I'm asking this because I don't know and I'm genuinely curious- in what way are their complaints legally solid?
“I was a minor with a mental illness and was fast tracked onto blockers and hormones anyway when I was too young/impaired to understand the consequences of doing so, and the professionals who should have known that are responsible” would be the crux of most of these suits I think.
Then again it might not be ironclad because when a minor needs medical care it’s up to the parents. (As in, the child doesn't sign off on their own treatment plans, their parents do.) Parents have a tested right to not seek optimal medical care for their kids, to a point. (i.e. refusing to vaccinate is legal, refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds, also OK, but say, letting your kid suffer with a broken arm for weeks would probably be considered neglect.) So it could be said that the fault lies with the parents for permitting their kids to transition and not the medical team.
Surely before going in for the SRS operation, these people would all have had to sign their dick away on the dotted line of a contract/waiver that includes mentions of risks, complications and (I assume) the possibility of later regret? A lot of people will rightly say they were misled/manipulated/groomed/railroaded into it, but how do they prove that? I guess when a large enough volume of people come forward with the same complaint that will serve as evidence in and of itself, but I suspect a lot of these surgeons will claim that what they're doing is the equivalent of a woman claiming she was raped because she withdrew consent retroactively.
The sus cases are going to be the ones where surgery is happening to minors, or they’re getting SRS surgery like 3 days after their 18th birthday in which case their medical team and parents were laying down the groundwork for all this when they were minors.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see these monsters sued off the face of the Earth as much as anyone else, but ultimately these people wanted these surgeries done to them, they paid for it and they signed the paperwork.
Personally I want troonery to be treated more like the mental illness it is. If an anorexic wanted a gastric bypass, and a surgeon did that, imo they’d bear some responsibility for the injury that would cause (namely the Ana Chan dying) because the patient wasn’t able to consent because they are nuts, even if they signed the paperwork. If troonery was considered a similar mental defect that makes it impossible for the patient to make informed choices in their care then responsibility shifts back to the medical team providing those surgeries and drugs.
In other words, the National Park Service now actually correctly describes what happened at Stonewall, instead of describing the heavily fabricated account of the events that troons came up with at some point in the 2010s.
I'm slightly confused as to why the National Park Service has an info page about the Stonewall Inn. It's a bar, not a National Park. Checking Stonewall's web site I see that it was declared a national monument, but tbh that still doesn't make sense to me. Seems more appropriate for the National Register of Historic Places.
If troons hadn't gone for kids maybe they'd be able to wrest public opinion back in their favor once Orange Man leaves but they did and they won't. It's so Joever.
I think opinion polls have shown that something like 70% of Democrats aren't OK with troons on women's and girls' sports teams. Support for youth transition is also really weak. Most of the Dems I talk to about this concede that they wouldn't agree with letting a 13 year old get on cross sex hormones even if the child really, really wants to. They can also concede that letting men like Liam Thomas compete against women in sports is unfair to everyone else who is asked to compete against him.
But they still push back and say transphobia is still bad, how dare you call troons men and male, do you feel this way about black people, what about their feelings, why are you so threatened by a tranny in your restroom, you must not know any trans people, what about lesbians are you afraid of them too? etc. It's frustrating to know many liberals agree with me on the substance of TERFism but reject the message anyway because they're more concerned about tranny feelings and optics than children's and women's safety. Now I'm just totally done with the party, they couldn't manage a bordello in a gold rush and they're about as useful as tits on a bull.
