The effort to trans children has been aggressive and well-supported by members of the progressive intelligentsia. It seems that those pushing transgender ideology in classrooms and medical facilities are winning. For those working to oppose it, the situation can sometimes seem hopeless.
However, recent developments have given me hope. One of the most important factors in the fight against “gender-affirming care” is that many who have fallen victim to it are using the legal system to fight back.
In recent years, the push for “gender-affirming care” for transgender individuals, especially among children and adolescents, has sparked debates and controversies. However, a growing number of detransitioners, individuals who choose to reverse their medical gender transition, are now taking legal action against doctors and medical facilities they believe rushed them into irreversible treatments. These lawsuits are shedding light on the pitfalls of progressive ideas on gender care and raising questions about informed consent, medical ethics, and the protection of vulnerable young individuals.
Currently, there are at least three high-profile cases illustrating the struggle of detransitioners and their pursuit of justice.
The first is Prisha Mosley, who is suing doctors and medical facilities in North Carolina. Mosley, a 25-year-old woman, filed a lawsuit against doctors who prescribed her testosterone when she was a minor and later performed a breast removal surgery when she turned 18.
She alleges that the doctors committed fraud and medical malpractice, manipulating her vulnerable state by claiming gender-affirming treatments would alleviate her mental health problems. Mosley’s mental issues persisted even after starting testosterone, but doctors allegedly failed to address the possibility of stopping the treatment or informing her of potential side effects. Now, facing irreversible physician and mental consequences, she is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Next is Chloe Cole, a California teen who identified as transgender at a young age and underwent several gender change therapies, including puberty blockers, hormones, and a mastectomy. She later realized that her transition was a mistake and detransitioned back to being a girl.
She alleges that doctors failed to provide sufficient psychological screening and proper informed consent, rushing her into the gender transition process as is the case in many instances involving so-called gender-affirming care. Her lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, arguing that she suffered severe regret and emotional wounds due to the alleged negligence of medical professionals.
Lastly, we have the case of Kayla Lovdahl, who, at just 18 years old, has already experienced a full gender transition which she later came to regret. Kayla claims that doctors did not adequately evaluate her psychological condition and “rushed” her through gender treatment, leading to emotional and physical harm. She is now taking legal action against the hospital and doctors involved, seeking redress for the consequences of her transition.
One can easily see a common thread in each of these stories. The victims of these medical hacks were never fully informed about what they were getting themselves into. Even further, they were deceived into accepting puberty blockers and undergoing surgical treatments. Two of these individuals were minor children when this happened. Those who pay close attention to this issue have seen this same story play out the same way in numerous stories.
Fortunately, the detransitioners have discovered what will likely be a key component to ending this destructive movement: Lawfare. It is a term coined from “law” and “warfare” and refers to the use of legal action and lawsuits as a strategy to address social issues or advocate for specific causes. In the context of detransitioners’ lawsuits, lawfare is becoming a powerful tool for victims of “gender-affirming care” to seek accountability and bring attention to questionable medical practices.
Also, when detransitioners pursue legal action against medical professionals and facilities, it serves several critical purposes. They bring attention to potential flaws in the “gender-affirming care” system, including inadequate psychological evaluation and informed consent processes. These lawsuits emphasize the importance of proper informed consent, especially for young individuals who may not fully comprehend the long-term implications of medical gender transition.
Accountability is also essential. Detransitioners’ lawsuits challenge medical professionals to exercise greater caution and adhere to ethical standards when treating children who might be suffering from gender dysphoria. If these professionals know they could face consequences for advocating for this type of “care,” they might be discouraged from pushing it on their patients.
Legal actions can also prompt policymakers to review and strengthen regulations surrounding gender-affirming care for minors, ensuring better protection for vulnerable individuals. All in all, lawfare is a necessary and effective strategy to protect these children from the effort to attack them through gender identity.
Detransitioners’ lawsuits are shedding light on the complexities and potential harms associated with the push for “gender-affirming care” among children and adolescents. As more individuals seek legal recourse for their regretful transitions, it becomes increasingly crucial for medical professionals, policymakers, and society to engage in a nuanced conversation about the best practices for supporting kids who are dealing with various mental health issues. When these folks know that their pocketbooks and reputations will suffer, perhaps they will take a different route.