Detransitioner who thought he was trans girl says he bitterly regrets taking puberty blockers from 13 and having testicles removed at 19 because he didn't want to be gay

submitted by DrRaccoon from dailymail.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JulienMayfair 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to be a bad influence, so you couldn't -- in the U.S. at least -- charge someone under current law. It's like cults. You can't charge cult leaders with the crime of being a cult leader, because it's not a crime, no matter how much actual damage they do to other people's lives.

Doctors, on the other hand, are bound by professional ethics, the first and foremost of which is the famous, "Do No Harm." If they are harming patients in their care, they should be sued for malpractice. I think I remember hearing recently that in some states, insurance companies providing malpractice insurance for doctors were refusing to insure doctors who practice "gender affirming care." I think the insurance companies see which way this is going.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But "Do No Harm" means that these doctors are literally in a no-win situation because the detransitioners make it clear they'll off themselves if you don't approve them for transition: Either you trans them and do harm to them, or you do not, they off themselves, and you did harm to them by not.

The tiebreaker would be them threatening to off themselves, which goes to "not a jury in the world would convict them of malpractice because the doctor was forced into doing the transition under threat of the person suing them offing themselves." This would absolutely fall under the duress defense, and the vast majority of doctors and parents will absolutely be able to claim duress in this regard and get off (or get a vastly reduced punishment)- but the groomers will not have that.

[–]JulienMayfair 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So the only practical approach may be to restrict medical transition legally for those under the age of 18.

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Likely, though again, no-win situation: It makes sense, but all it takes is one doctor who restricts medical transition to an under-18, the kid offs themselves, and the grieving parents file a malpractice lawsuit under "If only you had just agreed to transition them my baby would still be alive today!" - and the doctor's in the same boat as they would have been otherwise.

The real practical approach would be: Have doctors/parents save the receipts. That way, when the detransitioner inevitably does make a lawsuit against them, the doctors/parents can prove to the court "wait a second, we agreed under duress against our will because YOU held your own life hostage to get to transition. You threatened to off yourself if we didn't agree to do this transition/these surgeries to you" = and would require the courts to take this information into place and make the legal decision "Careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

(Note: This also ties to why the groomers could have a chance at being sued as responsible in this case; since they do most of their work on the Internet and were a friend of the detransitioner, the detransitioner likely has receipts or can get from Skype/Discord/etc. the receipts proving the groomer gave them a script of how to threaten suicide to get their way from the parents/doctors, or gave them ways to get HRT without it...which in turn can lead to courts finding them culpable for it.)