The eighth amendment and medical consensus on gender affirming care: Reexamining the dissentals in Edmo v. Corizon

Medical and scientific organizations widely adopt the World Professional Association of Transgender Health Standards of Care as the authority on gender affirming care. Despite this consensus, the legal, political, and policy environments often see only controversy. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court opinion in Edmo v. Corizon held that denying an incarcerated transgender person suffering from severe gender dysphoria—resulting in two attempts at self-castration, cutting to reduce genital distress, and suicidal ideations—violated the Eighth Amendment. The majority denied the State of Idaho’s petition for a rehearing en banc, but ten judges joined in three separate dissents to the denial of rehearing en banc(dissentals) arguing that the opinion was a “revolution in our law!” This article confronts these dissentals head on, dismantling both their purpose and arguments, and analyzing their reasoning, factual assertions, and legal, scientific, and medical assessments.

Ultimately, this Article reframes the medical and scientific consensus on gender affirming care within the context of the Eighth Amendment by exposing the errors, misstatements, and misrepresentations in the dissentals.