So, on the 30th of January, a New York jury delivered a landmark verdict in a lawsuit brought by detransitioner Fox Varian. Her case claimed medical malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent. She was thus awarded $2 million (specifically $1.6 million for past/future pain and suffering, as well as $400,000 for future medical costs) in damages against her former psychologist, Dr Kenneth Einhorn, and the surgeon who performed her double mastectomy, being plastic surgeon Dr Simon Chin, when she was just 16 and identified as transgender at that time. This is believed to be the first detransitioner case to reach a jury trial AND result in a plaintiff victory.

Well, after a three-week trial in Westchester County, jurors found both defendants liable, concluding that they failed to meet the standard of care when evaluating Varian for surgery and coordinating her treatment (which is very important to remember for the duration of our discussion, and I’ll flag this point when we proceed to zoom in on this).

Now, what was quite striking is that Varian, the plaintiff, testified that she felt regret and distress after the procedure. Additionally, she described that feelings of “shame,” were conjured when seeing herself after the surgery as it was hard to face that she is disfigured for life. Her mother, Claire Deacon, further told the court that she had opposed the surgery but ultimately consented because she feared her daughter might harm herself if the procedure did not go forward. She even testified that Dr Einhorn reinforced those fears (also very important to remember).

But, ultimately, Varian’s attorney argued that the psychologist played a central role in moving the process forward and failed to adequately explore alternative explanations or treatments before surgery was approved. And the jury then proceeded to award $1.6 million for pain and suffering and an additional $400,000 for future medical expenses, as mentioned.

THE VERDICT FELL SHORT OF WHAT SOME MEDICAL FREEDOM ACTIVISTS HAD HOPED FOR

Now, what we’ve just outlined and heard is the build up toward the jury verdict. And all of this is truly a remarkable and important first. However, I would also like to highlight what was not accomplished by the jury verdict, which also demands a fair deal of attention. In essence, the decision from the jury fell short of the broader systemic condemnation sought by many who understand the ills of the transgender agenda. And this is primarily because the jury’s findings were strictly confined to the specific conduct of the defendants in this individual case. Jurors determined that the psychologist and surgeon had deviated from professional standards – such as skipping key safeguards in assessing readiness for irreversible procedures and not adequately securing informed consent about long-term risks and alternatives. 

As such, crucially, the verdict did not declare gender-affirming surgeries, hormone therapies, or other medical interventions for minors inherently unlawful, experimental, or tantamount to “mutilation.” It avoided any blanket judgment on the legitimacy of transgender medicine itself, the validity of gender dysphoria diagnoses in youth, or the ethical permissibility of such treatments when proper protocols are followed.

And so, for detransitioners, parents and activists who know that these interventions are a form of medical experimentation on vulnerable children, the outcome felt limited and incremental. What is needed in the status quo is a more sweeping declaration that would challenge the entire framework of pediatric gender care, potentially influencing policy, licensing boards, and public discourse. But, instead, the ruling reinforces that malpractice liability arises from negligence or substandard practice in specific instances, and not from the interventions per se. Organizations like WPATH emphasized post-verdict that the case concerned individual deviations from care standards, not a referendum on gender-affirming treatment overall.

That said, make no mistake, in the broader transgender debate, and when considered alongside other litigation on transgender cases, including in the US Supreme Court, each battle cumulatively represents a massive victory (courtesy of the Church of Jesus Christ). And I say this because we are beginning to see an institutionalisation of the opposition towards the mutilation of children. For instance, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has now adopted a policy in which doctors should delay gender-related surgeries until the age of 19. While this does not move their policy away from these surgeries, it certainly does make them less acceptable for minors below the age of 19 – which is an incredibly valuable marginal change.

IMPORTANTLY, THE U.S. DETRANSITIONER JURY VERDICT IS A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR ALL THERAPISTS

Now, here’s another important contribution by this jury verdict. Fox Varian’s case will now serve as a cautionary tale for all therapists, surgeons, and really all medical practitioners involved in the transitioning of children. And this is where we ought to bring in the first point we flagged, in which jurors found both defendants (being the psychologist and plastic surgeon) liable in the harm inflicted on Fox Varian, concluding that they failed to meet the standard of care when evaluating Varian for surgery and coordinating her treatment.

