XPost: alt.transgendered, talk.politics.medicine, or.politics   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: someone@outlook.com   
      
   Detransitioners have struggled to bring malpractice cases to trial. By   
   the time regret emerges, it often comes after the statute of limitations   
   has passed for civil actions. In White Plains, New York, a 22-year-old   
   victim of medical maiming managed to get her case in front of a jury in   
   time, in what appears to be the first detransitioner lawsuit to proceed   
   to a verdict and judgment.   
      
   Fox Varian got a $2 million judgment, a story that nearly no one except   
   Benjamin Ryan and Stacy Robinson at the Epoch Times covered in any   
   depth:   
      
      
   Benjamin Ryan   
   @benryanwriter   
   ·   
   Follow   
   BREAKING: 1st Detransitioner to Take a Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit to   
   Trial Wins $2 Million Judgement   
      
   Fox Varian sued her Westchester, NY, area psychologist and plastic   
   surgeon for the gender-transition mastectomy she got at 16.   
      
   I was the only reporter to attend the entire Show more   
      
   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_8aIi6WQAAbvyu?format=png&name=small   
      
   Ryan's tweet does not go into further details, although he promises more   
   soon at his Substack. The Epoch Times has more on the verdict and   
   judgment, in which the jury seemed to parse the claim and their   
   conclusion carefully around the specifics of Varian's case rather than a   
   broader condemnation of pediatric sex-change therapies. The jury also   
   reduced the award significantly from Varian's demand, Epoch Times   
   reporter Stacy Robinson reports:   
      
   Jurors awarded Fox Varian, now 22 and no longer identifying as   
   transgender, $2 million in damages, with $1.6 million for past and   
   future pain and suffering, and another $400,000 for future medical   
   expenses.   
      
   The jurors found that in many respects the surgeon and psychologist had   
   skipped important steps when evaluating if she should go forward with   
   the surgery and had not adequately communicated with each other. These   
   missteps were a “departure from the standard of care,” they decided.   
      
   During closing arguments, Varian’s attorney Adam Deutsch had asked the   
   jury for $8 million in damages. To justify that sum, he quoted earlier   
   testimony where Varian described her reaction to seeing her post-surgery   
   chest.   
      
   “I immediately had a thought that this was wrong, and it couldn’t be   
   true,” Varian said. She also said that the surgery left her with nerve   
   pain, which she described as “searing hot ... ripping sensations across   
   my chest.”   
      
   Robinson also notes that Varian's suit did not ask the jury to determine   
   the validity of pediatric sex-change therapies and surgeries. Their suit   
   presented the narrower question as to the standard of care at the time.   
   That may have led to the lower award, as may have Varian's initial   
   professions of satisfaction with the surgery – while still a minor. The   
   verdict may have rested on evidence that Varian had told providers at   
   the Albany Pride Center that she had "felt pressure" to decide on a   
   gender identity when her dysphoria had only left her confused. Her   
   doctors never bothered to consult with that center, apparently, and   
   Varian's attorneys painted them as just going along with whatever the   
   clients demanded rather than offer a competent and complete clinical   
   analysis before committing to irreversible surgery (mastectomies, in   
   this case).   
      
   That may not provide the most robust results in the effort to shut down   
   the pediatric sex-change industry, Aaron Walker writes in an excellent   
   explainer at our sister site Twitchy:   
      
   So, there are two flies in this ointment. First off, the verdict is less   
   than what her lawyer asked for and it doesn’t really feel like the jury   
   was throwing the book at the defendants like we think they deserve. Two   
   million dollars is nothing to sneeze at, but after we talked about   
   Seattle getting hit with about $25 million yesterday, this seems low for   
   our taste.   
      
   But here’s the more basic problem. The courts should be finding that   
   this kind of surgery is inherently illegal. Naturally parents should be   
   able to consent to even sterilizing surgery when it is based on medical   
   (not psychological) necessity. So, for instance, if a thirteen-year-old   
   girl has ovarian cancer and sterilizing surgery is the best way to   
   remove the cancer… it would be heartbreaking, but her parents should be   
   able to consent to that. But essentially cosmetic surgery because she   
   subjectively believes she is a boy should not be allowed. ...   
      
   But for some reason, this wasn’t the basis of the decision. We don’t   
   know if Ms. Varian asked for the court to rule on that topic and what,   
   if anything, the court might have said on the subject. But we would   
   prefer for the court to view gender transition for minors to be   
   inherently illegal and that any consent by the parents to be seen as   
   ineffective.   
      
   Instead, the case proceeded on the premise that sometimes transitions   
   are justified, but the doctors screwed it up in this case, mistakenly   
   identifying her as transgender and in need of so-called ‘gender   
   affirming’ surgery. It still took $2 million out of their hide, but that   
   only sends the message of ‘be more careful when you transition children’   
   rather than ‘don’t transition children at all, ya freaks!’   
      
   So, yes, this is good news, but not the best news possible on this   
   front.   
      
   I agree with Aaron and share his disappointment, but there was no better   
   option in this particular setting. The reason that Varian didn't ask for   
   that kind of a ruling is likely because it would have been more   
   difficult to prove the larger question by a preponderance of evidence,   
   and it would have vastly expanded the defense resources against Varian.   
   She took the shot that would work the best by keeping it focused on the   
   specific malpractice in her case. To aim higher would likely require   
   some sort of class-action case, where plaintiffs could combine resources   
   to make the case Aaron envisions, and the targets would almost certainly   
   be the malpractice insurers rather than specific providers.   
      
   That kind of case should be brought, but it might require legislative   
   action to suspend or extend the statute of limitations on such claims.   
   Legislatures have done this in the past when it comes to sexual abuse   
   claims, prompted by both the scandals in the Catholic Church as well as   
   the #MeToo movement and abuse scandals in education that have come to   
   light since then. That may prove difficult, as the majority of these   
   pediatric sex-change centers are in blue states that are far more likely   
   to provide "sanctuary" to such providers than to open them up to   
   long-term malpractice liabilities.   
      
   Benjamin Ryan covered such a case in November, in which a   
   detransitioner's lawsuit was denied because seven years had passed since   
   her surgery:   
      
   A California judge last week dismissed the lawsuit filed by a former   
   patient of leading pediatric gender medicine specialist Dr. Johanna   
   Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues. Attorneys for the plaintiff, a young   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)