US woman sues after 'gender affirming' double mastectomy

If you accept the premise that some people are genuinely trans and would therefore benefit from having their breasts removed, then you would ideally want to carry out a lengthy psychological assessment over a period of months, if not years, to make sure the person understood what they were doing, was giving informed consent, and did not have any signs of mental illness.

Why are people accepting the premise that some people are genuinely trans when nobody can define what 'genuinely trans' means? If doctors are going to remove healthy body parts from young people and inject children with damaging drugs, surely the least they can do is define what it is they're treating.

I've been reading about this for about 6 years now and I have yet to see a convincing argument that anyone is 'genuinely trans'.

I'm only amazed at the low figure of $850k, thought these kind of things were in the millions.

That'll be compensatory damages, i. e. calculated from the individual circumstances if the victim. The multimillion-dollar punitive damages awards you're probably thinking of are awarded on top of compensatory damages and are calculated looking at the financial capacity of the perpetrator to ensure there's actual deterrence rather than just a slap on the wrist. That's why they're common against major corporations especially in environmental type lawsuits.

To answer this question, they'd need to define what 'genuinely trans' means. Is anyone 'genuinely trans'?

Exactly so. This is the nub of the problem. If you accept the premise that some people are genuinely trans and would therefore benefit from having their breasts removed, then you would ideally want to carry out a lengthy psychological assessment over a period of months, if not years, to make sure the person understood what they were doing, was giving informed consent, and did not have any signs of mental illness.

We know that doesn't happen. We know that in reality, in the US, 14-year old girls are given mastectomies without very much in the way of prior assessment. We know that a lot of them have histories of mental health problems.

However, even if you did that thorough assessment, and the individual appeared to know what they were doing, was mentally healthy etc, then there is still a case for arguing that a responsible doctor shouldn't be performing double mastectomies in healthy breasts - just as there is a case for saying doctors shouldn't amputate the leg of someone who has a "genuine" desire to be disabled. First, do no harm.

Ultimately it's that woman at GIDS Tavistock who pushed affirmation only on no evidence, isn't it? Also WPATH in US, but I know very little about how things unfolded in the early days over there. The Tavistock woman here somhiw got her mad ideology accepted and ordered by the whole NHS. How on earth does that happen?

Having only briefly read the article and assuming it's been accurately reported then it does seem a very short period of time for someone to affirm a life altering decision.

However, I would imagine the clinicians started at the point of "she says she's non-binary (or maybe they say), so it must be true and therefore cutting off breasts affirms this belief and is fine." They haven't started at a neutral POV.

This appears to be what the trans community have pushed for and sadly this woman has been caught in the ideology with irreversible consequences.

Sad.

Who says she wasn't able to make an informed choice? If those she is suing can evidence she was deemed to have capacity to make choices is her case over?

But no one "is trans" though. There is no inherent transness that exists.

Doctors are not actually expected to recognise who is or isn't trans because of this.
Doctors also aren't expected to recognise who is or isn't genuinely experiencing "gender dysphoria" which again is not a tangible thing, but a concept.

Doctors are actually expected, in the case of duty of care, to provide care that aids the patient in line with NHS protocol. They are not considered negligent if they follow protocol and they are only considered negligent if they make a mistake that is outwith what their peers could be expected to have not made.

How informed are the choices of someone with a mental health issue. Would you recommend letting an anorexic starve themselves after all it's their choice not to eat 🤔 I think the entire point of the case is that she was unable to make an informed choice.

Maybe the more suings the better, it will make surgeons and gender counsellors think twice. There are so many gender confused youngsters on YouTube deeply regretting their decisions, it’s heartbreaking really.

Personally I think there probably are people out there with severe enough dysmorphia that removing sexual organs is in their best interests.

I expect this is an absolutely minuscule amount of people. And that it's obvious that they suffer from serious mental health issues. And that even for them, surgery should be a last resort when all other therapies fail.

I don't understand how 'I want my breasts cut off' would not equate to someone that this means their breasts are cut off and removed from their body.

There was some stuff about this on Twitter with some transitioners apparently under the illusion that breasts could grow back.

it sounds bonkers to me too, but these poor kids have been fed so much bullshit, nothing would surprise me now.

To put it another way, is there a case for saying that women who are genuinely trans should, with appropriate counselling and time for reflection, be able to take an informed decision that they want their breasts removed?

To answer this question, they'd need to define what 'genuinely trans' means. Is anyone 'genuinely trans'?

I genuinely was not! I've appreciated the responses from those who took the time to explain.

I think that the 'it is not a mental illness' will be hand waved away as 'there may be significant underlying mental illness conditions'.

However, it will be interesting how this develops. There is so many inconsistencies in this movement, hence it is why it can only be referred to as an ideology.

Instead of looking at it from the point of view of the woman, and asking whether she should have thought of the consequences of her actions, try looking at it from the point of view of the doctor. Doctors are supposed to follow the injunction: "Do no harm."

If you are a doctor, should you ever remove the breasts from a healthy woman, even if she asks you to? Even if she says she's sure that that is what she wants and she knows what she's doing? Isn't there a case for saying that doctors should never remove healthy body parts, except in those few rare cases where it might prevent cancer?

Thank you for explaining

That makes sense.

I've always wondered about repercussions of life-altering procedures that people have and the implications of them trying to sue after.

They are told it will improve their mental health. But it doesn’t.

They are being lied to about the root cause of their problems and lied to about the solution to it.

@NippyWoowoo

I suspect you are just being Faux Naïve in this, but just in case you aren’t

The difference is that one is a procedure which affects one particular event in a person’s reproductive life. The other is a procedure which affects not only their reproductive but also quite possibly their emotional, social and psychological well being for the rest of their lives.

at the risk of being a police person , this is not a thread about ‘right to life’.

I don't understand how
'I want my breasts cut off' would not equate to someone that this means their breasts are cut off and removed from their body.

a woman could have an abortion and then regret it. It is irreversible. Why is that not comparable?

Abortion regret is a known thing. There are support groups for it.
However the act of performing an abortion does not permanently alter your body irreversibly, unlike gender affirming surgery.
Also, pregnancy is based in science and actual reality where gender identities are not.

I think I read that 30% of mothers have had an abortion, only a small percentage regret it. It's a recognised, well established important public service that benefits not just the individual but all of society. Unwanted babies end up abused, in care and in prison as adults. So even if you have your own abortion regret you can still see the overall benefit to society.

Detrainitioners have completed woken up to the absolute fraud that is gender affirmative surgery. It helps no one. It's completely abhorrent.

The Dr performing the abortion could not possibly have known a particular woman would end up infertile for unrelated causes later on. There is no link between the abortion and later infertility. Also, the woman is actually pregnant. An abortion does solve the ‘problem’ of pregnancy.

The young woman in this case is not non-binary as that is not a medical condition. There is no proper diagnosis of a condition, no way to confidently establish that condition and no firm evidence base the treatment will cure the condition. There is, however, an evidence base of the physical and mental effects of having both breasts removed.

Even if I left that bit out, a woman could have an abortion and then regret it. It is irreversible. Why is that not comparable?

I do not think anyone is under any illusion that an aborted child could be brought back to life at any stage. The implications of the decision are clear.

Here, it seems the implications of the irreversible surgery were not clear to the patient.

Agree with this. Is she saying that the therapists and the doctors told her
" you absolutely must have this surgery"
"There is no other option than a double mastectomy"?