The Eighth Amendment and Medical Consensus on Gender Confirming Care : Reexamining the Dissentals in Edmo v. Corizon

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health Standards of Care is widely adopted by medical and scientific organizations as medical consensus on gender confirming care. Despite the consensus within the medical and scientific community, the legal, political, and policy environments often see only controversy, not consensus. The Ninth Circuit opinion in Edmo v Corizon held that denying access to gender confirming surgery to a transgender prisoner suffering from severe gender dysphoria, resulting in two-attempts at self-castration, cutting to reduce genital distress, and suicidal ideation, violated the Eighth Amendment. The majority of the Ninth Circuit denied 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 takes these dissentals seriously in both their purpose and argument, analyzing their reasoning, factual assertions, and legal, scientific, and medical assessments. Taking the dissentals seriously exposes their errors, misstatements, and misrepresentations, ultimately providing a reframing of the scientific and medical consensus on gender confirming care and surgery and Eighth Amendment access to both