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.”
