These are the surgeries the TRA's always told us NEVER happened.

No, see, when they do happen, they're necessary but also, they don't happen

They are life saving surgeries that do not happen until suicidal teens reach 18 years of age, which is exactly when the suicidal teens would definitely have committed suicide if we had not let them get the surgery.

Uh, no.

It's so nonsensical.

And so it begins. We are looking at a giant tidal wave of lawsuits over the coming decade.

And I hope every detransitioner gets a fat payout!

Me too! I’m sure they will, like another commenter said, when giants like Kaiser permanente are involved, judges will hopefully award BIG bucks. I hope there are a few judges out here who want to set a precedent with this. Like “hey, don’t mutilate kids or you’re going to pay out sums large enough to sink you if you get more than a couple of these lawsuits”

For once the lititiousness of Americans will be a good thing, and judges often award REALLY stupid high amounts of money here when an entity with a ton of money is involved.

Juries usually decide damages, and the huge jury verdicts that make headlines are almost always significantly reduced on appeal, or by the trial judge because some states have damaged caps.

I hope this is the first few scattered drops of rain that precedes a thunderstorm.

I can’t even get Kaiser to cover a keloid on my knee that causes me pain but they are cutting off kids breasts.

That's what I don't understand. Why are insurance companies paying for these expensive surgeries? Insurance companies hate to pay out on anything.

[–] Luckystar 19 points Edited

Well, in the case of California at least, insurers are NOT ALLOWED (archive link to source) to deny coverage for double mastectomies for minors.
Yep, our state Insurance Commissioner actually decided a good use of his time was forcing insurance companies to pay to cut off teen girls' healthy body parts at the altar of internalized misogyny.

Jesus, of the thousands of procedures the government could potentially expedite, they choose the ones that'll score them the most political points.

The same reason why corporations, government, and schools have been bowing to the trans cult. They are terrified of being called transphobic against "the most vulnerable marginalized people in the world".

THIRTEEN!? My breasts were barely coming in at thirteen!! How can they remove something that isn't even done growing!??

I live in California. I don't have Kaiser. But I have insurance. And I had to jump hoops for nearly 2 years to prove that I needed a sinus surgery that would allow me to breathe through my nose! And I ended up paying about $2k out of pocket even WITH INSURANCE!!

But a troubled 13-year-old can get blockers, hormones, and teet yeet surgery after a 10 minute consultation! And it was probably 100% free for her family as well.. Its obscene!

Some doctors have admitted they've performed double mastectomies on 12 year olds. There are no words.

It’s increasingly more common to find very developed 12 year olds. USA doesn’t have a ban on growth hormones. There was an outrage in Canada when the government wanted to open up the import to include milk and meat from the US.

Yep. I’m in my 20s and started developing breasts around third grade (~8yrs old), didn’t get my period until 13 though. But the growth hormones in animal products and ubiquitous endocrine disruptors like BPA have wreaked havoc on pregnant women and children and I believe they are directly related to this increase in early puberty.

I won that genetic lottery in that girls in my mother's family hit puberty around age 10 😩 I got my first period at 9.

But I'm also blessed to come from a line of educated women 💖

My great-grandmother was educated and taught her daughters about their bodies changing, so my grandmother could teach her daughters.

On the otherhand, my grandmother did not hit menopause naturally, she was menstruating until she got a hysterectomy in her 60s 😫

[–] NO 4 points

I got my period at age 9 the same exact day we had sex Ed for the first time...

I couldn't believe it, they said it would come at 13..

It's also just a genetic thing. The women on my mom's side of the family all developed super young. My sister got her first period at 8 and was like a DD or something by the time she was 13. I, on the other hand, was like the women on my dad's side and got my first period at 12 and my breast are still small to this day haha.

[–] Maplefields 0 points Edited

I didn’t say it wasn’t a genetic thing. But it used to be rare to come across this naturally in the Western world. Now it’s become common in women who shouldn’t develop early (and suffer from health effects as a result of the endocrine disrupters).

Edit: typo

My breasts were barely coming in at thirteen!! How can they remove something that isn't even done growing!??

Lots of 13 year-old girls have undergone considerable breast development and have quite large breasts at 13, though. Breast budding and the appearance of public hair are two of the first signs of female puberty, and they are only considered medically precocious if they start before a girl turns 8.

A fair number of 13-year-old girls already have C, D or E cup or even larger breasts. Dunno if that means they aren't "even done growing" at that point, but big breasts are a fact of life for some girls of 13 (and younger). And with them come a lot of downsides such as physical discomfort and inconvenience; unwanted, inappropriate leering, comments and come-ons afrom boys and men; sexual assault; self-consciousness; poor body image; bodily shame.

I'm not saying this girl had large breasts at 13. Since the article says she started testosterone at 11 and "puberty blockers" at 12, I'd expect that her breast development would have been curtailed. But maybe that didn't happen. Giving girls these powerful drugs at that age is entirely new and untested - so there could be effects that are not just unanticipated, but which go in the opposite direction of what the adults who prescribed, paid for and pushed them on her expected.

The idea is to remove the breast tissue before it develops so it won't cause "dysphoria".

What doctor in their right mind would ever perform this surgery on a 13 year old child?? It's unethical and it's medical malpractice. Would they amputate a healthy leg if the child wanted it? There has to be a medical standard to prevent this from happening.

[–] Tq231442 Cervix owner 27 points

Every single one of those doctors is a completely sick psychopath. I can't believe somebody would be capable of doing that to a child. Absolutely demented.

Apparently, there's a lot of Mengele's out there.

God complexes of doctors who think they're fixing things to be the way it "should" be, is what I think they think they're doing.

May she prevail. It is the only way to stop this medicalization monstrosity.

[–] Artemis_Lives 24 points Edited

A 13 yr. old can convince a doctor to remove her barely developed breasts, but grown women have to endlessly haggle when making informed decisions on their reproductive health.

This is medical sexual sadism to me. Unless the child has cancer, there is no reason to do this. I think the doctors either get off on it, or they are psychos who enjoy the money and the power.

I'm glad she's found Harmeet Dhillon. I had a feeling she would be the one of the only laywers to take these kind of cases in CA.

Load more (3 comments)