💬 Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Not Dr. Evil said:
Pooner Kate Strangio is back, arguing that men have a constitutionally protected right to larp in the women's bathroom.

Idaho Bathroom Lawsuit
Click to expand...
This lawsuit is an absolute gold mine for the usual insanity, but one thing that stuck out to me was a 2013 paper which is the source for many of the citations in the factual allegations section. The paper's author, Jody Herman, is the source for over half of the citations. I noticed the sentence “To avoid situations that put them at risk of harm and distress, nearly one-third of transgender people report that they limited the amount they ate or drank at least once in the previous year, so they did not need to use a public restroom” on page 14. That seemed like a weird claim as I assume that plenty of normal people sometimes do this, eg. not drinking large amounts of coffee on long road trips to avoid needing to stop, so I found the study and read through it. That claim turned out to be from the 2015 US trans survey, a self-described "survey for trans people, by trans people", but I haven't gone through that fully.

In any case, I read through the 2013 paper, and it’s embarrassingly bad. If you look past the sociology woo-woo about intersectionality, minority threat, and so on, the actual study that they describe is completely useless. The sample that they tested was 93 “transgender and gender non-conforming people who live, work, or have spent significant time in Washington, DC”. There was no control group. There was also no randomization because this is a “hard to reach” population, so they found people through LGBT community groups and ads over the course of four months. In the section on limitations, the author claims that this is only an exploratory study, but that it establishes that gender segregation is a problem that needs to be addressed. The author also claims that because DC is relatively accepting, that there is probably a bias towards reporting fewer incidents and assumes that further studies would find that incidents, including physical assault, would be more common elsewhere.

Now when it comes to the reported incidents, “Sixty-eight percent of respondents reported experiencing at least one instance of verbal harassment in gender-segregated public restrooms.” That sounds like a lot, right? Of course, the most common type of VERBAL harassment was being “stared at or given strange looks” which affected 56/93 respondents. Only 19 were “ridiculed or made fun of” and only 8 were “verbally threatened”. Only 12 were actually told to leave. Most of the verbal activity here was just people telling the trannies that they were in the wrong bathroom or asking whether they were in the right bathroom.

What we have here is a study from 2013 with a tiny sample size obtained in a biased manner, with no control group, and that defines “strange looks” as verbal harassment. This is the most cited source of factual allegations in a 2026 lawsuit in a US District Court. A self-admitted exploratory study which was ostensibly intended to direct future research is being cited directly as an authoritative source by one of the most prominent trans-rights attorneys in the country. I doubt it’s of much surprise to anyone here, but the trans movement still can’t provide any good evidence. You can have a longitudinal study done on the entire adolescent trans population in Finland show that they have worse mental health after receiving “gender affirming care”, but the activists here would rather trust a study on 93 trans people from one of the most pro-trans cities on earth.
 

Attachments

Not Dr. Evil said:
Pooner Kate Strangio is back, arguing that men have a constitutionally protected right to larp in the women's bathroom.

Idaho Bathroom Lawsuit
Click to expand...
Responding to the document:
This law upends public life not only for transgender Idahoans but for everyone who uses public restrooms in Idaho. It creates confusion, increases suspicion and surveillance, and disrupts the status quo ante without any demonstrated need to do so.
Click to expand...
Is women's safety not a documented reason to do so?
Like the literal first sentence of the law says it's to protect the privacy and safety of women. Kate why can't you fucking read?
 
The fallout over AHPRA allowing Dr Beth (Theodore) Upton to register as a female, has bought into mainstream media how captured the regulatory medical body is by trans ideology. It’s been that way for a few years, but hidden from public view.
‘Ideological Capture’: AHPRA Faces Calls to Cut Ties With Powerful Trans Lobby Group
Kurt Mahlburg
28 APRIL 2026
NEWS
3.6 MINS
While gagging doctors who questioned child ‘gender medicine’, Australia’s peak medical regulator was secretly planning to embed gender ideology into its regulatory processes over a three-to-five year horizon, even as it fought FOI requests to keep the details hidden.

Australia’s peak medical regulator has been accused of ‘ideological capture’ after documents released under freedom of information reveal it built a regulatory strategy around the gender ideology of trans lobby group ACON — prompting critics to demand it sever the partnership.

