trail wrote:
ike wrote:
She has been on puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The facts in the court opinion don’t — and shouldn’t — disclose any mental health counseling.
The knowledge that she is on puberty blockers and hormone therapy is itself HIPAA-protected information. So I presume it was voluntarily disclosed to the public at some point.
My assertion that she *likely* has a gender dysphoria diagnosis is that putting a young person on puberty blockers absent specific diagnosis would probably not be following standard medical practice. And it could conceivably be some other diagnosis than gender dysphoria, but that is the most likely.
And my assertion that she *likely* is/was undergoing counseling is that my lay reading indicates that arriving at medical intervention (drugs or surgery) is typically done only after exhausted "due diligence" in other forms of symptom relief. Which, per my understanding, usually involves a lot of talking to the person with dysphoria.....counseling.
Let’s separate her medical privacy from her name. In order to win her lawsuit she had to disclose her puberty blocker/hormone history. Those facts are essential to her case. Revealing certain personal facts can be the price of admission if you want the public courts to resolve your case.
But, in terms of revealing her name, she is a minor. Her complaint does not list her name. It just has her initials. And I’d expect a court to just use her initials or other anonymizer in its opinions.
Her family has been open about this, including some media coverage with her picture. So, it’s obvious who the “BPJ” is that the opinion references.