What is WPATH?

[OneEpisode]

There has been some press coverage this week that sex offender Adree Edmo has had genital surgery, paid for by Corizon health care/the Idaho prison system.

I read some of the history to this. I don’t remember it being discussed here. Apologies if I missed it.

First the United States District Court for the District of Idaho found for Edmo back in 2018, a decision made on the balance of evidence presented to the court, including evidence from/based on WPATH.
Corizon/Idaho then appealed.

Next a three-judge panel from that "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" which apparently covers some Western parts of the US. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/08/23/19-35017.pdf
Again decided for Edmo, on May 16th 2019.

Finally the US Supreme Court turned down Corizon/Idaho’s appeal, back in May 2020. "The court’s brief order, which gave no reasons, let stand a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, in favor of the prisoner, Adree Edmo."

The New York Times summarised 21st May 2020 "After the full Ninth Circuit’s refusal to rehear the case, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, joined by eight other judges, wrote that the panel had put too much weight on standards published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which he called “a controversial self-described advocacy group that dresses up ideological commitments as evidence-based conclusions" "
This is those judges statement, 10th February 2020 : cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/10/19-35017.pdf

I thought that February 2020 decision, contained some interesting "official" references to WPATH.

"the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”)." "WPATH—formerly the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association"

Page 15:
First, contrary to the panel’s suggestion, constitutionally acceptable medical care is not defined by the standards of one organization. Second, the panel relies on standards that were promulgated by a controversial self-described advocacy group that dresses ideological commitments as evidence-based conclusions. Third, once the WPATH Standards are put in proper perspective, we are left with a “case of dueling experts,”
Page 19
as the Fifth Circuit has recognized, “the WPATH Standards of Care reflect not consensus, but merely one side in a sharply contested medical debate over sex reassignment surgery.” Gibson v. Collier, 920 F.3d 212, 221 (5th Cir. 2019).

I am most definitely not a lawyer, but this seems to be useful as it comes from senior judges acting in an official capacity.

There might be more useful stuff in here, it being a quite official source and all that...

World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which he called “a controversial self-described advocacy group that dresses up ideological commitments as evidence-based conclusions"

That's a pretty accurate summing up. They tacked on the word "World" in a deliberate attempt to make themselves look like some sort of official international body, when in fact they're just a political lobbying group made up of private individuals.

(Cf also, for balance, the "American College of Paediatricians" who sometimes get wheeled out to prop up GC views - a mistake IMO since they are a right wing, anti abortion, anti women's rights organisation.)

It's very easy for a pressure group to give themselves an official sounding moniker which is why you always have to do due diligence checks.

(There's an excellent book on the manipulation of the debates on lung cancer and climate change - Merchants of Doubt - which covers among other things the way oil and tobacco companies funded official-sounding, supposedly independent think tanks which then got quoted in the media without anyone checking to see whether they were independent or where their money was coming from.)

Yes it's astroturfing. When trans lobby types refer to "international medical standards" they mean WPATH.

Technically not quite astroturfing, which is giving the illusion of a grass-roots, bottom-up movement - FOREST (pro smoking lobby group is one such).

WPATH is more like an example of a top-down, pretend "expert group", dressed up to sound like it's the result of some sort of international cross-governmental cooperation (cf the Yogyakarta Principles - "look, we had a big international conference, bit like the IPCC [but not at all like the IPCC].)

Yes, I take your point, Diana.

And yes, the Yogyakarta Principles are an egregious example of this tactic.

We need a word like astroturfing to describe this!

Is “controversial ...advocacy group” according to this legal opinion not a sufficient description?
The judges also say in this (page 16) that the WPATH standards are just the “views of the promulgating physicians”. There is a little foot note on the page that says WPATH voting members actually aren’t all physicians. I googled promolgainv

Sorry... “promulgating”... and I think it just means “promoting”.

The closest I can find is "false authority", Eresh.
effectiviology.com/false-authority/

"Promulgating" is subtly different from "promoting" - for me it carries the connotation of "spreading a viewpoint across a wide audience" rather than simply "supporting a viewpoint" (which would be promoting), OneEpisode. I think though the phrase is clumsily worded - I don't think either promultating or promoting should appear at that point in the sentence. Perhaps "view of physicians with a vested interest in promulgating their particular interpretation"? Wordier, but more accurate, I think.

Thank you Dianas.
I struggle to read and understand this sort of document, especially on my phone/using google for the long words!

Does Page 41 also have a good snippet: “as recognized by numerous federal courts, the WPATH standards are not accepted as medical consensus” ?

I think these judges, meeting in San Francisco, are agreeing with Mumsnet posters from whom I have gathered something like: “WPATH members are in the business of providing hormone treatments and genital surgery, so this trade groups’ “standards” should only be treated as one view”.

But I couldn’t say!

I thought it interesting that it wasn’t reported widely - was February.
I don’t know if the fancy wording was a part of that.

Yes I think that is the best term, Diana but it doesn't quite suggest the same process, when what I basically mean is astroturfing from the top down, setting yourself up as the go to authority by publishing papers in which you quote your own papers as the main citations knowing that people won't examine it all that closely. Astroturfing is such a satisfying concept!

I'm posting this link, in full knowledge that it is from a source with a questionable (religious right) agenda from a key member of the American College of Paediatrics as you mentioned, because it explains the history of transgender medicine very comprehensively (backed up by other sources I've read) and how WPATH came into being, from a clinician's perspective. The bit about WPATH starts at about 45 mins into the hour long video. It's all worth watching.

Bookmarking. I’ll come back tomorrow. Great find!!!

There's an excellent book on the manipulation of the debates on lung cancer and climate change - Merchants of Doubt - which covers among other things the way oil and tobacco companies funded official-sounding, supposedly independent think tanks which then got quoted in the media without anyone checking to see whether they were independent or where their money was coming from.
There's also a recent radio 4 series on this subject, which is worth a listen:
How they made us doubt everything
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1

Anyone who thinks WPATH is a medical group promoting unbiased best standards in trans healthcare should consider the fact that Stephen Whittle is a past president of WPATH. Whittle is possibly the most influential trans lobbyists in existence.