An Ob/Gyn's Report on “The Dangers of ‘Gender Affirming Care’ for Minors” (Part 3)

Physicians, parents, and a whistleblowing nurse

See Part 1 (introduction and detransitioners) and Part 2 (specific allegations of fraud) to catch up.

This is a corn cob doll named Susan. IYKYK.

Following the revelations about how WPATH SOC 8 guidelines were created in the previous panel, we turned our attention again back to basic medical science, with a presentation by…

Dr. Michael Laidlaw, who is an endocrinologist practicing in Rockland, CA.

Dr. Laidlaw starts out by defining “gender dysphoria” as “a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-5: extreme discomfort with one’s sex and perceived gender, leading to distress and impaired function, for at least 6 months.” He states that for for children with gender dysphoria, 50 – 98% will desist, or grow out of it.

He states that other endocrine disorders have objective evidence: to give insulin for diabetes, he must see abnormal blood sugars, and to treat a patient for thyroid cancer, he must have a thyroid biopsy. There are no such objective criteria for gender dysphoria. He discusses the development of males and females and makes the point that even people with disorders of sexual development still have a specific sex. He describes Tanner staging.

He discusses the side effects of puberty blockers such as Lupron. “In males, if you block puberty at Tanner 2, you will stunt testicular and penile growth. This makes future vaginoplasty surgery more complicated. It impairs erection, orgasm, and ejaculation, and prevents sperm production. Both sexes have disruption of brain development and bone development.” In females, he says, puberty blockers can cause decreased sexual function, vaginal atrophy, infertility, and neuropsychiatric side effects.

Dr. Laidlaw discusses the risks of male testosterone levels in natal females – heart attacks and deaths, polycythemia, liver dysfunction, and possibly risks for reproductive cancers. He also alleges that the adverse event drug reporting system found symptoms similar to those of anabolic steroid abuse (anger, euphoria, antisocial behavior, suicidal ideation, etc.) He discussed the risks of female estrogen levels in natal males: MI, death, VTE, high triglycerides, breast cancer, prolactinoma, and germ cell tumors.

Then he defends his own professional organization, in a somewhat heartbreaking quote. “The Endocrine Society is an otherwise legitimate medical organization… they do great work, except on gender stuff.” Friend, this is exactly how I feel. He states that nine out of ten authors of the 2017 endocrine society guidelines were members or affiliates of WPATH. “WPATH wanted to legitimize what they are doing with other medical organizations,” he says.

He then discusses higher rates of death, especially via suicide, in both adults and children who had undergone medical transition, since the whole justification for youth gender medicine is allegedly the prevention of death. Tragically, in an NIH study of 315 children who were prescribed puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, 2 died by suicide.

Dr. Laidlaw, first of all, expresses his incredulity that this extremely high incidence of death in children in the treatment group was not addressed by the study team in any detail at all. However, he says, we know a great deal about one of the deaths, because this patient’s mother has gone public with her story. You may read more about it in this legal brief.

In 2015, Yaeli Martinez, a teenager suffering from depression jointed the LGBTQ club at her school and then declared a transgender identity. At school, her desired pronouns and name were used, and her parents were not notified, consistent with school policy. Yaeli’s school counselor allegedly encouraged her to pursue medical transition instead of directly treating her severe depression. A suicide attempt landed her in the hospital. Yaeli’s school principal came to the hospital and instructed her mother, Abigail, to use her new name, Andrew. Ms. Martinez did not affirm Yaeli’s transition, at least in part because of her religious beliefs.

The school psychologist allegedly told Yaeli to accuse her mother of abuse at the police station, so that she could access medical transition without Ms. Martinez’s consent. Indeed, the California Department of Child and Family Services removed Yaeli from her home at 16 and placed her in a group home. A judge agreed that Yaeli could access testosterone against Ms. Martinez’s wishes. Ms. Martinez was only allowed 1 hour per week to visit Yaeli, and according to the legal brief, her visits “were heavily monitored by RISE, activists from the Los Angeles LGBT center.”

At 19, Yaeli was sent to an independent living situation. She began to reconcile with her mother but ultimately died by suicide that year.

Dr. Laidlaw finishes by saying, “We don’t have the technology to turn boys into girls and girls into boys. Kids literally believe this is what’s going to happen.”

Panel 3: What does the science say?

This panel was facilitated by Federal attorney Miles Lynch and featured several medical professionals.

Jennifer Law is a former pediatric critical care nurse. She discusses fertility preservation prior to initiating puberty blockers in children. She states that pediatric fertility preservation began with cancer patients in the 2000s and involves cryopreservation of immature ovarian or testicular tissue. There have been only 2 live births using this method reported in the literature, both in female pediatric cancer patients. She is understandably concerned that current standards of fertility preservation before undertaking pediatric medical transition are inadequate and suggests the “fertility preservation” discourse is deceptive because the odds of a successful live birth in the future are so low.