The Australian last week published correspondence in which the chief executive of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), Justin Untersteiner, explained that the regulator’s engagement with ACON and accreditation group Rainbow Health Australia guides “the way we regulate and fulfil our purpose of ensuring the preservation of public safety.”

ACON, formerly the AIDS Council of NSW, lost its partnership with the ABC earlier this month after bombshell revelations the national broadcaster’s news and programming had been heavily shaped by the powerful lobby group.

Women’s Forum Australia CEO Rachael Wong said an institution captured by an “anti-scientific ideology” could not be trusted with public safety. She called on AHPRA to follow the ABC by also severing its relationship with ACON.

“AHPRA must urgently cut ties with ACON if it is going to regain its independence and the public’s trust,” Ms Wong said.

A spokeswoman for Parents of Adolescents with Gender Distress likewise told The Australian that AHPRA’s guidance from ACON had compromised its ability to act impartially.

“Gender clinicians who publicly advocate for these controversial interventions face no restrictions, while practitioners who voice valid critique have been unduly penalised,” she said.

The FOI Documents

The FOI documents obtained by The Australian reveal that AHPRA did not treat its relationship with ACON as a routine workplace inclusion exercise.

A February 2024 National Executive agenda paper marked “In Confidence” detailed the development of a “National Scheme LGBTIQA+ Equity and Inclusion Strategy,” that would “include reforms of people, policies and regulatory processes over a 3-5 year time horizon.”

According to AHPRA’s own document, the objective behind the reforms extended beyond internal HR and involved “improving access to the National Scheme, external engagement initiatives and National Board portfolios.”

The regulator also based its case for the LGBTIQA+ strategy on the disputed claim that transgender people aged 14–25 are 15 times more likely to have attempted suicide, without noting the contested nature of that figure.

AHPRA fought hard to keep documents hidden, according to The Australian. It claimed that releasing its unfiltered correspondence with ACON would be “contrary to the public interest” because it might discourage parties from providing “unconventional, controversial, challenging or novel” views.

A coalition of 46 registered doctors and health practitioners “has pleaded with AHPRA for more than two years to abandon its ties to ACON,” The Australian also reported.

In late 2024, the band of concerned professionals wrote to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman asking it to investigate whether AHPRA’s involvement with ACON was consistent with its statutory obligations and whether it created “conflicts of interest or ideological entanglement.”

AHPRA’s ties to ACON and Rainbow Health “positions the regulator as a partisan actor in a contested area of clinical practice”, the doctors wrote.

However, the ombudsman declined, stating that “AHPRA’s engagement with Rainbow Health and ACON demonstrates its efforts in engaging with all communities” and that an investigation into the matter would not be “appropriate or in the public interest”.

A Pattern of Selective Regulation

The FOI revelations add to mounting concerns about how AHPRA has used its regulatory powers against practitioners critical of gender ideology. As reported by The Daily Declaration, AHPRA has:

Banned Queensland psychiatrist Dr Andrew Amos from making online statements about ‘gender medicine’ and barred him from direct clinical contact, though no finding of patient harm has been made against him.
Launched an investigation into child psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer after she shared on social media an article in which she was quoted about Dr Amos’s case. Dr Spencer was sacked by Queensland Health in September 2025 after raising concerns about child gender treatment practices — a termination issued one month before an independent panel was due to deliver its findings.
Dismissed a complaint against Dr Michelle Telfer, chief of medicine at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, finding she was “meeting accepted standards of practice” — even after a Family Court judge found her expert evidence “misleading” and advocate-like rather than objective.
Registered as “female”, Beth Upton, a male doctor at the centre of a landmark UK legal dispute over women’s spaces, allowing Upton to work in two NSW hospitals.
According to Ms Wong, AHPRA has “persecuted doctors trying to raise the alarm about the harm being done to children” while registering “multiple trans-identified male doctors as ‘female’ knowing full well the issues this raises for single-sex spaces and care.”

AHPRA told The Australian it “rejected any suggestion that engaging with community organisations creates bias in our regulatory processes.”

It said its “legislative mandate, governance structures and decision-making frameworks are specifically designed to uphold impartiality and fairness” and that any regulatory action is “based on the available evidence and the public safety risk.”

In response to questions from The Daily Declaration, a spokesperson for AHPRA and the National Boards said the regulator “engages with a broad range of community and professional organisations to help ensure the regulatory system is safe, inclusive and responsive to the needs of all Australians.”

“All regulatory decisions are made impartially, based on evidence, public safety, risk and in accordance with legislation,” the spokesperson said.

The response did not address the specific questions The Daily Declaration put to AHPRA, including the content of the February 2024 strategy documents, the pattern of regulatory decisions involving Drs Amos, Spencer and Telfer, or the registration of Beth Upton as female.
Click to expand...

While this particular site I’ve quoted isn’t mainstream media, it’s the only one I could find that wasn’t behind a paywall.

ETA: AHPRA’s response to calls to de register Dr Beth Upton as a “female”. By the way he’s not the only Troon Dr registered as a female in Australia. He’s just the most controversial one.

Safe healthcare is free from discrimination
By Justin Untersteiner and Susan O’Dwyer

Each and every Australian has a right to receive safe healthcare – no matter their ethnicity, religious belief, sex, gender or sexuality.

Doctors play a special role in the delivery of healthcare and a trusted place in society. We know that the trusting relationship between patient and doctor is critical to achieving the best possible outcomes, and so the regulatory settings doctors work within are carefully designed, and regularly reviewed, to ensure they uphold safe practice and fit within the legal frameworks we operate in.

The Australian has published a number of articles that have the potential to undermine trust in the role we as regulators play and so we seek to correct the record.

We are enormously proud of the work our 153,000 registered medical practitioners do to provide healthcare to Australians. The vast majority never come to the attention of Ahpra or the Medical Board of Australia and that is because they uphold the professional standards and the Code of Conduct we have set for them.

Our expectations of medical practitioners – expressed via the standards and our Code - are clear and underpinned by evidence. And doctors know that when they register to work in Australia, they must comply with them. People working in other sectors and industries – such as the media – might regard the expectations we set for the medical profession as onerously high. We regard them as integral to maintaining public trust in the profession and providing safe care.

Take, for example, the expectation set out in the Code of Conduct that medical practitioners conduct themselves in a manner that is devoid of racism and discrimination. This is underpinned by a wealth of evidence that shows that racism and discrimination cause harm and lead to poorer health outcomes.

People from marginalised and minority communities have, sadly, all too often been the recipients of prejudice. They are less likely to seek health care, more likely to experience racism or discrimination when they do, and many have poorer health outcomes compared to the general population. This is why we have zero tolerance for expressions of racism and discrimination by medical practitioners.

Equally, we expect doctors, and all other health practitioners, are protected from experiencing racism and discrimination. And, when it is in our power to do so, we act to combat racism and discrimination directed at our registered health practitioners.

Like all Australians, registered health practitioners absolutely have a right to free speech. Ahpra and the Medical Board are committed to the principles of free speech and the right of registered health practitioners to enter into professional and public debates.

But this right to free speech is constrained if a practitioner comments, or supports comments, that can cause harm to groups or individuals. Typically, the harm pertains to racism and discrimination. If commentary becomes hateful and directed toward specific members of the community this causes harm. The harm is that the commentary erodes trust in the profession as a whole, and some members of the community might fear seeing a medical practitioner and do not access the health care they need.

In the rare instances where this is believed to have occurred, we may advise and caution the registered practitioner. But in other cases, other regulatory action may be appropriate.

As is to be expected of a regulator, Ahpra and the Medical Board work within Australia’s legal framework and Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender. These set out clear rules and expectations regarding the definition and documentation of sex. Ahpra registers nearly one million health practitioners, recording identifying information including their sex, languages they speak, qualifications and their principal place of practice.

In registering with us, practitioners verify their identification using a system that is aligned to the 100-point process most Australians are familiar with, together with proof of their qualification. This is not arbitrary, it is grounded in law.

The law also sets out the clear expectation that when setting professional standards and policies Ahpra and the Medical Board consults and seeks the feedback and advice of individuals and representative organisations. We make our own decisions, but we are not so arrogant to think that we will not do better if we take the time to listen and learn from the life experiences of others.

