Active discussions

Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

GLP - We’re suing a hospital for trans discrimination

257 replies

toyl9876 · 29/05/2026 14:01

https://goodlawproject.org/were-suing-a-hospital-for-trans-discrimination/

“In May 2025, Lisa* was booked in for surgery to have her testes removed due to chronic pain. But a week before the operation was going to take place, the hospital called to say the surgery was cancelled.

The hospital claimed they couldn’t operate because the surgery was classed as gender-affirming care. But surgery for pain has nothing to do with gender-affirming care, and refusing to treat someone just because of their gender identity is discrimination.”

We’re suing a hospital for trans discrimination | Good Law Project

A hospital refused surgery to a woman in pain, just because she’s trans – so we’re taking them to court

https://goodlawproject.org/were-suing-a-hospital-for-trans-discrimination/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
PrettyDamnCosmic · 31/05/2026 18:08

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 31/05/2026 15:11

Show quote history

The crucial details in Paragraph 12 that detail why the surgery was cancelled are completely redacted. Could it be the claimant is DIYing his oestrogen?

Coatsoff42 · 31/05/2026 18:15

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 31/05/2026 13:48

That is a possibility; the realisation they were opening the door to SRS via the backdoor.

The comparator will be a man who does not identify as a woman; would he in the same clinical circumstances be offered this treatment in the way that this patient was not, with the sole reason for the difference being the gender identity? And if this is the case, then what are the additional complications of the situation due to the gender identity that led to 'no' being seen as a reasonable answer?

Yes, the comparator would have to be a man, how on earth would it ever be a woman? If it ever should be, it’s physically impossible here.

IlfordGap · 31/05/2026 18:21

PrettyDamnCosmic · 31/05/2026 18:08

The crucial details in Paragraph 12 that detail why the surgery was cancelled are completely redacted. Could it be the claimant is DIYing his oestrogen?

Show quote history

Could it be the claimant is DIYing his oestrogen?

Paragraph 6 would seem to say that. (And nowhere else does it mention that he is being prescribed anything, or is under the care of any other medical service.)

So maybe he hadn't told them, before the heavily redacted exchange of para 12? And then that changed everything.

6. The Claimant has been taking gender affirming hormones [redaction of about five words]. The Claimant has been referred to NHS Gender Services, however, there is a lengthy waiting list and therefore any further gender affirming treatment is not presently available to her

IlfordGap · 31/05/2026 18:29

But then it also says this, in Para 10:

She is a transwoman currently on testosterone blockers, so the benefit would be that she can likely reduce or stop these post-surgery. I will leave this to her Endocrinologist to monitor and decide.

So maybe the referrer knew he was DIYing, but the surgeon didn't? Am confused.

IlfordGap · 31/05/2026 18:34

Para 20 (2):

The Claimant has been on the list [redacted] (in order to access hormone treatment, which she currently receives privately)

Definitely DIYing.

IlfordGap · 31/05/2026 18:44

BunnyBunbunbun · 30/05/2026 20:57

From having read the Particulars, it's clear Lisa was pushing for a bilateral orchidectomy even when told that a procedure such as a cord block was standard for testicular pain and orchidectomies only done in severe cases, such as cancer or extreme pain. He did have cord blocks but then claimed they didn't resolve the pain, even though prior to the procedure his pain was not extreme, usually at the level of three out of ten (more energy he was tucking).

The whole paragraph that seems to explain the reasons given as to why the orchidectomy surgery was apparently cancelled is redacted.

The waiting time between the cord block and the supposed date of the orchidectomy was only about two months, incredibly little time for Lisa to have recovered from the cord blocks and seen to what extent they worked, to be re-examined and accepted for a bilateral orchidectomy and then to be given a date.

Seems like Lisa had always been pushing for a bilateral orchidectomy, even though he was told such procedures are used in rare circumstances, usually life threatening, and his pain level was not severe. After the supposedly "failed" cord block procedures, the doctors must have realised that Lisa wanted the orchidectomy not for pain management reasons but for psychological reasons.

Yes, Lisa definitely wanted them chopped off.

  • Cord block first? "Nah, chop them off."

  • Lisa realises he cannot really refuse the cord block. They do it. Lisa pretends for a bit, then says "Chop them off".

  • Might not work for your pain? "Don't care, chop them off."

Surgeons start to get wise to this... The big question is what are the GLP hiding in Para 12.

Chersfrozenface · 01/06/2026 00:26

The doctor who damaged his own legs in order to get them amputated was mentioned earlier.

He was a fan of Marius Gustavson's EunuchMaker website.

Well coincidentally he's just been struck off.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/doctor-gruesome-fetish-struck-off-b1284307.html

New posts on this thread. Refresh page