Texas Supreme Court to Rule on Gender Transition Lawsuit

The Texas Supreme Court is set to determine if it is too late for a woman to file a lawsuit against a therapist who recommended a double mastectomy as part of her gender transition. Soren Aldaco, a former resident of Fort Worth, claims that she was pressured by various counselors and doctors into undergoing medical gender transition during her teenage years. This legal case raises significant questions about when individuals can hold mental health professionals accountable for recommending treatments that may lead to regret.

Aldaco asserts that she faced undue pressure from healthcare providers who favored hormonal treatments and surgical options to alleviate her gender dysphoria—a condition characterized by psychological stress related to one’s gender identity. Her attorney, John Ramer, described the situation as a “medical scandal,” arguing that vulnerable young people sought help but were instead steered toward irreversible medical interventions.

According to Aldaco’s lawsuit, she began identifying as male during her eighth and ninth grades. She experienced a troubled family life and struggled with body image issues, which intensified after connecting with transgender peers online. In 2018, while hospitalized for a manic episode, she claims a Fort Worth doctor encouraged her to embrace a transgender identity. Following this, Aldaco began taking testosterone, influenced by her interactions with others who supported medical gender transition.

In 2020, Aldaco began counseling with Barbara Wood at Three Oaks Counseling. She states that their sessions primarily addressed relationship issues rather than her identity exploration. On February 22, 2021, Wood provided a letter recommending Aldaco for a double mastectomy. Aldaco, dissatisfied with her breast appearance, underwent the procedure in June 2021 at the Crane Clinic in Austin. Post-surgery, she experienced severe complications, including blood pooling and intense pain.

Subsequently, Aldaco decided to “detransition,” recognizing that her issues with identity stemmed largely from external pressures and a stressful adolescence. She found solace in meditation, abandoning her previous gender identity. After sending a notice of intent to sue in May 2023, she filed a medical negligence lawsuit in July. Aldaco alleges that Wood failed to adequately assess her mental state and inaccurately claimed that Aldaco had been treated for gender dysphoria and had lived as a transgender man for a year.

In Texas, health care liability claims typically must be filed within two years of the alleged wrongdoing. The crux of this legal dispute revolves around the timing of the alleged tort. Wood and Three Oaks contend that the limitations period began in February 2021 when Aldaco received the recommendation letter. William Newman, representing the defendants, stated, “It’s hard for me to understand exactly how that gets different from any routine medical negligence that’s not discovered until later.”

The Fort Worth Second Court of Appeals sided with the defendants, but Aldaco argues that no tort occurred until she suffered damages from the surgery in June 2021. She believes that suing immediately after receiving the recommendation letter would have been premature since no physical injury had yet taken place. Aldaco’s legal team contends that the current interpretation of the law effectively forces plaintiffs to initiate lawsuits before an injury exists, creating a challenging precedent.

Aldaco expressed her commitment to the case, stating, “Detrans Texans deserve better. I am confident my case has merit, and I am confident God will deliver justice.” A coalition of 60 Texas House Republicans has also backed Aldaco’s claims, urging the court to allow her lawsuit to proceed. They plan to introduce legislation in the next session aimed at extending the malpractice limitation period for individuals who have detransitioned and believe they were harmed by negligent providers.

In a separate but relevant case, the Texas Supreme Court upheld a law in 2024 banning doctors from providing gender-affirming care to minors. This aligns with the broader conversation regarding transgender healthcare, which is supported by numerous medical associations as the standard of care for youth experiencing gender dysphoria. Research indicates that approximately 1% of individuals who undergo gender-affirmation surgeries later regret their decisions, although exact figures remain elusive.

As the Texas Supreme Court prepares to deliver its ruling, the implications of this case could shape the future landscape of transgender healthcare and the responsibilities of mental health professionals in providing care to young individuals navigating their gender identity.