Just like medical science, the society we live and work within does not stand still. It is incumbent upon us in the work we do to remain open and reflective. To do all we can to reduce harm. And we are committed to doing so.

Mr Justin Untersteiner is the CEO of Ahpra, Dr Susan O’Dwyer is the Chair of the Medical Board of Australia.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Troons are more likely to commit a violent offense than be a victim of one.

John Walker Flynt hardest hit.

Screenshot 2026-05-02 195720.png

HHU_ITBXsAA8rPF.jpg

Transgender Homicides in Britain, 2000-2025: Victims and Perpetrators
 
So.
Trannies are less likely to be murdered than real people.
There are high numbers of trannies murdering real people.
Trannies may face bullying, but are much more likely to be the bullies.

KF gets it right again.
 

‘Detransitioner’ Who Regretted Gender-Transition Mastectomy Settles Malpractice Lawsuit Days Before Trial In Oregon​

Camille Kiefel sued the two Portland-area mental-health professionals who each, she alleged, effectively rubber-stamped her for a mastectomy after a single appointment.

A Portland, Oregon, woman who sued a pair of local mental health providers after each referred her for a gender-transition mastectomy following a single, allegedly cursory appointment, has reached a settlement with the defendants.

The malpractice lawsuit, in which Camille Kiefel, 36, sought $3.5 million, had been set to enter what would have been a historic jury trial in the Circuit Court in Multnomah County, Oregon, in January. But the parties entered a confidential settlement just days before the trial was slated to begin.

The existence of the settlement has not previously been reported.

Ms. Kiefel is among a group of nearly 30 so-called detransitioners—people who underwent a medical gender transition only to choose to revert to presenting as their birth sex—to have sued their care providers for malpractice since the first such suit was filed in 2022. In January, a court in White Plains, New York, saw the first detransitioner lawsuit to come before a jury. The case resulted in a $2 million award for Fox Varian, 22, who sued her psychologist and plastic surgeon over the mastectomy she underwent at age 16.

Had the case of Ms. Kiefel, who was 30 when she underwent the mastectomy, gone to trial, it would have been the first of its kind involving a plaintiff who was an adult at the time of their gender-transition intervention.

At least two other detransitioner lawsuits have been dismissed pursuant to a settlement, but without having scheduled a trial.

The defendants in Ms. Kiefel’s case included the two authors of the referral letters for surgery that she obtained in 2020: Amy Ruff, a licensed clinical social worker and Ms. Ruff’s employer, Brave Space; and Mara Burmeister, a licensed professional counselor and Ms. Burmeister’s employer, Quest Center for Integrative Health. The suit alleged malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent misrepresentation.

A July 2025 amended complaint alleged that Ms. Ruff and Ms. Burmeister effectively rubber stamped Ms. Kiefel’s request for a referral letter, in each case following a single telehealth appointment lasting under an hour. The lawsuit alleged that each of these mental-health professionals failed to adhere to their employers’ training for providing such a letter, which the suit suggested already set quite a low bar and was in conflict with care guidelines set by a major transgender-medicine organization.

Ms. Kiefel underwent the mastectomy in August 2020. At the time, she identified as nonbinary, but has since gone back to identifying as a woman. The legal complaint detailed a history of serious and debilitating mental-health problems on Ms. Kiefel’s part dating back to childhood, which ultimately rendered her unable to maintain employment. Her litany of diagnoses included generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD and other-specified personality disorder with mixed borderline and dependent features.

Amid the raging national political fight over the care of minors identifying as transgender, Ms. Kiefel’s case raises complicated questions about who is ultimately responsible if an adult undergoes gender-transition treatment or surgery and ultimately comes to conclude that the intervention was harmful, in particular if they have serious mental health problems.

“Before we consider invasive surgeries, we must first look at all low-risk alternative treatments that address the physical health of the individual,” Ms. Kiefel stated on her web site.

Ms. Kiefel previously sued the plastic surgeon who performed her mastectomy, Dr. Tina Jenq, and her employer, Oregon Cosmetic and Reconstructive Clinic. That case was dismissed due to the statute of limitation running out. Ms. Kiefel and her attorneys did not pursue it further. However, in the case against the mental health providers, her attorneys managed to file just before the statute of limitation expired—specifically within two years of the date of surgery.