And the essence of this is that the jury found negligence in the standard of care; meaning that the psychologist approved her transition too hastily, and the surgeon proceeded without ensuring that Varian fully understood the permanent consequences. Her testimony even described years of distress after detransitioning including physical complications, emotional devastation, and a sense that her youth and vulnerability had been exploited rather than protected.

Well, this outcome sends a powerful and utterly necessary warning across borders, including to the UK and Europe. And this is because it highlights the growing litigation risk for therapists working with young people (and I would argue vulnerable adults too) who are told that they are apparently transgender, or affirmed in this belief, with surgery being recommended. The necessity of this warning lies in 2 considerations.

First, affirmative therapists are trained to immediately validate their client’s gender identity. This approach leaves very little room for comprehensive exploration of underlying issues. Potential contributors such as social contagion, trauma, neurodivergence like autism, or transient adolescent identity confusion may go unexamined. Additionally, medical risks – including sterility, bone density loss, or surgical complications – are not always weighed adequately against the claimed benefits. As such, what should be rigorous, evidence-based therapy processes devolve into uncritical endorsement of transgenderism, thus exposing patients to irreversible harm.

Second, private admissions from some gender clinicians reveal troubling attitudes toward these interventions. For instance, in exclusive footage obtained by The Free Press from closed professional conferences, practitioners have acknowledged performing profound, life-altering procedures on vulnerable young people without robust supporting evidence – and even expressed pride in doing so. Discussions have included cases of patients with complex needs (such as severe mental health conditions) seeking extreme modifications, with some clinicians advocating a shift from protective gatekeeping to collaborative facilitation, even for those inflicted with psychosis or multiple personalities. As such, these revelations suggest a culture where money-incentivised experimentation outpaces caution, where prioritising ideological goals eroded the duty to “first, do no harm.”

And so, Varian’s victory highlights the human cost when standards slip. She endured years of regret, physical and psychological scars, and a lost sense of bodily integrity – all during formative years when protection should have been paramount. The verdict thus reflects a jury’s recognition of that harm. Additionally, this case signals a potential reckoning. With dozens of similar detransitioner lawsuits pending across the US, providers must now reassess practices to ensure that they prioritise genuine care.

THE COMMON DENOMINATOR WITH MOST ALLEGED “TRANS” CHILDREN IS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

Now, we also need (once again) to address the suicide factor, which we also flagged earlier on. So, while we know that there is no scientific study that supports gender dysphoria, doctors, teachers and activists in support of the gender agenda make the claim that children can tell from an early age when they have been “mis–genderred”. They go a step further to say that it is oppressive and discriminatory not to allow them to dress or act in the manner that they identify – so much so, that in other western countries like Canada and states like California in the US, there has been a call to criminalise parents who refuse to support so-called trans children in one way or the other.

Some direct rebuttal. First, and (once again), there is no scientific evidence to support an experience of gender dysphoria, therefore what they claim to be intuitive knowledge from a child when they claim to be “mis-gendered” can not be regarded as an objective fact. Secondly, as we have established in previous discussions, there is a general consensus that children are not regarded as fully mature beings who are capable of complete expression or legal consent. The reason for this is that children, in all that they progressively learn, do not always fully appreciate the complex concepts (which is why complex concepts are simplified and taught at their level of understanding). Children are also not fully able to appreciate the consequences of actions, even when they are taught those actions are wrong or right (which is why we do not allow children to make complex decisions, especially irreversible ones). So, generally, we have this understanding in society, it’s part of the reason why five year olds do not vote in national elections, or why children do not have legal standing to represent themselves in court, or even why parents/legal guardians generally determine health decisions for their children.

But now, the gender agenda both undermines the vulnerability of children by overstating their ability to understand complex concepts on sexuality and even the ability of children to give informed consent. Subsequently, it takes advantage of the impressionable nature and vulnerability of children and even young adults. I say this because there is often a specific demographic of children who tend to become victims of the trans agenda, and it is children often suffering from mental health issues or experiencing discomfort during puberty changes. They are then prescribed chemical or surgical castration, because it is simply a quick fix to what is really an unrelated mental health issue. Some of them have come out to testify of the often undiscussed harms they suffer.

POLITICISED MEDICINE MANIPULATED MENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS FOR THEIR AGENDA

From this just seen documentary excerpt alone, we can infer that the common denominator in the cases we just heard was mental health issues. These people were in need of help that addressed the root cause of their issues, and not a counter-narrative that suggested something completely unrelated. But the reason why transgenderism was presented to them as an option is because – despite all the talk of gender ideology activists on how there are more than two genders and how gender is not binary, IRONICALLY, trans and gender ideology activists will provide to the children they target a so-called solution that is inherently binary; because they state that if you are not happy as a girl, then it must be because you are a boy or vise versa. Ultimately, these so-called activists and the medical practitioners that they co-opted lied to children to tell them they would become better. 

