Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The Human Rights Law Alliance has highlighted a recent case in the NSW Supreme Court that could do much to undermine the “gender affirmation” approach to transgender issues.

A psychiatrist, Dr Patrick Toohey, is being sued by a Sydney woman — Jay Langadinos — in the New South Wales Supreme Court. Langadinos, who formerly identified as a male and underwent medical interventions, is alleging “professional negligence”, according to the Human Rights Law Alliance.

The Human Rights Law Alliance, a not-for-profit religious freedom law firm, commented on the case in a recent media release.

According to the HRLA,

“Now 31 years old and no longer identifying as male, Langadinos argues that Toohey’s psychiatric diagnosis was wrong and his approval of medical interventions resulted in irreversible harm, including the fact that she cannot now have children.”

The interventions that Toohey referred Langadinos for included masculinising hormones, bilateral mastectomy, and hysterectomy.

Foreseeable Fallout

Anna Kerr, a NSW feminist Legal Clinic solicitor, has supported Langadinos’s case. She thinks it is “likely to be the tip of the iceberg … We can expect to see extensive litigation in future years related to gender-affirming cross-sex hormones and surgeries.”

According to the HRLA:

“Recently passed conversion therapy laws in Queensland, ACT and Victoria only increase the likelihood that a flood of similar cases will be brought against doctors by patients who have suffered irreversible damage as a result of medical interventions for gender confusion.”

Human Rights Violations

The case is significant as it “will be the first case to test important questions about the internationally controversial ‘gender affirming’ model of care”. According to the HRLA, this model of care — reflected in Australian conversion therapy laws — conflicts “with fundamental human rights protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

These rights include “the right of privacy and autonomy (Article 17), freedoms of religion, thought, speech and conscience (Article 18), freedom of opinion (Article 19), freedom of the family (Article 23), and the equality of all people before the law (Article 26).”

“If successful, Langadinos’ case could have far-reaching consequences. It would require a return to treatment that begins with a rigorous psycho-social assessment of the individual patient as well as triggering the repeal of those laws that currently impede the ability of clinicians to fulfil their professional obligations to provide the best possible care to their patients.” (HRLA media release)

The news further highlights concerns similar to those raised in an independent review of the Tavistock Gender Clinic in the UK, which concluded that the clinic’s gender-affirming practices were neither “safe” nor “viable”.

Read more about the lawsuit in The Sydney Morning Herald or on the Human Rights Law Alliance website.

___

Photo: Janie Barrett/The Daily Mail