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.”

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/uk-surgeon-jailed-for-fraud-possessing-amputation-porn

This chap was one. Used dry ice to damage his legs.

We forgot one.

'Have you considered the possibility that you think you are in pain because you're depressed? Try taking these to help you sleep a bit better and here's the website to self refer for online counselling'.

On balance I hope this one isn't going to be live tweeted. The state of someone's balls is not something the country needs to know about.

Deciding not to operate has clearly upset the tras. Obviously a testy call.

Bah-dum-tish!

All likely to go a bit ballistic if the fox botherer gets involved.

Likely to get a bollocking in the court room

😄

I hope, but question, that the GLP has advised Lisa to try and resolve this through the NHS complaints process.

The following scenario is one where discrimination wouldn’t be found. Lisa sees a urologist for testicular pain. This leads to some conservative treatments but Lisa wants to pursue an orchiectomy instead and , in response to this, the consultant refers for surgery. The admin team book in a pre op appointment with the surgical team and a date for surgery. At the pre op surgical appointment, it comes to light that procedure hasn’t been followed in terms of exhausting conservative treatment and the surgical team explain they are referring back to the consultant stating that further conservative treatments are needed before surgery. Lisa gets upset and says he is not interested in conservation and to go ahead with the scheduled surgery. The surgeon says I won’t go ahead, I will refer you back to the consultant for treatment as per policy and to the GIC who can refer you for surgery without pain factors as the basis for it. You can have an orchiectomy via the urology route should the range of conservative treatment fail.

In this scenario, If the surgeon just referred to GIC without referring back to the consultant for follow up conservative treatment, this is likely to be considered discrimination as a non trans person would not be discharged at this point/ have their pain issues not attended to.

If the GLP are going on Lisa’s testimony, there is a high chance that Lisa has a skewed perception of what was said. If they have an urology discharge letter stating care is being transferred to GIC, unless it states that Lisa is understood to no longer experience testicular pain, discrimination is likely to be provable.

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.

Thanks Bunny. I hadn’t read all of that information.

The case will rest on whether Lisa was treated differently to a non trans patient in the same situation.

I think if/ where a surgical team typically suggest they should give it more time before concluding the results of the nerve blocking, and they book him in for a follow up - in addition to the GIC referral. The hospital will be OK. If not, they might struggle

I'm surprised that surgery was considered for 3 out of 10 pain ie mild pain in NHS terms.

Here's the link to the particulars. Lisa is on testosterone blockers, which would also raise alarm bells as to just why he was seeking a bilateral orchidectomy.

If ‘tucking’ his testicles exacerbate his testicle pain, why doesn’t he stop ‘tucking’ them?

I don’t really know where he tucks them. I suspect he tapes them somewhere, or/ and wears some type of tight, compression garment.

From the particulars, page 5:

‘I have also spoken to –
.
He informed me that it is not usual practice in the NHS for bilateral orchidectomy
to be performed in the case of pain management.” Finally, added
that the decision to cancel the Claimant’s surgery was “based on clinical
reasoning”.’

Well, that clears up any questions of chopping your bolleaux off is usual practice for pain management. It’s not.

Bunny, your link doesn’t seem to have attached. If you have time, please can you paste again.

I think the comparator used will likely determine the outcome.

GLP need to prove that differential treatment happened because Lisa is trans. Lisa is an atypical because he has a desire, unrelated to pain,
to have his testicles removed. The comparator needs to be a patient who isn’t trans who experiences testicular pain and has a strong desire to have their testicles removed.

I think GLP are wanting the comparator to be a typical patient and not to bring desire to have testicles removed into it.

Before it even gets to a court it is glaringly obvious what Lisa's motives are and the pain he experiences is hardly debilitating. He wants his testes gone for cosmetic reasons. How in the world would this be discrimination on the part of the NHS when they would not routinely offer this procedure to any males.

Save your legal fees Lisa and find a private surgeon willing to remove your balls if that is your desire. Don't be a plaything for the GLP to humiliate you.

It's here, hopefully it will work though time. If not, it's linked within the text at the GLP link.

Particulars

Link worked for me. It reads like I proposed as another plausible explanation. One surgeon thought it was reasonable to remove for pain, and spoke to two other surgeons (at para 15) who both said it’s not usual practice to remove for pain reasons unless cancer or injury.

So probably more experienced people.

Here’s the proposed comparator:

22. A cisgender man without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment
who, like the Claimant, made an informed decision that he would have the Surgery for pain management purposes, would not have had such surgery cancelled because it was a “gender service”.

From 8.

We had a long discussion about pain management pathways and she presents
an unusual situation as testicular preservation is just not a priority. We have decided to start with bilateral cord blocks as this will help guide further management and should hopefully give her some pain relief while we consider options. She is not interested in surgical pain management strategies such as cord block, but may wish to consider orchidectomy for pain. I said we will visit this after the cord blocks.

DH has just commented that this does sound unusual - he reckons most men (the comparators) will be very keen to preserve their testicles…

This

Thank you. That is interesting reading.

So, one consultant referred Lisa for surgery largely on the basis that he wasn’t interested in preserving his testicles. Then, the surgeon denied the procedure on the basis that she doesn’t remove testicles on the basis of pain management. Then, during the complaint investigation, another medic confirmed that testicles aren’t removed for pain reasons. The GLP are staying that the first referral indicates that this is proof that this isn’t true. They are not considering that an error could have been made by the referring physician. They are also suggesting that surgery has been promised. However, a referral (to be fair, often accompanied with a ‘yes, you can have the surgery type comment) never guarantees it will happen. The surgeon has to do their own assessment first.

The GLP’s comparator of a ‘cisgender’ man without the PC of GR who made an informed decision to have the surgery for pain management purposes does overlook the factor of having other motivations for removing them. A better comparator would be a patient with body dysmorphia. He might have his surgery cancelled and be referred to psychiatry. The clinical reasoning is likely to be that there are psychological motivations for surgery and these need attending to.

Meanwhile females are left to suffer in agony for years and years with conditions like
endometriosis - given painkillers and
dismissed due to medical misogyny.

Surely being denied surgery that removes your fertility despite being in significant pain is being treated EXACTLY how women in a similar situation are treated on a regular basis?

Thank you @BunnyBunbunbun the particulars explain a lot that was confusing me

Lisa had already had a vasectomy. This is one of the factors the referring physician cited as an indication for suitability for the surgery.

Women’s medical experiences aren’t the comparator for determining whether Lisa experienced discrimination. The comparator is a male without the PC of GR.