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL CONTAGION IN THE TRANSGENDER DEBATE

Then, on top of what medical practitioners do, social contagion actually plays a significant role in the recent surge of transgender identification, particularly among adolescents and young adults. This is to say that the dramatic rise in individuals identifying as transgender – especially among teenage girls – cannot be fully explained by greater societal acceptance alone. Instead, patterns suggest that ideas and behaviours spread through social networks, much like other psychological phenomena such as eating disorders, or self-harm.

Additionally, the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), which was introduced by researcher Lisa Littman in 2018, describes cases where gender dysphoria emerges suddenly during or after puberty in youth with no prior childhood history of gender nonconformity. However, parental reports often highlight clusters: including multiple friends in a peer group identifying as transgender around the same time, frequently coinciding with heavy social media exposure. Platforms also amplify transgender narratives, communities, and influencers, thus creating environments where vulnerable adolescents – often dealing with anxiety, depression, or body image issues – then adopt these identities as a coping mechanism or form of social belonging.

In fact, evidence supporting social contagion includes sharp increases in gender dysphoria diagnoses, particularly among natal females in countries like Sweden (which has a reported 1,500 percent rise in adolescent girls from 2008–2018) and the US, where transgender identification among young adults quintupled in under a decade. Studies analyzing large datasets show alignments between spikes in social media use, adolescent mental health declines since around 2013, and rising trans identification. Kindly have a listen to this mother’s story, which makes this trend incredibly clear.

THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN TRANSGENDERISM AND PARENTAL RIGHTS

Which then brings us to the argument of choice, because what transgenderism advocates tend to come down to is making the argument that parents have a right to make choices regarding the lives of their children. This is important to discuss because it brings to focus an intersection between transgenderism and parental rights.

Parental rights manifest in two ways in this discussion: on the one hand the state tries to erode parental rights in order to transition children. Either states like California create laws that allow schools to support the transition of so-called transgender minors without the knowledge of the parents, OR parents are hamstrung and lied to about the suicidality of children in order for them to support transitioning their children. In fact, one parent who experienced this manipulation was Elon Musk, and he recently spoke about the experience of the corruption of his son, Xavier, by the woke mind virus. But, what is especially notable in his experience is that he ALSO was coerced into signing documents for his son’s treatment, without being told the full extent of what the puberty blockers would do to his son; AND was threatened wit the claim that his son would apparently commit suicide if he opted to do otherwise as a parent.

Then on the other hand we also unfortunately see parents who abuse their children parade them as transgender – not because they were completely coerced to, but because it has become a sort of currency in the world economy to have a transgender child whose confusion you affirm.

So, the typical argument made is that of choice, which is that parents have a right to choose the affairs of their children. Well, yes, but within the scope of what amounts to the best interests of that child. For instance, Proverbs 22:6 says “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it”. This verse outlines the role of parents and guardians to train children, but it also highlights that there is a definite way that the child should go, which guides what the parent or guardian should teach the child.

Secondly, I conceded that choice is an inalienable right, but that applies to the choice of adults who are capable of informed consent. Parents cannot transfer informed consent on children when it comes to harmful decisions. For instance, a parent of legal drinking age cannot transfer the legal drinking age to a minor. And so, parents are abusing their freedom of choice through applying it to children.

“CONFIRMING A KID’S CONFUSION IS NOT COMPASSION, THAT’S CRUELTY”

Finally, here is what I believe is crucial to note: whether with puberty blockers or as a product of social contagion, confirming a child’s confusion is not compassion – rather it is cruelty. And this is something that Vivek Ramaswamy has become famous for stating – and it is true. Parents have a categorical imperative to protect their children from socio-political nuances that have nothing to do with a godly, happy and optimistic upbringing. Children should not have to try to grapple with ideas of gender, or whether Donald Trump is a dictator who must be killed, or even whatever drag story hour is. And the absence of this protection of the socio-political innocence of children is to allow their grooming, especially to function as children of the state – something that the President of Loveworld incorporated has warned about. And so, ultimately, it is cruel to confirm a child’s confusion.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso