A New York jury has delivered a landmark verdict against two medical practitioners who approved a teenage girl to undergo irreversible “gender-affirming” surgery without adequate psychological care – a decision with far-reaching implications for the affirmative model of care for vulnerable young people with gender dysphoria.
Fox Varian, now 22, brought a medical malpractice claim against a psychologist and a surgeon involved in her treatment when she was 16 years old. At the time, Varian identified as male and was fast-tracked towards a double mastectomy as part of a gender “transition”.
The jury found both practitioners liable for malpractice and awarded Varian approximately USD $2 million in damages, including compensation for pain and suffering and future medical costs.
Failure to Meet Standard of Care
The case did not challenge the legality of so-called “gender-affirming care” itself. Instead, it turned on a narrower but fundamental legal question: whether the doctors involved met the accepted standard of medical care when treating a distressed adolescent.
Evidence presented at trial showed that Varian was experiencing significant mental health difficulties as a teenager, including depression and anorexia, as well as neurological conditions like ADHD and autism. Her legal team argued that these issues should have been "well-controlled" before irreversible surgery was recommended and approved. They also maintained that the doctors did not notify Varian of “the risks, hazards, and alternatives” before surgery.
The jury found that the practitioners, who affirmed Varian's so-called “gender identity”, failed to meet the accepted standard of care by facilitating irreversible surgery despite skipping important steps when evaluating whether to go ahead with it (Note: Because the court papers have been sealed, specific details about the case and decision are currently limited).
A First-of-Its-Kind Verdict
This verdict is the first successful jury trial in the United States brought by a detransitioner against medical professionals involved in paediatric gender medicine.
While other cases have been settled out of court or dismissed on procedural grounds, this decision represents the first of hopefully many instances in which the rapid medical "affirmation" of minors is rejected as best medical practice.
Importantly, the jury’s finding makes clear that clinicians cannot rely on contested ideological frameworks to shield themselves from legal accountability.
Why This Matters in Australia
Although decided in the United States, the Varian case is highly relevant to Australia, where the same “gender-affirmation” model has been widely adopted across paediatric and adolescent services, often with limited scrutiny, data collection and minimal long-term evidence.
The Australia Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines adopted by Australian gender clinics provide that “gender-affirmation” should take precedence over a holistic approach to gender distress and that delaying intervention carries unacceptable risk. Yet, as the Varian verdict demonstrates, following this model of care does not absolve doctors of their legal duty to act cautiously, independently, and in the best interests of the patient – particularly when the patient is a minor.
This is set to be tested in Australia.
Two detransitioners, Mel Jefferies and Jay Langadinos, have commenced legal action against medical practitioners involved in their “gender-affirming” treatment. The cases of both women raise serious allegations regarding failures in assessment, informed consent, and safeguarding, and question whether underlying mental health issues were properly investigated before they were put on a pathway of irreversible interventions to “affirm” their “gender identity”.
While these matters remain before the courts, they underscore a critical point: Australian doctors are not insulated from liability simply because a treatment pathway has institutional or political support. Already seeing the writing on the wall in 2023, one of Australia’s leading medical insurers, MDA National, withdrew coverage for private practitioners initiating “gender-affirming” treatments for adolescents.
Vulnerable Young People – Especially Girls – Are Bearing the Cost
Women’s Forum Australia has long warned that adolescent girls – particularly those experiencing mental ill-health, trauma, and neurodivergency are significantly overrepresented among those being pushed onto harmful medical pathways that fail to address their underlying needs.
The removal of healthy breasts from teenage girls is not a neutral or reversible intervention. It permanently alters the body, removes sexual and reproductive tissue, and carries lifelong physical and psychological consequences. The Varian verdict affirms what many detransitioners have been saying for years: that the politicisation of healthcare resulting in affirmation-only practices has replaced careful diagnosis, evidence-based care, and safeguarding.
Accountability Is Catching Up
As similar cases emerge internationally and here in Australia, the Varian decision marks the beginning of a broader legal reckoning for a medical model that has prioritised ideology over evidence-based care and the wellbeing of vulnerable young people.
For those who have been harmed, this case offers something long overdue: recognition that what happened to them matters and that accountability is finally following.
Women’s Forum Australia is an independent think tank that undertakes research, education and public policy advocacy on issues affecting women and girls, with a particular focus on addressing behaviours and practices that are harmful and abusive to them. We are a non-partisan, non-religious, tax-deductible charity. We do not receive any government funding and rely solely on donations to make an impact. Support our work today.
| I’ll stand with women ▷ |