A tweet thread from anti-trans activist group SEGM concerning the most recent filings in the FTC’s lawsuit against WPATH has gone viral with the claim that WPATH has conceded that the Standards of Care for transgender health the group publishes is “merely an opinion.” The thread, which has been further amplified by right wing media outlets including the Daily Signal and the Washington Examiner, paints the group’s citation of legal precedents as vindication of the anti-trans cause.
Last month, the FTC sued WPATH for what it alleges were deceptive practices in their guidelines for treatment of transgender youth. The lawsuit was also joined by four red states. The suit is the latest in a string of actions by the Trump administration to target the transgender community, its supporters, and providers of medically necessary gender-affirming care. The suit takes issue with the 8th version of WPATH’s Standards of Care, which was published in 2022, alleging that it deceived doctors by publishing evidence-based guidelines on the treatment of transgender youth.
On July 28, WPATH responded to the lawsuit with a motion to dismiss. Among several other arguments for dismissal, the motion claims the Standards of Care 8 constitute protected speech under the 1st Amendment, and cite a 2023 case where a judge found medical guidelines are an expression of expert opinion and, therefore, protected speech. (The 2023 opinion found that chronic Lyme patients could not sue the Infectious Disease Society for having created guidelines recommending against long-term antibiotic use in chronic Lyme.)
The SEGM thread also makes much of WPATH’s motion citing recent language from Supreme Court precedents that allow states to ban gender-affirming care but disallow states from banning conversion therapy. Judges decide cases based on precedent, legal filings cite precedent to support their side. Citing relevant precedent in a legal motion does not typically imply agreement with the decision cited.
The WPATH motion for dismissal also includes a large amount of material SEGM chose not to highlight, including repeated defenses of the actual medical evidence underpinning their Standards of Care, and criticisms of the evidence base being used by opponents of this care. Reached for comment via email, a WPATH spokesman wrote, “SEGM’s characterization of WPATH’s legal position is a clear misrepresentation of an established legal distinction by the courts. For more than 50 years, WPATH has been committed to developing guidelines informed by established scientific standards, expert consensus, and patient-centered values. WPATH’s dedication to this mission and the patient population it serves remains unwavering.”
“merely an opinion” reminds me of a fellow-traveller anti-science movement, creationism. They like to impart doubt in evolution as “merely a theory”. Both play on people’s (willful) ignorance about domain-specific jargon and encourage them to conflate the term with its colloquial meaning.
It would be funny if it weren’t getting people killed.
Could you guys also debunk the whole billing fraud thing that the current administration is pushing against gender affirming care. Like what is that about?
The “billing fraud thing” is basically doctors using alternate applicable diagnoses where more than one exists so that billing codes sent in to insurance get covered. I’ve read it’s also sometimes a case of “there is literally no other code but this one that doesn’t normally apply to .
Either way, it’s a very, _very_ flimsy excuse to investigate “fraud” so that they can try to compel access to privileged/protected patient information. It also benefits insurance companies more than the population at large: it’s not just trans people that doctors would do this type of thing for.
Totally agree, it would be great to see a writeup on it Assigned!