Washington State University has halted access to a series of continuing-medical-education courses on the risks and ethics of gender-medicine practices following intense pressure from transgender-activist groups and a review launched by the national accrediting body for physician training. The paused modules were created by the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), an international organization known for highlighting research gaps and medical concerns involving youth gender treatments.
The courses examined the medical impact of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and related interventions. According to the university, WSU did not author or endorse the content but hosted the materials as part of its regular CME offerings. After more than 30 LGBTQ-aligned organizations accused the course of lacking “balance,” the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) began a formal inquiry and asked WSU to suspend CME credit while the investigation proceeds. The university restricted learner access but left the videos publicly viewable.
SEGM members stated that the material presented internationally recognized research, including findings from European health authorities that have recently scaled back or re-evaluated youth gender-medicine protocols. Supporters argue that halting the courses limits physicians’ ability to review emerging global evidence and undermines academic freedom within medical education. Critics of the suspension note that the purpose of CME programs is to provide clinicians with comprehensive and diverse scientific information, not to shield them from controversial topics.
The College Fix reported that WSU’s decision follows ongoing national disputes over how gender-related treatments should be taught and regulated. As debate intensifies, universities and medical institutions face rising pressure to align with activist-driven standards that often conflict with the cautious approach adopted in other countries. The removal of these courses marks another instance in which activist groups have successfully influenced academic and medical programming, raising questions about whether open scientific inquiry can withstand political and ideological demands.