In recent years, adult transgender care in particular has increasingly moved toward what is known as an informed-consent model, in which there are minimal barriers for patients to cross when seeking gender-transition treatment or surgeries. Ms. Kiefel’s legal complaint asserted that both Brave Space and Quest had established methods that facilitated patients’ desires for such medical interventions with a relatively minimal amount of so-called gatekeeping.

The lawsuit called into question whether such a laissez-faire care model might leave care providers exposed to legal liability.

In a joint statement, two of Ms. Kiefel’s attorneys, Josh Payne, of the Dallas firm Campbell Miller Payne, and Zac Hostetter, of the Oregon-based Hostetter Law Group, said: “We are pleased the parties were able to resolve the matter shortly before the trial was set to begin. We are not at liberty to disclose the terms of the settlement as they are confidential.”

Attorneys for the defendants did not return a request for comment.

Erin Friday, a California attorney and activist campaigning against all forms of medicalized gender transitions, said in a statement that she hoped that Ms. Kiefel’s settlement would send a chilling effect across the field of transgender medicine.

“For some medical providers, moral arguments and lack of efficacy of the treatments is sufficiently compelling, but for others it is only the fear of malpractice suits that will stop them,” Ms. Friday said.

Adam Deutsch, a partner at Fiedler Deutsch in White Plains and Ms. Varian’s attorney, said that since her victory at trial, he thought that care providers and insurance carriers “are taking a harder look at the exposure these detransitioner cases present.” The Varian case, he said, “showed these claims can carry real litigation and reputational risk, which makes pretrial settlement a more attractive option. In my view, as more of these cases are filed and better understood, we’re likely to see more of them resolve before trial.”

Ms. Kiefel’s Case

Ms. Kiefel’s 2025 legal complaint characterized her as severely burdened by a constellation of mental-health conditions that left her in a poor position to decide upon whether to undergo surgery to remove her breasts, even well into adulthood. The complaint further suggested that gender dysphoria—a mental health diagnosis involving distress stemming from a conflict between a person’s sex and gender identity, which doctors typically require to provide gender-transition interventions—did not play a major role in her mental-health struggles.

Laura Edwards-Leeper is child and adolescent psychologist who helped establish the field of pediatric gender medicine in the United States two decades ago and who in recent years has become a prominent voice expressing concerns about what she has characterized as the field’s heedlessness.

Dr. Edwards-Leeper, who formerly practiced in Oregon, criticized the transgender-care field at large for, as she saw it, at least sometimes exceptionalizing the care of gender dysphoria such that “it is permissible, even favorable, to bypass all common-sense safeguards.” She said that observing such methods is “dangerous not only for gender-distressed minors, but for adults as well.”

According to the complaint, the borderline features of Ms. Kiefel’s personality disorder included an “unstable sense of self” and “impulsivity.” The complaint further asserted: “Kiefel’s dependent features include difficulty making decisions” and “the need for others to assume responsibility for major areas of life.”

Brave Space and Quest, the complaint suggested, had engineered the transgender-care assessment process such that patients with complex psychological profiles were at risk of falling through the cracks, given how much these social-justice-oriented organizations favored lowering guardrails over protecting at least some patients from medical interventions that might not be in their best interest.

Ms. Burmeister, the complaint alleged, “wholly failed to provide Kiefel an adequate mental health assessment before filling in blanks on a form letter to a plastic surgeon.”

Ms. Kiefel adopted a nonbinary identity in 2015, when she was in her mid-twenties. She was ultimately diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a therapist.

Three years later, she underwent a major depressive episode and, according to her legal complaint, “became unable to work or drive, went on short-term disability, and applied” for medical leave. She ultimately went on long-term disability due to her mental-health struggles.

In April 2020, she told her primary care provider, Dr. Ewen Harrison, of the Providence Medical Group in Clackamas, Oregon, that she thought she needed a breast reduction. Dr. Harrison, who did not diagnose Ms. Kiefel with gender dysphoria at the time, wrote in his notes that she did “not require masculinizing surgery, but would be comfortable with reduction only.”

Dr. Harrison then referred Ms. Kiefel to Dr. Jenq. One of Ms. Kiefel’s mental health providers, meanwhile, referred her to Brave Space to obtain a referral letter for gender-transition surgery.

The Referrals

In an August 2025 deposition, Ms. Kiefel stated that she thought the purpose of the appointments with the mental-health providers was to determine “whether or not I was truly nonbinary.”

Ms. Ruff and Ms. Burmeister seem to have been trained, on the contrary, as facilitators of gender-transition interventions, not as gender-identity auditors.

Ms. Kiefel’s legal complaint suggested that the providers did not properly obtain her informed consent for the operation. Neither Ms. Ruff nor Ms. Burmeister, the complaint alleged, “assessed Kiefel’s knowledge regarding the impacts of surgery would have on parenting, the potential for revision [surgery and] the possibility of regrets or later detransitioning.” Nor did they discuss with her “other, non-surgical ways to manage gender dysphoria.” Nor did they address how the surgery might impact sexual intimacy.

Ms. Ruff’s Zoom session with Ms. Kiefel, held May 13, 2020, lasted less than an hour.

At that point, Ms. Kiefel was still on disability. Nevertheless, Ms. Ruff’s mental-health examination put her “within normal limits” for all related categories and asserted—falsely, the complaint asserted—that Ms. Kiefel’s mental-health conditions were “successfully managed.” Ms. Ruff’s referral letter, according to the complaint, did not include any diagnostic assessments for Ms. Kiefel and how those mental-health conditions might have compromised her capacity to provide informed consent.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Care, or WPATH, a medical activist organization, publishes widely observed transgender care guidelines. Even after these guidelines have been considerably liberalized in recent years, some in the trans-care community who favor greater bodily autonomy for transgender people have still found them overly restrictive.

This appeared to include Brave Space and Ruff, which according to Ms. Kiefel’s legal complaint “rejected” WPATH’s guidelines. The organization, the complaint asserted, believed, in conflict with WPATH, “that transgender individuals are the experts and that they should self-determine what medical therapies and surgeries are right for them.”

The lawsuit suggested that such a liberal philosophy was ill-suited for a patient with needs as complex as Ms. Kiefel’s.

Despite Ms. Ruff’s letter clearing her as essentially mentally stable, Ms. Kiefel told another mental-health provider shortly after their appointment that she had “chronic thoughts of death” and that she “might be taking on to [sic] much right now,” per the legal complaint.

Seeking a second referral letter for the mastectomy, Ms. Kiefel attended a Zoom session with Ms. Burmeister on July 1, 2020. During that approximately 40-minute session, the complaint asserted, Ms. Kiefel described her struggles with her mental-health conditions “and disclosed that her treatments of those conditions had not been successful.”

Nevertheless, Ms. Burmeister wrote the referral letter for surgery the following day. According to the legal complaint, the letter violated Quest’s own policies in myriad ways. It omitted any documentation to support a gender-dysphoria diagnosis, falsely referred to Ms. Kiefel as male (she identified as nonbinary at the time), and, the complaint asserted, falsely characterized her mental-health symptoms as mild.

The complaint faulted Ms. Burmeister for not obtaining or reviewing Ms. Kiefel’s medical or mental-health treatment records or consulting with her other care providers.

On July 21, 2020, Dr. Harrison noted that Ms. Kiefel was experiencing increasing symptoms of depression, anxiety and insomnia, and, per the legal complaint, that she “had poor self-care at home, and inability to drive as she felt too unstable to keep appointments.”

Her apparently fragile mental state notwithstanding, Ms. Kiefel underwent the mastectomy on August 27, 2020.

According to the complaint, Ms. Kiefel has since suffered from feelings of “betrayal by and mistrust in health professionals,” as well as “humiliation, distress and anxiety” over losing her breasts. This includes “deep feelings of regret over unnecessarily and permanently losing her choice ever to breastfeed a child, and fears and anxiety over finding a life partner sexually and romantically attracted to a woman without breasts.”
 
Pluciferous said:
Detransitioner’ Who Regretted Gender-Transition Mastectomy Settles Malpractice Lawsuit Days Before Trial In Oregon
Click to expand...
Obviously a deal done with the doctors solicitors to prevent details coming out, presumably with an NDA agreed.

