GLP - We’re suing a hospital for trans discrimination

[toyl9876]

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.”

I’m not arguing. You’re completely making up what I’ve said and I can’t be bothered anymore.

There are likely several different surgical procedures which all come under the broad heading of "removal of testicles". And various different kinds of follow-up care.

The devil will be in the detail: we don't know if the procedure offered to male-identifying men matches what would be offered as "gender affirming care" for a female-identifying man or what Lisa wanted or would accept.

Having watched GLP in action for a few years, I'm certain they have spun the story in several critical ways and when all the facts are laid out things are (from Lisa's perspective), at best not clear-cut at all.

GLP is thoroughly invested in maximizing it's income from public donations, the better to pay its principal. It's not a charity and it cannot be said that it acts for the public good, whatever it claims.

If it was simply the case that the patient's symptoms didn't warrant surgical intervention, the surgery never would have been scheduled in the first place

This isn’t true. This sort of thing happens all the time. People are scheduled for surgery and someone sensible comes along and says “why on earth is this person having an operation for this?” It’s usually a stroke of luck that someone sensible gets involved. Of course the opposite happens too, where no one sensible comes along and people frequently undergo operations they don’t need.

Surgical intervention is not always black and white. It’s frequently subjective as to whether surgical intervention is warranted. The old addage is “a competent surgeon knows how to operate, a good surgeon knows when to operate, the best surgeon knows when not to operate.”

Once again for the thousandth time, if the problem was that Lisa wanted a type of surgery that the surgeon couldn't perform, this would have been established during the consult stage and a date for surgery would not have been booked in.

The only plausible variation on this is if the surgeon themselves made a huge mistake by offering to do a procedure they weren't able or commissioned to do, and this mistake for some reason didn't come to light until just a week before surgery - this might not be discrimination but would still be a huge mistake on the hospital's part and one Lisa deserves a proper explanation and apology for (as well as an explanation as to why she wasn't offered an alternative surgery when the mistake became apparent). But I know that explanation is less appealing to some folks here as it doesn't demonize Lisa sufficiently.

The only plausible variation on this

This isn’t true. This isn’t the only plausible variation.

It’s also plausible that some young enthusiastic surgeon said “yes, you have pain in your testicles, ergo removing your testicles will stop the pain. Simples.” And a senior experienced surgeon came along and said “What’s the source of the pain? What’s the rationale for removing them? What if it’s referred pain? How can you be sure the pain is physical? How can you be sure the pain will improve?”

It's hardly a stroke of luck for the patient if the surgery is cancelled without any alternative treatment being offered and they are left in pain for years with their issue unresolved. Doesn't sound very "sensible" really does it. And once again, if nothing else, Lisa still deserves an explanation for why and how this happened, and why this sensible person didn't suggest another way to cure her problem if they were so convinced she didn't need surgery for it.

What, exactly, would be the discriminatory motive on the part of the team? It seems probable that a gender specialist would be more appropriate both for diagnosis and treatment.

The real issue is surely the very long waiting list for gender referrals.

You don’t know if he hasn’t been offered an explanation. If you rely on what GLP say you’ll never know. It could transpire that it’s been made clear that the treating team think it’s a somatic pain, it needs psychological treatment, has been referred to a pain team for such treatment and for mental health support but that option was rejected.

Have you not ever dealt with lawyers before? I have - and counted out of 25 statements in their response to the court, one correct thing - my name. They repeat what they are told, as they can only act on behalf of somebody or an organisation on the assumption that their client is telling the truth.

Once again for the thousandth time, if the problem was that Lisa wanted a type of surgery that the surgeon couldn't perform, this would have been established during the consult stage and a date for surgery would not have been booked in.

It might. or it might not.

Many people (including you) are jumping to very remote and definite conclusions based on - nothing.

Lisa may have agreed to one procedure, and then changed his mind. The surgeon could have come across some valid medical reasons to have to change the procedure later. There are many possibilities one can imagine that don't stem from bias.

