I wish these gender ideologue organizations would stop calling their practice guidelines "Standards of Care." The SoC is a legal concept applied in regulatory proceedings and malpractice litigation. The positions recommended by professional organizations can be read in as evidence to help the Court arrive at a finding of what the standard of care was *in this case in front of it*, and a finding of whether the defendant doctor met it *in this case*, or didn't. But a Court won't find that a doctor who meticulously followed a clinical practice guideline, even an gold-plated credible one, will escape liability if he improperly applied the guidelines *to this patient*. Yes, if you ignore a relevant guideline and the patient suffers harm, you've got some 'splainin' to do. But you didn't breach the standard of care just *because* you didn't follow the guideline. Nor are you home free just because you did.
As Peter says, the next step is to show that these clinical practice guidelines are scientifically invalid and shouldn't be used to inform the Court of anything. ... especially when it seems likely that the "standards" of care were relaxed to protect defendant doctors. This is the kind of self-dealing that gives judges hives....and derails the train of trust.
> "Dr. Erika Anderson, a transwoman and a psychologist ..."
👍 In general, a nice overview, summary, and bit of analysis.
Though particularly nice to see "transwoman" as a compound word -- like "crayfish" which ain't -- rather than as an adjective-noun pair, i.e., as "trans woman" which has to qualify as an oxymoron, as a contradiction in terms since "woman" is, by definition, an adult human female, and "trans woman" refers to and denotes an adult human male.
Though your "psychologist" should be in quote marks. A bunch of those "doctors" -- Mengele wannabes -- should lose their licenses if not be strung up by their nuts -- at least if they still have them attached (e.g., Marci Bowers who apparently doesn't) -- and be left to twist in the wind, figuratively speaking, of course ..
As for your "statute of limitations", I seem to recall seeing that some "Red States" were talking about repealing those statutes, at least for gender "medicine" cases. Maybe Trump can do something to make that State-wide -- would certainly have my vote.
In some states the statute of limitations for young victims of sexual abuse was extended so that the clock starts when the damage from the abuse is first discovered, by a medical or psychiatric evaluation, for example. Something similar could happen for detransitioners.
Thanks. I just asked Google for an update on that question 🙂:
Me: has their been any discussion of a change in the statute of limitations for detransitioners in gender affirming surgeries in the US?
QUOTE; Google: Yes, there has been significant discussion and active legislative movement in the United States to change the statute of limitations for detransitioners seeking to file lawsuits related to gender-affirming surgeries, particularly for those who were minors at the time of the procedures.
Recent developments (as of early 2026) show a push to significantly extend these deadlines to allow for lawsuits long after the standard medical malpractice window closes.
Legislative and Policy Proposals
Federal "Victims of Chemical or Surgical Mutilation Act" (VCSMA): The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has endorsed this legislation, which aims to ban gender-transition procedures on children and create a private right of action for individuals who later "detransition." The proposed legislation would create a long statute of limitations: 25 years after the victim's 18th birthday or four years after they stop receiving treatment, whichever is later.
State-Level Efforts (Texas): In Texas, 60 Republican state representatives expressed support for extending the statute of limitations. UNQUOTE
My takeaway is that there isn’t much progress on lengthening the statutes of limitations, but the phase of detransitioners going public has just begun.
Last week the American Society of Plastic Surgeons issued a formal position statement recommending that gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgeries be delayed until a patient is at least 19 years old.
So at least they won't be mutilating children any more.
That will happen only to the extent that plastic surgeons heed the recommendation from their professional society, which isn't binding on them. (Yes it is a comprehensive and well-thought-out position statement that goes well upstream from surgery itself. Bravo to them.) A plaintiff lawyer will certainly bring that recommendation into Court.
I expect that many if not most of the plastic surgeons who have been operating on minors will try to ignore the guidelines. However, they will have to contend with resistance from health care insurers, liability insurers and hospital administrators. The guidelines will be a factor with younger patients where one or both parents oppose the surgery and the matter ends up in family court.
I wish these gender ideologue organizations would stop calling their practice guidelines "Standards of Care." The SoC is a legal concept applied in regulatory proceedings and malpractice litigation. The positions recommended by professional organizations can be read in as evidence to help the Court arrive at a finding of what the standard of care was *in this case in front of it*, and a finding of whether the defendant doctor met it *in this case*, or didn't. But a Court won't find that a doctor who meticulously followed a clinical practice guideline, even an gold-plated credible one, will escape liability if he improperly applied the guidelines *to this patient*. Yes, if you ignore a relevant guideline and the patient suffers harm, you've got some 'splainin' to do. But you didn't breach the standard of care just *because* you didn't follow the guideline. Nor are you home free just because you did.