It's good she's had some compensation that may\may not help her move on as best she can, but I would have liked to see these butchers on trial and all of their indoctrinated stupidity laid bare for the world to see.
 
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa said:
What we have here is a study from 2013 with a tiny sample size obtained in a biased manner, with no control group, and that defines “strange looks” as verbal harassment. This is the most cited source of factual allegations in a 2026 lawsuit in a US District Court. A self-admitted exploratory study which was ostensibly intended to direct future research is being cited directly as an authoritative source by one of the most prominent trans-rights attorneys in the country. I doubt it’s of much surprise to anyone here, but the trans movement still can’t provide any good evidence. You can have a longitudinal study done on the entire adolescent trans population in Finland show that they have worse mental health after receiving “gender affirming care”, but the activists here would rather trust a study on 93 trans people from one of the most pro-trans cities on earth.
Click to expand...
How much you wanna bet that the dumb faggot who cited it didn't read anything beyond the abstract? Even a literal retard with a degree from reddit university wouldn't consider using such a paper as a source had they read the full thing.
 
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa said:
the author claims that this is only an exploratory study, but that it establishes that gender segregation is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa said:
What we have here is a study from 2013 with a tiny sample size obtained in a biased manner, with no control group, and that defines “strange looks” as verbal harassment. This is the most cited source of factual allegations in a 2026 lawsuit in a US District Court.
Click to expand...
They used a guesswork study to prove their point? No wonder they are losing badly in the courts, they are using made up studies that were only guessing at what they think harms may be caused.
 
Stabby_Pencil said:
They used a guesswork study to prove their point? No wonder they are losing badly in the courts, they are using made up studies that were only guessing at what they think harms may be caused.
Click to expand...
Well they can't use real studies because they wouldn't say what they wanted them to, so they either have to make shit up or use fake studies or get laughed out of court in 10 minutes instead of the usual 30.
 
They aren't just citing bullshit studies based on what's in the abstracts, they're actively cherry-picking the results from whichever studies have the strongest (as in the most useful numbers, not the most reliable) evidence in favor of the point that they're trying to make at a given time. I've gone down a rabbit hole with this lawsuit's citations, and it's hard to capture just how convoluted it all is. I'm rapidly losing hope of ever being able to summarize how it all fits together, especially without sounding schizophrenic.

Here's an example. I'd previously noticed that they cited that 2013 study for some things and the 2015 US Transgender Survey for some other things in the lawsuit. Now, the AMA in their 2025 Transgender individuals’ access to public facilities directly cites that 2013 study for numbers on health problems that are supposedly caused by issues with bathroom access. That AMA document is cited in the lawsuit to show that medical consensus supports their position. So, the "medical consensus" on this is, in significant part, based on this BS exploratory study. That AMA document also cites the 2015 USTS study for the claim that "59% of transgender Americans" have avoided using public restrooms for fear of confrontation, harassment, and assault." That's slightly higher than the 2013 study's various numbers on the topic.

This isn’t the only case of using the most useful numbers. The lawsuit cites Jody Herman’s 2025 number of 2.8 million transgender adults in the US, making up 1% of the population, instead of the AMA’s number of 1.4 million adults. The lawsuit also doesn’t cite Jody Herman’s number of 3.3% of the youth population identifying as transgender, which might lead to questions about whether this is all a social contagion.

So, we've got this lawsuit citing studies from over a decade ago and citing studies from as recently as last year. What we don't have is them citing the 2022 USTS, the follow-up to the 2015 USTS. Why would the bigger and better survey, with 92,329 respondents compared to the previous one's 27,715, not be referenced in this lawsuit? There are endless possibilities, but one possibility is that the larger their studies get, the worse the numbers look for them. The lawsuit cites the 2025 paper Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms and Other Gendered Facilities to support the claim that trans people are more likely to face harassment when they use the correct restrooms for their sex. It doesn’t mention the following numbers, however:
USTS Progression.png

This paper describes the two sets of numbers slightly differently, but it sure looks like the numbers dropped by 50+%. If the other numbers in the 2022 USTS are comparable, it would be far better for the lawsuit to use the 2015 USTS and sweep the 2022 USTS under the rug.