Repeating something many times (even a thousand times) doesn't make them any truer in fact or more persuasive in argument. We really have no idea of the whole process here.

In fact that's why we have a judicial process, at which all the relevant facts can be presented, on the basis of which an arbiter can reach a decision.

Um yes, like I said, the "plausible variation" is that the mistake was the surgeon's. Which still doesn't explain how this happened, why the mistake was not identified sooner, and why no alternative treatment was offered, all of which Lisa deserves answers to.

It could be that an anaesthetist ran through the medical notes and objected? That would be a late decision. I don’t know what level of anaesthetic was requested but their objections are serious and late in the day.

Is this going to be like a similar surgical case I’ve read about recently, where someone was supposedly “refused” surgery on the basis that they’d insisted on going on a women’s ward but the hospital wouldn’t place them there?

Comparator is a male without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment with testicular pain

No, you said “The only plausible variation on this is if the surgeon themselves made a huge mistake by offering to do a procedure they weren't able or commissioned to do”

There are other plausible variations. There isn’t just one. You have made your own false conclusion.

And chucking in a last minute request for removal of the scrotum, which may then involve plastics as well as urology.

Excellent

Possibly the trust insists on pre-op assessments following referrals being done by people who think they are as knowledgable as doctors, but aren't?

I'm jumping to this conclusion because I've had three different surgeries on the NHS now as well as supported family members through many more, and I know full well how many consults it takes to get a surgery agreed upon and scheduled, even one which is relatively straightforward and unquestionably necessary. As well as being good practise, it's for their own ass-covering, you are not setting a foot near surgery until you've signed a consent form which spells out exactly what's going to happen and all the ways it might kill you, so no, I'm sorry, there is absolutely no way surgery was only a week away and a surgeon still hadn't had a clear conversation with Lisa to establish why surgery was indicated and exactly what was going to happen.

I'm also not basing my conclusions on nothing, I'm basing them on the facts we know:

• Surgery was scheduled to happen
• It was only a week away when cancelled
• Lisa was told the reason for cancellation was that the surgery was classed as gender affirming care
• She was not offered any alternative treatment and remains untreated and in pain

So yes sorry any "explanations" which don't take into account the facts above aren't founded in anything but imagination.

Lisa may have agreed to one procedure, and then changed his mind.

Why would somebody change their mind about having surgery then sue because that surgery didn't happen?

Good lord. Clearly we only ever need to hear one side of a contested case. It's all so simple. We could save billions in court costs.

so no, I'm sorry, there is absolutely no way surgery was only a week away and a surgeon still hadn't had a clear conversation with Lisa to establish why surgery was indicated and exactly what was going to happen.

I know of a child who was a week away from getting a Cochlear implant before someone finally twigged the child wasn’t deaf.

I'm basing them on the facts we know:

And everyone here knows the words “facts” and “Good Law Project” have a very shaky relationship.

Notably what I haven't said is it is definitely discrimination. That remains to be proven in court. As I've said several times now, another possible scenario is the hospital made an enormous mistake by agreeing to do a surgery that wasn't possible, wasn't indicated, or wasn't commissioned, and not correcting their mistake until the last minute and not offering any alternative treatment. Which would be bad but not necessarily discriminatory.

What I'm pushing back against here is the automatic assumptions by many that Lisa herself must be the one at fault, must be lying, chancing, or making unreasonable demands that can't be met, assumptions that aren't founded in any evidence that we know, run counter to some of the evidence we know, because I know - and I suspect you know as well - people are only making these assumptions because Lisa is trans and thinking the worst of trans people is a kneejerk default reaction for some.

Whereas "facts" and "FWR" have barely met.

🤣🤣 if you say so.

Facts like humans can’t change sex, men can’t be women, and children aren’t born in the wrong body are pretty standard here.

Whereas “I need to have my testicles removed to help me achieve my inner woman” is the fundamental principle of this case.

And, thankfully, this will be litigated in front of a real judge and argued on evidence and points of law.

We will see, we will see. Always assuming that Good Laugh raise the shekels.