selected by the WPATH Board from WPATH members applying for these positions. The Chairs of the Guideline Steering Committee:

• Appointed the Chapter Leads and Members for each chapter
• Selected topics for the chapters

The Guideline Steering Committee (chairs and Co-chairs) provided general oversight of the guideline development process. The Committee reviewed all chapters of the Standards of Care to confirm adherence to the WPATH guideline methodology and to ensure consistency of statements across the Standards of Care.

• A member of WPATH proposed a candidate for co-chair by sending a letter of nomination and the address of the recommended co-chair, to the Executive Director of the Society.
• A Member of WPATH could self-nominate, by sending a letter of self-nomination to the Executive Director of the Society.
• The Executive Director (ED) sent a membership application form, including a request for a curriculum vitae, to the nominated individual.
• The ED distributed copies of the nominating letter, completed application, and curriculum vitae to the Board of Directors.
• The BOD discussed each application and assigns a score in a blinded ballot only seen by the office staff across the application criteria with the three top candidates moving to the next round of voting.
• Any conflict of interest was declared and in the case of a conflict of interest, the conflicted person did not vote.
• The BOD discussed the nominees with the Chair, and best fit for the group was chosen.
• The ED corresponded with the candidate and the nominator regarding the action on each nomination.
   

2.1.2.1 Key Criteria Used for the Selection of Co-Chair on the SOC8 Revision Committee (2 positions)

• Longstanding WPATH Full Member in good standing
• Well recognized advocate for WPATH and the SOC
• Well known expert in transgender health
• Extensive experience in leading consensus building projects and guideline development
• Accomplished clinician, scholar, and researcher in trans health with a publication record
• Able to assess the evidence-based and peer review literature and peer and contribute specific recommendations from an evidence-based perspective
• Able to select and supervise chapter leads
   

2.1.2.1 Results

A total of 8 individuals applied for two positions and 2 people were selected, Dr. Asa Radix and Dr. Jon Arcelus.

• A member of WPATH proposed a candidate for a chapter lead by sending a letter of nomination, including address of the recommended chapter lead (and indicated chapter(s)), to the Executive Director (ED) of the Society.
• A member of WPATH could self-nominate by sending a letter of self-nomination to the ED of the Society.
• The ED sent a membership application form, including a request for a curriculum vitae, to the nominated individual.
• The ED distributes copies of the nominating letter, completed application, and curriculum vitae to the Chair and Co-Chairs.
• The Chair and Co-Chairs discussed the applications and assign a score in a blinded ballot only seen by the office staff across the application criteria with the top 2 candidates moving to the next round of voting. The Chair and Co-Chairs discussed the top 2 candidates with the goal of selecting the best fit for the topic and the other members of the workgroup.
• The Chair and Co-Chairs informed the BOD of their decisions.
• The ED corresponded with the candidate and the nominator regarding the action on each nomination.
   

2.1.3.1 Key Criteria for Chapter Lead on the SOC Revision Committee

• WPATH Full Member in good standing
• Well recognized advocate for WPATH and the SOC
• Well known expert in transgender health
• Accomplished scholar and researcher in trans health with a publication record related to the chapter
• Accomplished clinician, scholar, and researcher in trans health with a publication record
• Able to assess the evidence-based literature and write chapters based on peer review or contribute
   

2.1.3.2 Results

A  total of 39 applicants and 24 were  selected.

• A member of WPATH proposed a candidate for a chapter workgroup member by sending a letter of nomination, including address of the recommended new member, to the Executive Director (ED) of the Society
• A member of WPATH could self-nominate, by sending a letter of self-nomination to the ED of the Society
• The ED sent a membership application form, including a request for a curriculum vitae, to the nominated individual.
• The ED distributed copies of the nominating letter, completed application, and curriculum vitae to the Chapter Leads.
• The Chair and Co-Chairs and Chapter Leads discuss the applications and assign a score in a blinded ballot only seen by the office staff across the application criteria with the top 5-7 candidates (number to be determined prior to voting) within each chapter being chosen.
• The Chair, Co-Chairs and Chapter Lead informed the BOD of their decisions.
• The ED corresponded with the candidate and the nominator regarding the action on each nomination.
   

2.1.4.1 Key Criteria for Chapter Workgroup Member on the SOC8 Revision Committee (5-7 people per chapter)

• WPATH Full Member in good standing
• Well known expert in transgender health
• Accomplished scholar and researcher in trans health with a publication record related to the chapter
• Able to assess the evidence-based literature and write chapters related to peer review or contribute specific recommendations from an evidence-based perspective
• Able and willing to work collaboratively with chapter leads and other committee members
• Applicants could apply to work on more than one workgroup and rank their chapter interests.

2.1.4.2 Results

A total of 149 applicants for workgroup members applied and 127 were selected (link it to a page with names of the chairs, leads)

• A member of WPATH proposed a candidate for a chapter workgroup member by sending a letter of nomination, including address of the recommended new member, to the Executive Director (ED) of the Society
• A person could self-nominate, by sending a letter of self-nomination to the ED of the Society
• The ED sent a committee membership application form, including a request for a curriculum vitae, to the nominated individual.
• The ED distributed copies of the nominating letter, completed application, and curriculum vitae to the Chapter Leads.
• The Chair and Co-Chairs and Chapter Leads discussed the applications and assign a score in a blinded ballot only seen by the office staff across the application criteria with the top 2 candidates (number to be determined prior to voting) per chapter being chosen.
• The Chair, Co-Chairs and Chapter Leads discussed the top 2 candidates and the best fit within each chapter group were chosen.
• The Chair, Co-Chairs and Chapter Lead informed the BOD of their decisions.
• The ED corresponded with the candidate and the nominator regarding the action on each nomination.
   

2.1.5.1 Key Criteria for Stakeholder Membership on the SOC8 Revision Committee

Our intent was that by involving experts (with or without lived experience) that work outside of the scientific publishing arena, we will be able to provide input from those working directly in community health or in policy making and in NGOs around the globe.

• Associate Members of WPATH  (with or without lived transgender experience) and other individuals (with or without lived transgender experience) with expertise due to accomplishments in trans health advocacy and a history of work in the community, or a member of a family that includes a transgender child, sibling, partner, parent, etc.
• Able to review the drafts of the SOC committee and contribute specific recommendations from a community health perspective
   

2.1.5.2 Results

A total of 57 and 20 were selected.

The WPATH Board released a request for proposals (RFP) for the WPATH Standards of Care 8th Version Evidence Review Team. The Board received four complete proposals in response to the RFP.  After careful review and discussions of each submitted proposal, the WPATH Board selected and engaged an Evidence Review Team at Johns Hopkins University. Dr Karen Robinson was the lead of the evidence-based review.