Dr. Michelle Cretella is a pediatrician and member of the American College of Pediatrics and the Catholic Medical Association. I believe the ACP was initially created by pediatricians who opposed the AAP, which is the main medical association of pediatricians, for supporting same-sex couples raising children. That was actually controversial back in the day. Literally, I remember my lesbian friend could not get inseminated in the state of Colorado, because it was illegal, in like 2001. (As a lesbian parent, I am definitely on team AAP here. I’m pretty sure my kids are fine.) I remember a mini-scandal when I was in medical school in San Francisco in 2009. My pediatrics professor’s membership in the ACP was somehow publicized (I don’t think it’s a secret what organization a doctor is boarded by), and there was an outcry among her patients’ parents, many of whom were same-sex couples.

Y’all can correct me if I am wrong about the ACP, since I am working off my memory here.

Anyway, Dr. Cretella discussed the exponential growth of gender dysphoria diagnoses in the industrialized world, which she claims suggests it is a “psychosocially constructed condition.” She says that, prior to 2013, most pediatricians almost never saw gender dysphoria. She herself had had just one case in nearly 20 years, and there were extenuating circumstances. She makes the point that children have magical thinking.

Lauren Schwartz is a therapist and member of Do No Harm. She makes the point that the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until the mid-20s and that, “Asking a child whether they want to go through puberty does not make sense.” She has written to the American Psychological Association taking issue with statements like “puberty blockers are reversible,” and “cross-sex hormones are generally safe.”

Dr. Patrick Lapper is a plastic surgeon. He makes the very interesting point that gender affirming surgeries are deemed “reconstructive” rather than “cosmetic,” which he claims is fraudulent. As a plastic surgeon, he states that “reconstructive surgery” restores form lost to disease, trauma, or congenital anomaly. For gender affirming surgeries, “The motivation for surgery in this case is emotional and objective. The assessment of success is quality of life and satisfaction. This is the very definition of cosmetic surgery.”

Moreover, he states “proponents mislabel it to defraud patients, parents, and insurance. They typically quote 40% mortality by suicide if not affirmed. There is no evidence of this, and it is used to coerce parents. There is no process by which patients are selected for surgery. There is no testing process or stratification. Women lose the ability to breast feed 100% of the time. They lose erotic sensation from the area nearly 100% of the time. Genital surgery results in loss of reproductive capacity, degradation or loss of erotic sensation, urinary leakage, blockage, fistulas, and fecal leakage from the neovagina.”

Dr. Lapper states that based on insurance data, over the last 15 years, about 4000 minors have undergone gender affirming surgery, most commonly chest masculinization surgery. He says that this is an under estimation due to deceptive labeling and coding, such as calling a biological girl male and labeling it a gynecomastectomy.

That was a very long morning, and there was a much needed break for lunch.

After lunch, FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak spoke by video. She reiterated that the FTC has been involved in previous false advertising claims for medical treatments.

Then we heard from Chad Maisel with the Department of Justice. Unlike the FTC, the DOJ can bring criminal charges. He sounds pretty committed to aggressively pursuing what he calls the “gender industry.” Maisel says the DOJ has issued subpoenas to 20 gender clinics and plans to investigate health care fraud, false statements, fraudulent billing, and false claims to Medicaid. “We are going after false and deceptive claims made by nonprofits and medical associations to be used as cover for the clinics and hospitals.” They have also issued subpoenas to drug manufacturers as well for possible violations of drug marketing laws.

Panel 4 – Detransitioners and parents

On this panel, we first heard from Prisha Mosley and Soren Aldaco, whose testimony I reported in Part 1 of this series, to group them with the detransitioners in the first panel.

Then we heard from some parents.

Beth – She tells the story of her daughter, who suffered and became withdrawn at the end of 6^th grade. In 7^th grade, there were several natal girls who identified as transgender in her class. She was seeing a psychiatrist, and in 8^th grade, her daughter came out her and her “ ex-husband as transgender. She changed her name and pronouns at school, where she had a had a “secret gender support plan. When she and her ex-husband took her daughter to the pediatrician, he seemed excited to change her name and pronouns in the medical record and recommended taking her daughter to the Kaiser Oakland youth gender clinic. Kate refused to and continued taking her daughter to a private psychiatrist. Her daughter desisted 4 years later and no longer identifies as transgender. However, she worries about what would have happened if she had complied with the recommended referral.

Forrest – This young man transitioned at age 20 and identified as a transgender woman for 5 years. He underwent an orchiectomy and breast implants. Following these surgeries, he says that his unexpected regret “shocked me out of a trans identity.” He says, “It takes a lot to rebuild your whole life when you transition and detransition.”

