Later this year, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, which asks whether parents may challenge Washington state laws that shift decisionmaking authority over “gender transitions” from parents to children and the state. Do No Harm eagerly awaits the case’s outcome.
In our recently filed amicus brief, we further explain the harms the petitioners in the case are seeking to avoid.
In 2023, the State of Washington enacted legislation designed to provide runaway minors with “gender-affirming treatment” without parental knowledge or consent. Despite this novel transfer of power from parents to their children and the state, and its clear violation of parents’ constitutional rights to direct the care and upbringing of their children, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the relevant Washington laws.
Behind these questions of standing lies a grim reality. The petitioners in this case are the actual parents of children with gender dysphoria but believe in the binary, biological reality of sex. They reasonably fear that, if they enforce their beliefs too sternly, their children will run away and use Washington’s laws to receive sex-denying interventions without parental consent.
Too often, courts overlook exactly what such interventions entail, as proponents of so-called gender-affirming care bury the details beneath a mountain of euphemisms. Our brief attempts to correct this oversight, explaining in forthright terms why the harm the petitioners seek to avoid is indeed a grave one.
To begin with, sex-denying interventions involve the physical manipulation and disfigurement of young bodies through medical and surgical means — all to treat a psychological condition (gender dysphoria) that has no corresponding physical symptoms.
Second, sex-denying interventions frequently cause significant long-term negative health consequences in gender-dysphoric youth, as Do No Harm has previously explained.
Third, recent medical evidence belies the notion that sex-denying interventions are justifiable treatments for gender dysphoria in children. In fact, recent evidence shows that such “treatments” may even exacerbate gender dysphoria’s psychological symptoms.
In sum, the harms from which the petitioners in this case seek to shield their children are damaging interventions falsely disguised as support and care.
Unfortunately, as multiple Justices have more recently observed, the question of legal standing is becoming an excuse for some federal courts to avoid contentious constitutional questions. Do No Harm looks forward to the Court’s resolution of these important issues.