As Peter says, the next step is to show that these clinical practice guidelines are scientifically invalid and shouldn't be used to inform the Court of anything. ... especially when it seems likely that the "standards" of care were relaxed to protect defendant doctors. This is the kind of self-dealing that gives judges hives....and derails the train of trust.
I hope there are many. Trans woman just killed children at a school in Tumbler Ridge, BC, Canada. This ideology destroys lives!
> "Dr. Erika Anderson, a transwoman and a psychologist ..."
👍 In general, a nice overview, summary, and bit of analysis.
Though particularly nice to see "transwoman" as a compound word -- like "crayfish" which ain't -- rather than as an adjective-noun pair, i.e., as "trans woman" which has to qualify as an oxymoron, as a contradiction in terms since "woman" is, by definition, an adult human female, and "trans woman" refers to and denotes an adult human male.
Though your "psychologist" should be in quote marks. A bunch of those "doctors" -- Mengele wannabes -- should lose their licenses if not be strung up by their nuts -- at least if they still have them attached (e.g., Marci Bowers who apparently doesn't) -- and be left to twist in the wind, figuratively speaking, of course ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marci_Bowers
As for your "statute of limitations", I seem to recall seeing that some "Red States" were talking about repealing those statutes, at least for gender "medicine" cases. Maybe Trump can do something to make that State-wide -- would certainly have my vote.
In some states the statute of limitations for young victims of sexual abuse was extended so that the clock starts when the damage from the abuse is first discovered, by a medical or psychiatric evaluation, for example. Something similar could happen for detransitioners.
Thanks. I just asked Google for an update on that question 🙂:
Me: has their been any discussion of a change in the statute of limitations for detransitioners in gender affirming surgeries in the US?
QUOTE; Google: Yes, there has been significant discussion and active legislative movement in the United States to change the statute of limitations for detransitioners seeking to file lawsuits related to gender-affirming surgeries, particularly for those who were minors at the time of the procedures.
Recent developments (as of early 2026) show a push to significantly extend these deadlines to allow for lawsuits long after the standard medical malpractice window closes.
Legislative and Policy Proposals
Federal "Victims of Chemical or Surgical Mutilation Act" (VCSMA): The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has endorsed this legislation, which aims to ban gender-transition procedures on children and create a private right of action for individuals who later "detransition." The proposed legislation would create a long statute of limitations: 25 years after the victim's 18th birthday or four years after they stop receiving treatment, whichever is later.
State-Level Efforts (Texas): In Texas, 60 Republican state representatives expressed support for extending the statute of limitations. UNQUOTE
Still in the works but definitely some movement:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3791578/doj-backs-bill-extending-statute-of-limitations-detransitioner-lawsuits/
https://thetexan.news/issues/healthcare/60-house-republicans-sign-statement-supporting-detransitioner-case-to-be-heard-by-texas-supreme-court/article_4c1191eb-d4a8-4a94-b2d6-dd9ca4b3aa99.html
Thanks, this is useful.
My takeaway is that there isn’t much progress on lengthening the statutes of limitations, but the phase of detransitioners going public has just begun.
Sorry to get dark here for a moment, but have there been any detransitioner suicides?
Yes.
I could see that leading to a lawsuit. Even if it’s not successful, there have been plenty of other unorthodox suicide lawsuits in recent years.
Last week the American Society of Plastic Surgeons issued a formal position statement recommending that gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgeries be delayed until a patient is at least 19 years old.
So at least they won't be mutilating children any more.
That will happen only to the extent that plastic surgeons heed the recommendation from their professional society, which isn't binding on them. (Yes it is a comprehensive and well-thought-out position statement that goes well upstream from surgery itself. Bravo to them.) A plaintiff lawyer will certainly bring that recommendation into Court.
I expect that many if not most of the plastic surgeons who have been operating on minors will try to ignore the guidelines. However, they will have to contend with resistance from health care insurers, liability insurers and hospital administrators. The guidelines will be a factor with younger patients where one or both parents oppose the surgery and the matter ends up in family court.
Ah. Right! Parents do have some standing in this, after all.
Hey, I would like to email you a question Do you have an email?t's something important but nice article By the way