Helen Spiegel Lee – Helen tells the story of her 3-year-old son, who announced he was a girl and wanted “she” pronouns to his preschool teacher and Helen’s ex-wife soon after his two moms divorced. However, he didn’t express these preferences to Helen. Therefore, he lived as a boy with Helen and as a girl everywhere else. Helen received a great deal of pressure from school providers, medical professionals, friends, and family to affirm her son as a girl. She suffered psychologically from this. However, before puberty blockers were started, her son desisted and no longer identified as transgender.

Gwen Turecki – Gwen’s son told her that he was a girl and wanted hormonal therapy at the age of 14. She read both pro-trans and anti-trans sites on the Internet and says, “I quickly realized that this was a cult.” However, she says, she wanted to be strategic, and says, “To get a child out of a cult, you slow-walk them and bring your child closer.” So she and her son went to the pediatrician, who referred them to the University of Michigan’s gender clinic. She took her son there for a therapy session that culminated in the therapist recommending that she take her son to the endocrinologist for consideration of cross-sex hormones. She did not make an appointment, and eventually her son desisted and stopped identifying as transgender. Now, she says, he is a thriving 17 year old young man.

Panel 5: Whistleblowers (and how the FBI went after them)

We first heard from Vanessa Sivadge, who worked as a nurse at Texas Children’s Hospital, whistleblowing site of Dr. Ethan Haim from Part 2. She transferred to a new role in 2021 that included working in a gender clinic. She felt conflicted about some of the things she was asked to do, such as to teach an adolescent boy to inject estrogen. She felt they went against both her nursing ethics and Christian religion.

Not having previously met Dr. Haim, she was interested in the 2023 Rufo article exposing continued medical gender transition in youth. She says, “I was one of the nurses in the clinic that was supposed to not exist.” She felt called to corroborate Dr. Haim’s story and did so. She spoke anonymously to a reporter and confirmed that the medical transition of minors was still happening at Texas Children’s. She did not think there would be any further blowback to her.

Two months later, in July 2023, two FBI agents came to her home at dinner time. She was told she was a “person of interest” in a case involving a leaker who had violated patient confidentiality laws. She says they told her she was in danger at work, and they could protect her but make life difficult with her if she did not participate in identifying Dr. Haim. She says that she was terrified.

Vanessa said during her testimony that she has footage from her Ring camera viewed by millions. It is available here: https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1803144650984714361.

So… this is very, very dark. Vanessa did nothing wrong and broke no law. She told the truth about what was happening at her workplace. In these United States of America, there is nothing illegal about telling the truth. The FBI should not deem you a “person of interest” for telling the truth. The FBI should not threaten to make life difficult for you for telling the truth. Truth is the ultimate defense.

I know this personally, because I have told the truth about what I have seen at my own hospital. I publicly shared the details of how corporate Catholic health administrators at my previous hospital came in and investigated my entire department for… providing birth control to patients. Then they enacted draconian measures to make prevent their patients from accessing birth control in the future and did their best not to publicize them. Now, MercyOne Hospital in Waterloo, Iowa did not like that I told the truth about what they were doing. But since it was the truth, it happened to me, and I saw it with my own eyes, I am allowed, in this free country, to say publicly that it happened. There was really nothing MercyOne could do about it except be mad. This is literally the principal that America was founded on.

Furthermore, as I said in Part 2, no elaborate law investigation was necessary to identify Dr. Haim as the leaker / whistleblower. Hospitals have sophisticated IT departments that can easily identify people who have been in unauthorized charts. Once I myself got checked up on for clicking into my infertility patient’s husband’s chart (with his verbal permission). Nothing came of it – but they were paying attention.

So how did the FBI end up going after Vanessa?

I can think of three plausible explanations:

1) This was a skirmish in the greater war between the Biden administration and Texas’ governor and attorney general, which was mostly about abortion and other issues. The persecution of women seeking reproductive care in Texas at that time was and still is devastating, and the Biden administration was fighting tooth and nail to protect women’s rights.

2) Somebody in the administration of Texas Children’s Hospital was angry enough about the bad PR to get the FBI involved.

3) Somehow transgender activists became so powerful within the Biden administration that FBI agents were sent to track down and intimidate an anonymous nurse telling the plain truth about what treatments were being administered to the public in her own clinic because they didn’t like it.

That last one seems unlikely… but at this point, not impossible. Please bear in mind this is all just speculation on my part. I really have no idea.

On that note, this seems like a good place to end Part 3 of this series. Stay tuned for Part 4, hopefully the last, in which we will hear from some members of the truly outstanding LGB Courage Coalition and wrap up this very long day.

Update 7/20/25: I am too tired to write Part 4. Sorry, folks. My other life responsibilities are calling to me. My only regret is that I will not have the chance to go on and on about how amazing Jamie Reed of the LGB Courage Coalition is. If any other physician would like to do the writeup, I actually did take detailed notes on the rest of the workshop and am happy to send them to you!