WPATH calling its statements opinions actually shouldn’t be surprising when you consider the context of the filing: This is a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit accusing WPATH of fraud.
Under civil law, a successful fraud claim requires a false statement of material fact. Opinions generally do not count as fraud under civil law because they are inherently subjective and therefore cannot be objectively proven true or false.
As a result, it is extremely common and routine for defendants in fraud lawsuits (especially during motions to dismiss) to argue that the allegedly fraudulent statements are actually opinions, because if that can be proven to be the case and the judge accepts it, then the lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed since that would essentially mean no fraud occurred.
Likewise, attempting to frame the allegedly fraudulent statements as “free speech” is another very common defense in fraud lawsuits that can be highly effective in getting a case dismissed if the judge accepts it.
None of this actually means WPATH has changed its positions. They’re just saying what they need to say to give themselves the best chance of getting the lawsuit dismissed.
I’m actually pretty surprised by how surprised other people have been at this court filing as if it’s a new position formal statement or something when it’s not… This is unfortunately just a common defense strategy in lawsuits. There’s unfortunately nothing unusual about it…
True. The legal strategy is clear. Even so, I think it’s significantly different given past claims made for standards, which are heavily lent on in the absence of robust research data.
Linguistic manipulation has proven such a powerful tool to deflect argument , as illustrated by, here, in the legal domain. Perhaps it could be well employed by active professional acknowledgment of “ transgender ideation “ as an alternative , differential, diagnosis , when appropriately applied, to one of the current ubiquitous “gender dysphoria “ ?
Yeah but it’s also a very common argument in fraud lawsuits and it can be highly effective if the judge accepts it, so it’s understandable why so many defendants in fraud lawsuits make this argument.
And no, I don’t think this will be applied anywhere else. This argument is pretty exclusive to fraud lawsuit defense. It wouldn’t be helpful to WPATH in any other context.
I don't have any legal expertise and I'm worn out by this issue but I'd be surprised if this is the case. I guess people can legalese out of anything but people took these people as gospel. Surely legally it's not just specific documents with legalese caveats, it's the overall thrust of how the organization presents themselves that matters?
WPATH) Standards of Care (such as SOC-8) outline general requirements for informed consent, focusing on known medical side effects like infertility and surgical risks.
They do not frame long-term elevated mortality or post-transition suicide as direct outcomes caused by transition; instead, WPATH attributes high rates of suicidality and mental health challenges to pre-existing vulnerabilities and societal minority stress.
This is word-salad nonsense:
The fact that ‘societal minority stress’ contributes to elevated suicide and mental health challenges does, in no way imply that it is not a hugely negative outcome of gender transition.
Informed consent, by definition, demands that elevated suicide is a part of informed consent, otherwise it is NOT informed.
WPATH calling its statements opinions actually shouldn’t be surprising when you consider the context of the filing: This is a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit accusing WPATH of fraud.
Under civil law, a successful fraud claim requires a false statement of material fact. Opinions generally do not count as fraud under civil law because they are inherently subjective and therefore cannot be objectively proven true or false.
As a result, it is extremely common and routine for defendants in fraud lawsuits (especially during motions to dismiss) to argue that the allegedly fraudulent statements are actually opinions, because if that can be proven to be the case and the judge accepts it, then the lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed since that would essentially mean no fraud occurred.
Likewise, attempting to frame the allegedly fraudulent statements as “free speech” is another very common defense in fraud lawsuits that can be highly effective in getting a case dismissed if the judge accepts it.
None of this actually means WPATH has changed its positions. They’re just saying what they need to say to give themselves the best chance of getting the lawsuit dismissed.
I’m actually pretty surprised by how surprised other people have been at this court filing as if it’s a new position formal statement or something when it’s not… This is unfortunately just a common defense strategy in lawsuits. There’s unfortunately nothing unusual about it…
True. The legal strategy is clear. Even so, I think it’s significantly different given past claims made for standards, which are heavily lent on in the absence of robust research data.
Linguistic manipulation has proven such a powerful tool to deflect argument , as illustrated by, here, in the legal domain. Perhaps it could be well employed by active professional acknowledgment of “ transgender ideation “ as an alternative , differential, diagnosis , when appropriately applied, to one of the current ubiquitous “gender dysphoria “ ?
Yeah but it’s also a very common argument in fraud lawsuits and it can be highly effective if the judge accepts it, so it’s understandable why so many defendants in fraud lawsuits make this argument.
And no, I don’t think this will be applied anywhere else. This argument is pretty exclusive to fraud lawsuit defense. It wouldn’t be helpful to WPATH in any other context.
There would be a large trove of documents and public statements that go beyond opinion.
To my knowledge they haven’t said this in any public statements or documents outside of court…
I don't have any legal expertise and I'm worn out by this issue but I'd be surprised if this is the case. I guess people can legalese out of anything but people took these people as gospel. Surely legally it's not just specific documents with legalese caveats, it's the overall thrust of how the organization presents themselves that matters?
Thank you again for this comprehensive round up of developments. It reads positive at least. Everything seems so…two steps forward one step back 🙏
WPATH) Standards of Care (such as SOC-8) outline general requirements for informed consent, focusing on known medical side effects like infertility and surgical risks.
They do not frame long-term elevated mortality or post-transition suicide as direct outcomes caused by transition; instead, WPATH attributes high rates of suicidality and mental health challenges to pre-existing vulnerabilities and societal minority stress.
This is word-salad nonsense:
The fact that ‘societal minority stress’ contributes to elevated suicide and mental health challenges does, in no way imply that it is not a hugely negative outcome of gender transition.
Informed consent, by definition, demands that elevated suicide is a part of informed consent, otherwise it is NOT informed.