This lawsuit, as I suspect most trans activist lawsuits do, sits atop a mountain of studies from various individuals and organizations which all reference one another in order to launder initially weak data into seemingly universal medical and scientific consensus. They work together to create endless data points that can be cited to argue whatever position is needed and do their best to avoid mentioning anything inconvenient. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t terrifying to see how effective this had been until recently.
 
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa said:
This lawsuit, as I suspect most trans activist lawsuits do, sits atop a mountain of studies from various individuals and organizations which all reference one another in order to launder initially weak data into seemingly universal medical and scientific consensus. They work together to create endless data points that can be cited to argue whatever position is needed and do their best to avoid mentioning anything inconvenient. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t terrifying to see how effective this had been until recently.
Click to expand...
This is exactly one of the issues that the Cass review pointed out - basically a lot of the "research" is based on faulty studies and get stuck in a feedback loop where they just get repeated without question. This sort of issue tends to be the problem when a research field is relatively minor and doesn't have a lot of outside interest (tangentially, I've noticed a similar phenomenon with "lead caused people to become serial killers" theory, but that's obviously has lower stakes overall). With more eyes on the "trans research" field I expect it'll become harder for them to get away with it.
 
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa said:
You can have a longitudinal study done on the entire adolescent trans population in Finland show that they have worse mental health after receiving “gender affirming care”,
Click to expand...
I don't want to doxxxxxx myself but this had been the consensus among Western medical professionals by 2010 (source: an US Communist doctor):
  • trannies lie
  • tranny "research" is compromised by tranny orgs
  • yes trannies kill themselves more than genpop but "real" percentages (from suicide notes, not "ideation") are overestimated because of all the "closeted" troons
  • tranny surgery is mutilation / extreme body modification
  • 55% stinkditch failure rate
  • regret is extremely high, trannies cry and beg for their cocks back
  • over 50% report (verbalize!!!) no improvement in wellbeing after the chop
    • [note: we know from boring psychometric questionnaires and social outcomes that self-reports overestimate wellbeing. -S]
  • trannies kill themselves 18% more often after the chop
  • sex surgeries on intersexed children (not trannies) "greatly" increase suicide (no number in quote, sorry)
 
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa said:
This lawsuit, as I suspect most trans activist lawsuits do, sits atop a mountain of studies from various individuals and organizations which all reference one another in order to launder initially weak data into seemingly universal medical and scientific consensus. They work together to create endless data points that can be cited to argue whatever position is needed and do their best to avoid mentioning anything inconvenient. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t terrifying to see how effective this had been until recently.
Click to expand...
Pseudoscience often uses these tactics to feign legitimacy. They are really leaning hard into the circular citation game as well as using WPATH as an authority when it's akin to a lobbying group for fetishists.
 
They'd be totally screwed in any lawsuit where the opposing side use FOIA to retrieve all the medical studies, the outcome studies, etc... because they wouldn't be able to counteract the opposing side.

Actually, can the FDA investigate into this medicine and help make legislation against it?
 
Stabby_Pencil said:
Actually, can the FDA investigate into this medicine and help make legislation against it?
Click to expand...
The FDA regulates drugs, so probably. They've already issued a warning letter about chest binders, but i don't know if they've taken much action beyond that. HHS more broadly has been looking to restrict "gender affirming care" both through regulations and by cutting public funding. Ultimately though, legislation has to come from Congress and these agencies are theoretically required to only make regulations that they've been given the authority to make.

The Trump administration has been taking a multi-faceted approach to transgender medicine, so in addition to that the DOJ has been issuing subpoenas aimed at providers of "gender affirming care". On the previous page of this thread, there's a link to a filing in a lawsuit related to that in which the DOJ explains their justification for issuing these subpoenas. Their position seems to be that puberty blockers and hormone treatments violate federal law when used for gender transition.
Not Dr. Evil said:
DOJ files opening brief to revive troon investigation subpoenas.

Parents AA v. Department of Justice
Click to expand...

If the feds are able to get traction with this, it could create a major opportunity to eliminate "gender affirming care" nationwide, but obviously the trans lobby is fighting it with everything that they have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom