State sued over toddler's gender reassignment

[ktgrok]

I've heard of parents having it done, but not in the last 20 years, unless there was DNA/chrosomal testing done to definitively establish gender. If gender couldn't be identified by testing no surgery was performed.

 

And even then there can be problems, as the hormones associated with ovaries or testicles will have been bathing the brain in utero/after birth and can cause the brain to be one gender, even when the DNA is another. So someone with female dna that had testicles would possibly identify as male from the testosterone exposure at critical times.

[poppy]

I guess I would rather wait until I heard how the state chose to do the surgery in the first place. I assume they had their reasons which should be documented somewhere.

 

 

I am sure they had their reasons, I just can't think if a GOOD reason.

I wonder if it was to make the toddler more adoptable.

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

"Correct gender" is loaded in this context. How can you be sure? Assignment should not be done absent a clear gender preference of the party of the child.

 

It's loaded in another way too. Some may decide that there's nothing about being a hermaphrodite that needs correcting and that it's society's binary view of gender/sex that needs fixing.

 

It's a lot to ask of someone, that they cut parts off of and out of themselves to conform to our idea of gender and sex.

[kiwik]

I'm confused because typically a specialist will do chromosomal testing to determine if the child is male or female. This happened to a family member, and we've never considered it to be gender reassignment. My family member was born with ambiguous genitalia and after much testing, a gender was determined. Surgery was performed to make the outside parts match the internal programming.

 

I don't think you can just 'pick' a gender. These decisions aren't really made on a whim.

 

I hope that isn't too crude or insulting...I'm trying to be vague because I'd not want someone who knows me in real life to know which family member I'm talking about.

 

Me too. In the pre DNA testing days such children were rountinely declared and made female. Now days they check first. Sure they still may end up with an xy that identifies xx but I don't think leaving the child with unusual genitals on the offchance really helps that, and realistically you really do have to be one or the other as a child.

[kroe1]

I think we may have to wait until the facts come out before one can make a determination. If the child is XX and just had ambiguous genitalia secondary to over-production of male-type hormones from the adrenal glands, then it would have been in the best interest of the child to become physically female earlier rather than later. On the other hand, if the child is XY and only had female genitalia because of a lack in the ability to recognize testosterone, then the child should have remained as is until gender assignment was determined. Likewise, if the child is mosaic, then it would have been best to wait. There are multiple etiologies for ambiguous genitalia and the etiology can determine the best time to "fix" the ambiguity. I also agree with the previous poster that the "defect" may have hindered this child being adoptable. Who knows? There is just not enough information right now.

 

My own DD made us call her "Luke" and only wore boys clothes for the first 11 years of her life. She is just a Tom boy. She is now becoming quite the girl. In other words, all kids can have ambiguous gender assignment no matter what the state of their DNA or physical attributes.

[Joanne]

Me too. In the pre DNA testing days such children were rountinely declared and made female. Now days they check first. Sure they still may end up with an xy that identifies xx but I don't think leaving the child with unusual genitals on the offchance really helps that, and realistically you really do have to be one or the other as a child.

 

 

Why? There is nothing inherently, intrinsically that backs that up.

 

The only thing that backs that up is culturally shaped values.

[Kbug]

I'm not going to touch the surgery/transgender thing....but in cases like this I have to seriously ponder the parents motives. My big question is if they feel this is so unjust on principle, why did they wait until the kid was 8 to sue? Why not sue when the child was younger? Also, kids are impressionable at this age. I'd have to wonder if there was any coaching by the parents for this child to begin to identify as a boy. I'm not accusing, but I'd sure have to look into it before I could weigh in on the validity of the case. If the parents have been coaching the kid to start identifying as a boy, it'll be a big defense point.

 

Kbug

[mom31257]

I'm not going to touch the surgery/transgender thing....but in cases like this I have to seriously ponder the parents motives. My big question is if they feel this is so unjust on principle, why did they wait until the kid was 8 to sue? Why not sue when the child was younger? Also, kids are impressionable at this age. I'd have to wonder if there was any coaching by the parents for this child to begin to identify as a boy. I'm not accusing, but I'd sure have to look into it before I could weigh in on the validity of the case. If the parents have been coaching the kid to start identifying as a boy, it'll be a big defense point.

 

Kbug

I agree. This situation in the hands of parents who are needing money or are unethical could lead to them seeing a big chance at a large sum of money. There is no way to know that, though. I'm convinced there are parents out there who push these gender issue for their own agendas. Unfortunately the world does have people in it who will twist their kids' lives for their own gain. I don't think there are many, but they are out there.

[Joanne]

I'm not going to touch the surgery/transgender thing....but in cases like this I have to seriously ponder the parents motives. My big question is if they feel this is so unjust on principle, why did they wait until the kid was 8 to sue? Why not sue when the child was younger? Also, kids are impressionable at this age. I'd have to wonder if there was any coaching by the parents for this child to begin to identify as a boy. I'm not accusing, but I'd sure have to look into it before I could weigh in on the validity of the case. If the parents have been coaching the kid to start identifying as a boy, it'll be a big defense point.

 

Kbug

 

 

"Professionals" who were given the responsibility of having this child's best interest at heart made a decision for the child that should have been left to the child. Your "wondering" is insulting.

[Aslana]

I'm not going to touch the surgery/transgender thing....but in cases like this I have to seriously ponder the parents motives. My big question is if they feel this is so unjust on principle, why did they wait until the kid was 8 to sue? Why not sue when the child was younger? Also, kids are impressionable at this age. I'd have to wonder if there was any coaching by the parents for this child to begin to identify as a boy. I'm not accusing, but I'd sure have to look into it before I could weigh in on the validity of the case. If the parents have been coaching the kid to start identifying as a boy, it'll be a big defense point.

 

Kbug

 

The state made the decision to have the surgery, NOT the parents. The state turned him into a girl, NOT the parents. The boy has identified as a boy NOT girl and the parents are doing nothing more than honoring the choice the BOY made.

 

It was the only choice the state didn't and can't take from him. Joanne is correct--your post is insulting and insinuating the parents are the bad in this case. They are not.

[kitten18]

I'm not going to touch the surgery/transgender thing....but in cases like this I have to seriously ponder the parents motives. My big question is if they feel this is so unjust on principle, why did they wait until the kid was 8 to sue? Why not sue when the child was younger? Also, kids are impressionable at this age. I'd have to wonder if there was any coaching by the parents for this child to begin to identify as a boy. I'm not accusing, but I'd sure have to look into it before I could weigh in on the validity of the case. If the parents have been coaching the kid to start identifying as a boy, it'll be a big defense point.

 

Kbug

 

I would imagine that it's because he is now old enough that they see that he is going to identify as a male. I'm sure they're looking down the road and trying to plan how they can fix what the state screwed up.

 

Ugh. It's just horrid.

[kitten18]

 

And even then there can be problems, as the hormones associated with ovaries or testicles will have been bathing the brain in utero/after birth and can cause the brain to be one gender, even when the DNA is another. So someone with female dna that had testicles would possibly identify as male from the testosterone exposure at critical times.

 

This is a really good point.

[nmoira]

I'm not going to touch the surgery/transgender thing....but in cases like this I have to seriously ponder the parents motives. My big question is if they feel this is so unjust on principle, why did they wait until the kid was 8 to sue? Why not sue when the child was younger? Also, kids are impressionable at this age. I'd have to wonder if there was any coaching by the parents for this child to begin to identify as a boy. I'm not accusing, but I'd sure have to look into it before I could weigh in on the validity of the case. If the parents have been coaching the kid to start identifying as a boy, it'll be a big defense point.

 

First of all, why would they do this? And have you yet had an 8yo? Good luck with that. :rofl:

 

They're not asking for specific damages, leaving it to the discretion of the judge should they prevail. If I understand correctly, any damages awarded would be to the child since he is the harmed party.

[Kbug]

 

 

"Professionals" who were given the responsibility of having this child's best interest at heart made a decision for the child that should have been left to the child. Your "wondering" is insulting.

 

Seeing as how I personally know parents are capable of coach their children to hate their other parent and accuse them of horrible deeds, I can easily see how a parent could coach their child to think they should be a certain gender for their own purposes, and do not find it insulting to wonder if the parents are meddling in the child psyche before evaluating the merits of a case.

 

Kbug

[nmoira]

 

 

Seeing as how I personally know parents are capable of coach their children to hate their other parent and accuse them of horrible deeds, I can easily see how a parent could coach their child to think they should be a certain gender for their own purposes, and do not find it insulting to wonder if the parents are meddling in the child psyche before evaluating the merits of a case.

 

Kbug

 

Do some research about anxiety and transgender and you may think differently about the "easily" part.

[Joanne]

 

Seeing as how I personally know parents are capable of coach their children to hate their other parent and accuse them of horrible deeds, I can easily see how a parent could coach their child to think they should be a certain gender for their own purposes, and do not find it insulting to wonder if the parents are meddling in the child psyche before evaluating the merits of a case.

 

Kbug

 

 

:huh: :confused1:

 

 

Um. Ok. That is a very odd perspective and thought process regarding this case. A child's gender was decided for the child, against current medical and psychological protocol. Why you'd be skeptical about the parents seems rather strange.

 

Your response to me isn't, IMO, on topic to the issues emerging from the topic.

[Kathryn]

Also, I just want to point out that I realize the correct terminology. I used the word gender in the title because the news article did and I thought they were trying to emphasize what the state had tried to do in performing the surgery: "make" the child identify as female.

[Kbug]

 

First of all, why would they do this? And have you yet had an 8yo? Good luck with that. :rofl:

 

 

Why does anyone do messed up stuff to their kids? And, no, I don't have an 8 year old, but when my youngest stepson was 8 my husband had to deprogram him every custody weekend after his mother spent two weeks telling him what an evil person his father was. At that time, my husband said it was very obvious because the kid would come over gun shy and by the end of the weekend it was like "oh right, this is the dad I love". He'd only had 2 years of exposure at that point, by the time he 13 he was well and truly brainwashed that dad was evil incarnate and only good for being the ATM machine. So, yes, at 8 if a child was exposed enough, he could very well have been trained by his parents in the gender he picked rather than having chosen it naturally. I'm not saying they did, I'm saying that if I was involved in the case I'd have to seriously evaluate that possibility because I think it would effect the decision.

 

Kbug

[SKL]

At age 8 I wanted to be a boy. Boys seemed to have more fun options than girls, and they still do in many ways. I don't think it's unusual or particularly significant that girls wish to be boys at certain ages. I would not take that information alone as evidence that this child was really born a boy. I would be inclined to go with the DNA if it was clearly one way or the other. Otherwise I suppose medical ethicists etc. have some sort of protocol for handling these cases. .... I would just beware of pushing too hard for a decision against the state, because that could create precedent for children to have many rights vs. their parents in terms of early medical decisions. Do we really want that? If they could prove a mistake was made vs. best practices, that's one thing. But if the decision was supportable other than the fact that the baby didn't choose it himself, that would open a whole can of worms IMO.

[nmoira]

At age 8 I wanted to be a boy.

 

 

Wanting to be a boy and knowing you are a boy are entirely different things.

[Kathryn]

This child LIVES as a boy. His peers, doctors, family all interact with him as a boy. This is not

a girl who wishes she was a boy or who likes overalls. This is a boy who had his penis removed by the state.

[LucyStoner]

Genital surgery comes with huge risks- including the potential loss of sexual function. Cutting off genitalia to put a child into a neat and tidy classification before you know what is going to be crucial for their sexual function and match their identity is a huge gamble. Loss of genitalia and sexual function are too huge a price to pay just for the benefit of being one or the other as a child.

[kitten18]

 

Seeing as how I personally know parents are capable of coach their children to hate their other parent and accuse them of horrible deeds, I can easily see how a parent could coach their child to think they should be a certain gender for their own purposes, and do not find it insulting to wonder if the parents are meddling in the child psyche before evaluating the merits of a case.

 

Kbug

 

 

Why does anyone do messed up stuff to their kids? And, no, I don't have an 8 year old, but when my youngest stepson was 8 my husband had to deprogram him every custody weekend after his mother spent two weeks telling him what an evil person his father was. At that time, my husband said it was very obvious because the kid would come over gun shy and by the end of the weekend it was like "oh right, this is the dad I love". He'd only had 2 years of exposure at that point, by the time he 13 he was well and truly brainwashed that dad was evil incarnate and only good for being the ATM machine. So, yes, at 8 if a child was exposed enough, he could very well have been trained by his parents in the gender he picked rather than having chosen it naturally. I'm not saying they did, I'm saying that if I was involved in the case I'd have to seriously evaluate that possibility because I think it would effect the decision.

 

Kbug

 

WHY would his parents try to "brainwash" him that he is a boy? Their lives would be 10 million times easier if his gender was female.

[Kbug]

 

Um. Ok. That is a very odd perspective and thought process regarding this case. A child's gender was decided for the child, against current medical and psychological protocol. Why you'd be skeptical about the parents seems rather strange.

 

I'm curious why this is an issue now, after so much time has passed. In my opinion, if this was about principle it wouldn't have waited until now, it would have been brought up sooner in the child's life and without the attachment of a gender assignment dispute. I also have to wonder, would the parents still have a case, or ever have made a case, if the child was currently saying they were a girl. It think that is an important point to consider too. Just because they are parents does not mean they do not have an agenda and the bottom line is some parents have no qualms about using their children to further their own agendas. I just don't read stuff like this and assume the "injured party" is honest with all the facts. I'll admit, I'm a skeptic, and having been exposed to the kinds of people and circumstances I have been exposed to in my life, I automatically question motives and look for the hidden agenda. It doesn't mean I think there necessarily is one, just that I always evaluate the possibility.

 

 

Your response to me isn't, IMO, on topic to the issues emerging from the topic.

 

I think it is exactly on topic. I just expressed a line of thought that most of you failed to consider. I qualified why I could see this being a concern and a possible point of defense for the state based on a similar experience. All kids get "coached" into a certain attitudes and beliefs by their parents, consciously or not. Most of those situations are appropriate, but some are not. It is entirely possible to coach any child into a particular attitude or belief given enough time and exposure, even if it is not consciously being done. I know of parents who have had their kids coached into hating them, coached into believing they've been sexually abused, coached into believing they had not been sexually abused and even one being coached into a sexual orientation all by a parent. It can and does happen.

 

Obviously I upset the forum by suggesting the possibility that things may not be as they appear and sometimes parents aren't as pure as they make themselves out to be.

 

Kbug

[Kbug]

WHY would his parents try to "brainwash" him that he is a boy? Their lives would be 10 million times easier if his gender was female.

 

Now, if I could answer that I'd win a Nobel Peace Prize. Just because I can't explain WHY doesn't mean that stuff like this does not happen. People just have their own agendas. Heck....how many girls in China get aborted or abandon just for being girls? Some people just have the idea of a boy child being the ideal prize. My point was, there is a lot more going on than just what decision the state made over 7 years ago (which I guess I'll go ahead and say I don't think the state did the right thing). I get, and am not arguing, that what the state did was traumatic.....but have the parents possibly made it worse? To me, that possibility makes a difference in the court's final decision on "damages".

 

Kbug

[Kbug]

Do some research about anxiety and transgender and you may think differently about the "easily" part.

 

 

You would be surprised at what a child would do/say to please a parent when caught in a loyalty bind. Some of those things would completely blow your mind.

 

Kbug

[nmoira]

I'm curious why this is an issue now, after so much time has passed. In my opinion, if this was about principle it wouldn't have waited until now, it would have been brought up sooner in the child's life and without the attachment of a gender assignment dispute. I also have to wonder, would the parents still have a case, or ever have made a case, if the child was currently saying they were a girl.

 

If they'd sued right away, without a clear indication that the child would identify as a boy, I'll wager you would have considered that opportunistic as well. I'm sorry, but I find your logic to be twisted.

[catz]

 

If they'd sued right away, without a clear indication that the child would identify as a boy, I'll wager you would have considered that opportunistic as well. I'm sorry, but I find your logic to be twisted.

 

 

:iagree: I just see no logical motive for these parents to be making this up. Of course the state was wrong. They cut off a child's pen*s. It's pretty standard practice to watch and wait in cases like this. The family isn't even suing for a particular amount of money. They say their motive is not to allow this to happen to other children. They are leaving any monetary awards to the court. Here is a audio of the parents at the bottom of this page.

 

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/993969/north-carolina-lawsuit-toddlers-sex-reassignment-surgery

 

If the parents are malicious they would be outed pretty quickly by the medical and psych community that will undoubtedly be very involved in this case.

[Kathryn]

I expect that they are suing now because he's been self-identifying as a boy for a while, and puberty is coming up soon. Unless they've got some crazy money, for them to be able to give him some semblance of "normal" through the coming years is going to be hard. Since his male organs were removed, he'll need hormone therapy, and perhaps he would like to have some sort of reconstruction work done. I really don't see any reason at all to accuse them of anything nefarious here. It seems pretty logical to me that they wouldn't sue when he was a baby and they had no clue what he'd eventually identify as, since there wouldn't really be "damages" if the state had somehow chosen correctly.

[Kbug]

It seems pretty logical to me that they wouldn't sue when he was a baby and they had no clue what he'd eventually identify as, since there wouldn't really be "damages" if the state had somehow chosen correctly.

 

 

This really makes no sense. The state's decision was either dangerous, traumatic and wrong for all the previous mentioned physical and psychological reasons regardless of the later gender decision or it isn't. If the state had happened to choose the self-identified gender that doesn't lessen or negate wrongness of the decisions or lessen the "damage" that is being alleged in this case. Again, how does waiting 7 years help prevent this situation from happening to others? How many other children could this have happened to in the intervening time. To save other children from this fate it would make more sense to have made this case sooner. I really think the gender determination is sort of extemporaneous the the central point: should the state have made this decision?

 

And again, I NEVER said there in actually WAS anything nefarious about the parents motive....just that based on my experiences I can see how the possibility was there. Accepting the possibility of something does not mean accusing it to be true. And it is a likely point of defense for the state. Part of the "damage" these parents are claiming is the improper gender assignment and therefore the state should have a right to evaluate the parents level of influence or lack there of on the child's gender determination. I would expect this child and the parents to undergo an extensive interview process about how this gender determination developed in order to asses the level of "damages" and what should be awarded.

Kbug

[Kbug]

 

If the parents are malicious they would be outed pretty quickly by the medical and psych community that will undoubtedly be very involved in this case.

 

 

Just for the record, you have way to much faith in the medical and psych community to do something like that. The reality is that the medical and psych community have very little power in cases like this.

 

Kbug

[catz]

Part of the "damage" these parents are claiming is the improper gender assignment and therefore the state should have a right to evaluate the parents level of influence or lack there of on the child's gender determination. I would expect this child and the parents to undergo an extensive interview process about how this gender determination developed in order to asses the level of "damages" and what should be awarded.

Kbug

 

 

 

Just for the record, you have way to much faith in the medical and psych community to do something like that. The reality is that the medical and psych community have very little power in cases like this.

 

Kbug

 

 

 

Wow - did you notice that you contradicted yourself? If the state's defense folds over and comes to agreement about a settlement, they're basically accepting guilt. If they have a chance of proving that this child NEEDED this surgery for some reason or that the family was influencing the child, they would take it and use it. All it would take is a few of the doctors to show up and say the surgery was medically necessary. Courts order psych evaluations on a pretty regular basis. I absolutely think frivolous lawsuits exist in the world. I just think the vast majority of them fall apart in a court of law if competent lawyers are involved that call the right expert witnesses.

[Kathryn]

 

 

This really makes no sense. The state's decision was either dangerous, traumatic and wrong for all the previous mentioned physical and psychological reasons regardless of the later gender decision or it isn't. If the state had happened to choose the self-identified gender that doesn't lessen or negate wrongness of the decisions or lessen the "damage" that is being alleged in this case. Again, how does waiting 7 years help prevent this situation from happening to others? How many other children could this have happened to in the intervening time. To save other children from this fate it would make more sense to have made this case sooner. I really think the gender determination is sort of extemporaneous the the central point: should the state have made this decision?

 

THIS makes no sense. If the state had picked the "right" sex, the costs associated with that decision would be drastically different. Yes, it was still wrong even if they'd chosen correctly. But, I expect that if the child identified as female, the parents wouldn't feel the need to make their son the poster child for this issue, and I doubt the SPLC would have readily taken on the case. It's easier to demonstrate how wrong performing this surgery on babies is when the case in point is a child for whom the decision was the wrong one.

[nmoira]

 

 

THIS makes no sense. If the state had picked the "right" sex, the costs associated with that decision would be drastically different. Yes, it was still wrong even if they'd chosen correctly. But, I expect that if the child identified as female, the parents wouldn't feel the need to make their son the poster child for this issue, and I doubt the SPLC would have readily taken on the case. It's easier to demonstrate how wrong performing this surgery on babies is when the case in point is a child for whom the decision was the wrong one.

 

 

Exactly. You can't sue unless you can show damages. If the state had guessed correctly, the parents' not suing would not imply the state's actions were ethical.

[swellmomma]

 

First of all, why would they do this? And have you yet had an 8yo? Good luck with that. :rofl:

 

They're not asking for specific damages, leaving it to the discretion of the judge should they prevail. If I understand correctly, any damages awarded would be to the child since he is the harmed party.

 

 

Yup, and if it is anything like my ds9's court case. We are suing someone that hurt ds9, the exact $ amount is basically being left up to the courts, the money will go straight into a trust with a legal trustee until ds9 turns 18 at which time it becomes his. I would assume this case would have a similiar stipulation/rules about how it is handled. The parents can not touch the money so this is not a get rich quick scheme, it is a security net to make sure the expenses of future surgeries(if he choses to revert back to boy parts are covered).

 

As for the insinuation that the parents are scheming. Prior to age 8-10 most kids have not fully identified as one gender over another. They may say they are a boy or girl based on how they are raised, but they do not full start self identifying usually much younger than that. The boys play like girls and put on girl clothes and pretend to be mommy. The girls adopt boys names and make believe they are boys etc. All in fun and exploration but not a true self identity in that gender. By age 8 kids know what they know of how they feel inside as their gender. Especially as the hormones start ramping up towards puberty. I doubt that the parents have ever coached him to say he feels like a boy because if that was the case, a) most likely the child would accidently slip one time in the comments, or the parents would slip a pronoun in discussion yet they all refer to this child as a boy and B) if I was a judge I would not determine a monetary value to an award until the child met with a shrink to determine how this is psychologically affecting the child, and I would certainly hope that they would find a shrink that would have enough knowledge to know when 1 truly self identifies with a particular gender vs one that is just playing around or pretending or confused still, such as one that works with transgender peoples.

 

No where in that little blurb of an article did I get the impression that the parents would scheming, liars, looking for a payday. How insulting to them and every parent that strives to advocate for their child when harm has come to them.

[ktgrok]

the idea that parents would, as a money making scheme, adopt a hermaphroditic child, spend YEARS coaching him to be a particular gender that goes against his sex organs, succeed at that, and then sue is ridiculous. There are easier ways to make money. faster ways.

[swellmomma]

the idea that parents would, as a money making scheme, adopt a hermaphroditic child, spend YEARS coaching him to be a particular gender that goes against his sex organs, succeed at that, and then sue is ridiculous. There are easier ways to make money. faster ways.

 

 

no kidding. And while I am sure the parents are intelligent I doubt anyone outside of ktgrok, authors and screenplay writers come up with plans like that. If we see a news story of ktgrok doing this than we can assume she has been scheming this for YEARS just to pick the right time to sue for money she would never see after spending 10s to 100s of thousands to raise such child to adulthood before the money is even available in the first place :p

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am surprised the surgery was done. It's been standard protocol to NOT do this surgery for going on a couple of decades.

 

 

I agree. I saw a show where a man's life was devastated by an early sex change operation. They changed him to a girl due to a botched circumcision and of course it never worked. The same show I believer also documented the devastation by such early operations on the inter-sex since often the wrong sex was chosen.

[Catherine]

What I find disturbing about this in addition to the ethical issues it raises is the appallingly poor quality of the writing of the article. It hints at certain realities (DID the state cut off a foster baby's penis without parental input?) without stating them, but worse, the author makes contradictory statements: the child had the external organs of a boy, AND had ambiguous genitalia. Both can't be true. If he had ambiguous genitalia, he couldn't have had the normal external genitalia of a boy. In the first sentence, the state is being sued for "performing sexual reassignment surgery"-what happened is that the child, in foster care, had gender *assignment* surgery. There is really no comparison between the two things. Argh. The level of public understanding of science and of human anatomy, for pete's sake, is so low!!!

[Violet Crown]

I expect that they are suing now because he's been self-identifying as a boy for a while, and puberty is coming up soon.

 

It's also possible they are up against the limitations period.

This really makes no sense. The state's decision was either dangerous, traumatic and wrong for all the previous mentioned physical and psychological reasons regardless of the later gender decision or it isn't. If the state had happened to choose the self-identified gender that doesn't lessen or negate wrongness of the decisions or lessen the "damage" that is being alleged in this case. Again, how does waiting 7 years help prevent this situation from happening to others? How many other children could this have happened to in the intervening time. To save other children from this fate it would make more sense to have made this case sooner. I really think the gender determination is sort of extemporaneous the the central point: should the state have made this decision?

 

Filing too soon could have meant insufficient evidence of injury. The parents may also have been hoping the gender identification issue would resolve itself in favor of being a girl.

 

The article isn't really helpful with many of the questions one would want to ask. But one would hope that the parents discussed these issues with their attorney long before filing suit.