A New York jury has awarded $2 million to a 22-year-old woman who sued her medical providers for medical malpractice over a double mastectomy she underwent as a minor during a gender transition, The New York Times reported.
This verdict is being described as the first successful malpractice trial brought by a detransitioner in the US over a gender related operation.
The plaintiff, Fox Varian, received the surgery at age 16. Her lawsuit argued that the psychologist and plastic surgeon failed to follow accepted standards of care — particularly by not adequately assessing her mental health or whether she was truly ready for an irreversible procedure.
The six-member jury found that the providers skipped key evaluation steps and did not sufficiently communicate about the risks and readiness before surgery, amounting to negligence.
The $2 million award included $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering and $400,000 for anticipated medical expenses related to the physical and psychological consequences of the surgery.
Varian testified she was not mentally well or mature enough at 16 to make such a life-altering decision. Her legal team argued that underlying issues, including anxiety, depression and social phobia, were not properly treated or weighed before clinicians cleared her for surgery, the NYT report stated.
Testimony at trial included claims that clinicians emphasised suicidal risk to her family, which influenced consent decisions. Critics argue this reflects a broader issue where vulnerable minors and their parents are steered into irreversible procedures without fully understanding long-term implications.
While the verdict itself did not take a position on gender change operations in general, it underscores growing legal risk for practitioners when standards of care are not meticulously followed, especially for minors.
This case comes amid a wave of detransitioners who later regret medical transition procedures performed in youth, and a growing number of similar malpractice lawsuits now being filed across the US.
Many critics point to later regret, irreversible physical changes, and ongoing psychological distress as drivers for legal action and broader calls to reconsider how such decisions are made for minors.
