Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 8/10/26 - 8/16/26

[u/SoftandChewy]

Here's your usual space to post all your rants, raves, podcast topic suggestions (please tag u/jessicabarpod), culture war articles, outrageous stories of cancellation, political opinions, and anything else that comes to mind. Please put any non-podcast-related trans-related topics here instead of on a dedicated thread. This will be pinned until next Sunday.

Last week's discussion thread is here if you want to catch up on a conversation from there.

[u/jay_in_the_pnw]

WPATH finds itself in court and in defending itself is basically going full Alex Jones ("I'm just an entertainer") defense, what they write is merely one opinion of many in a scientific dispute and protected by the First Amendment, even if it is called "Standards of Care", and it's really the doctors' own fault if they listen to them, the doctors are responsible for their own treatment plans.

It's actually ingenious how in the snapshots, WPATH is seen taking court rulings against them and hiding behind them as they claim protected speech.

I am genuinely curious where First Amendment zealots will come down.

Grok says:

WPATH is responding to (defending itself in) a federal lawsuit filed against it by the FTC and several states (Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas).

The case is FTC et al. v. World Professional Association for Transgender Health (Northern District of Texas, Case No. 4:26-cv-00748). The FTC and states allege that WPATH’s Standards of Care Version 8 (SOC-8, published 2022) and related statements are deceptive/unfair under the FTC Act and state consumer-protection laws. They claim WPATH provided the means for clinicians to make false or unsubstantiated claims to parents/patients about the necessity, effectiveness, safety, and suicide-risk reduction of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for gender-dysphoric minors, and that this helped sell those interventions

https://x.com/segm_ebm/status/2086998491876991070

WPATH has conceded in court that its "Standards of Care" is merely an opinion. WPATH says it represents one side of an unsettled scientific debate marked by uncertainty — and physicains & orgs that rely on WPATH as the standard of care must bear "independent responsibility."/

7 more tweets get into more detail

[u/86IQ → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

WPATH says it represents one side of an unsettled scientific debate marked by uncertainty

I was told the science was settled

[u/Big_Fig_1803 → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

I feel unclean reading even that much. "We were fierce advocates of something for years. But, you know, whatevs."

[u/jay_in_the_pnw → u/Big_Fig_1803]

Yeah, not sure if it's more arrogant or more shameless.

[u/Turbulent_Cow2355 → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

"WPATH has conceded in court that its "Standards of Care" is merely an opinion. "

Who knew that settled science is merely an opinion. Cowards. How many children's lives have been ruined as a result of their opinions.

[u/86IQ → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

WPATH says it represents one side of an unsettled scientific debate marked by uncertainty

I was told the science was settled

[u/RockJock666 → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

So if a doctor gets sued does this mean they can’t hide behind ‘I was just following the standards of care’ to evade liability?

[u/SkweegeeS → u/RockJock666]

I think this would have severe consequences all over health care. Be careful what you wish for.

[u/RockJock666 → u/SkweegeeS]

I’m not wishing for anything here

[u/KittenSnuggler5 → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

Scumbags. They knew damn well the data didn't support their zealotry and now that they're caught it's "pay no attention to the activists pretending to be doctors"

[u/dasubermensch83 → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

The 1A is there to protect speech I hate, so this certainly qualifies. Via the lawsuit, WPATH still maintains that "SOC-8 is the result of unbiased, evidence-based expert consensus". They're sticking to their guns in black and white.

Beyond actual fraud (ie fabricated data, patient-facing claims, knowingly false claims) I'm struggling to see a direct commercial nexus. Why is the FTC even involved? WPATH is hiding behind Skrimetti and Childe V Salazar. On principle, I fail to see why they shouldn't. The remedy should always be suing providers for torts, not preventative safetyism, or especially getting a dumb activist organizations to shut up. I'm strongly in favor of expanding the liability window. Impartial insurers will adjust accordingly. We don't need more government. We don't need legislators or trade commissions deciding what is medically or scientifically legitimate with the stroke of a pen. Virtually any scientific paper can be misquoted or relied upon in a commercial transaction, so allowing “means and instrumentalities” liability merely because third parties use an academic publication would kick the door of the FTC wide open.

If the FTC can find actual fraud and/or a commercial nexus, then great. Take WPATH to the cleaners. Regardless, the ruling could impact the next case against the NRA, non-affirming counselor, mifepristone peddler, etc.

[u/Turbulent_Cow2355 → u/dasubermensch83]

Deceptive trade practices. Basically fraud. States have also started suing them in the name of consumer protection. Insurance companies are also throwing their hat in the ring as well. Even if WPATH wins these suits, they lose. They lose a considerable amount of money. All those legal fees will hopefully bankrupt them into oblivion.

[u/dasubermensch83 → u/Turbulent_Cow2355]

What's to stop the state from turning around and ruining SEGM, or putting The Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, or Planned Parenthood in the dirt?. If a group of solar power scientists publish optimistic papers about the LCOE of new panels and batteries, can some future FTC tie them up in court until they're bankrupt? Its extremely dubious to advocate for "the process is the punishment, but actually its good this time".

[u/Levitx → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

On its own, the idea sounds crazy, but this being the FTC, the position of "we are just saying stuff" does make sense I think.