Another Gender Detransitioner Suing Kaiser Hospitals, and Doctors who Removed her Breasts at 13

So-called “gender affirming” care for minors is often coercive and doesn’t really “affirm” the wishes of anybody but doctors and social workers who have turned transgenderism into a cult and convince confused and anguished young people that all their problems would magically vanish if they just switched genders.

Case in point is the lawsuit filed in June by an 18-year-old California woman against the doctors and hospital who removed her breasts when she was 13 after bamboozling her into believing that she needed to become a boy.

Kayla Lovedahl claims in a California state court lawsuit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals  and four doctors that at age 11 while suffering from all kind of mental issues she came to the “erroneous” belief that she was transgender because of what transgender influencers online were saying.

The @Liberty_Ctr cases against Kaiser that Layla Jane & Chloe Cole, w/@PaulJonna & Charles LiMandri & Thomas More Society, are landmark cases aiming to put an end to the immoral, barbaric, and nature-denying mutilation of American children by woke docs. Proud to lead this fight! https://t.co/i7XLMybXRB

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) June 15, 2023

Rather than just treating her as just a confused and troubled young girl, profit-minded doctors diagnosed her as transgender without a proper psychological evaluation, the lawsuit says.

Her evaluation lasted only one hour and 15 minutes and she was never given any much-needed psychotherapy.

At age 12 she was given puberty blockers and hormones.  When her parents balked at the sex change procedures doctors resorted to emotional blackmail, telling them “It’s better to have a live son than a dead daughter.”

But the lawsuit says sex change procedures actually increase suicidal ideation rather than decreasing it.

At  age 17, Lovdahl began detransitioning and now lives in her natural feminine state. She now has regular psychotherapy treatments, “which is the care she should have been receiving all along,” according to the lawsuit.

“Kayla was not transgender and was not a person that any reasonable physician could ascertain would permanently maintain a transgender identity,” the lawsuit says, arguing the doctors and hospital are guilty of negligence because they miscast her as transgender.

It also says that she lacked “informed consent” to the procedures because she was misled by doctors.

“Defendants obscured and concealed important information from the patient and her parents”  such as   “the significant health risks associated with a biological female taking off-label puberty blockers and high doses of powerful male hormone drugs having many effects other than those desired.”

Additionally, “Defendants falsely and authoritatively represented opposite facts, including that Kayla’s dysphoria would never resolve unless she chemically/surgically transitioned, and that she represented a high-risk of suicide unless she transitioned. These were material, false representations.”

“Needless to say, Defendants breached the relevant standards of care in Kayla’s case by rushing her into this failed transition experiment. They should have performed an extensive psychological evaluation with an aim to designing a treatment process for her conspicuous co- morbidities. The evaluation also should have considered her developmental state as an early adolescent, inexperienced with ordinary pubertal life processes. Defendants either naively assumed that all of her emotional problems were due to her new gender dysphoria, even though her cross- gender identification was new, or that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria immediately required hormonal and surgical treatment, which is clinically naïve and dangerously presumptive.”

The lawsuit makes clear that so-called gender-affirming care for minors is actually destructive and often unnecessary. “There is no other area of medicine where doctors will surgically remove a perfectly healthy body part and intentionally induce a diseased state of the pituitary gland misfunction based simply on the young adolescent patient’s wishes.”

Moreover, the “vast majority of cross-gender identified children, if medically treated in early adolescence, risk regretting the decision after they are old enough to realize their losses,”

In fact, detransitioning “in childhood cross gender identities is well studied and demonstrates that around 80%-90% of gender dysphoria cases involving minors resolve by adulthood, with gender identity realigning to biological sex. It is impossible to predict which cases of gender dysphoria in minors will resolve, so it is never advisable to perform chemical/surgical transition on young adolescent. The vast majority of cross-gender identified children, if medically treated in early adolescence risk regretting the decision after they are old enough to realize their losses. It is an ethically untenable position to encourage medical transition in young adolescents knowing the high rate of desistence that occurs without treatment,” the lawsuit contends.

Lovdahl is being represented by conservative lawyer Harmeet Dhillon’s Center for American Liberty.

Charles LiMandri, another lawyer for Lovdahl, told the California Globe that he is optimistic about her lawsuit.

“We are very confident that we will win this case. Kayla Lovdahl could not properly consent to this gender affirming treatment, which began at age 12, and the mastectomy inflicted on her shortly after her 13th  birthday. Even if she could have otherwise properly consented at that very young age, she and her parents were not given the necessary information about the very real risks  of these procedures so as to make an intelligent decision to proceed with them.

“Moreover, Kayla had very serious co-morbidities that were not properly evaluated, and which should have eliminated her as a candidate for gender affirming therapy. Therefore, this is a compelling case of medical negligence, which may even warrant the imposition of punitive damages. There are more than sufficient facts set forth in the complaint to support the theories of recovery.”