The era of ascendant transgender ideology in the United States is over. This is not to say that transgender ideology has been defeated or has gone away. Much work remains on many levels. But, at least as measured by certain legal landmarks, the ascendancy of trans ideology in the US has ended. There are hopeful signs that it has even begun to recede. This is indicated by several recent developments in litigation and legislation.
In the US, legal change can be effected in a number of ways. The most obvious, of course, is through legislation: the enactment of legal codes restricting or compelling certain behaviours. But a time-honoured means of effecting legal change in the US is through private litigation, the effects of which ripple throughout the country. This is especially the case in areas such as personal injury, products liability and medical malpractice law. A February 2026 case in New York – in which a plaintiff successfully sued her psychologist and surgeon, resulting in an award of $2 million – illustrates the point. More important than the monetary judgment, however, is the signal that this case sends to physicians and hospitals throughout the United States.
When she was sixteen years old, a girl named Fox Varian was diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a psychologist, after which she and her mother were pressured to commence cross-sex hormones and undergo a double mastectomy. She later sued both the psychologist and the surgeon, claiming that she was pressured into the surgery without adequate screening or other indications of proper professional care. Ms Varian’s mother testified that she was coerced by the defendants with the false trope that ‘it’s better to have a live son than a dead daughter’. A jury found that the defendant psychologist and surgeon breached the accepted standard of care in New York by rushing Ms Varian into this life-altering surgery.
The broader effect of the Varian case was immediate. Within days, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons issued a statement that it no longer recommends so-called trans-affirming surgery for anyone under the age of 19. Like clockwork, this was followed by a statement by the American Medical Association essentially mimicking the ASPS statement. While the judgment in the Varian case is limited to the facts of her suit, it is a shot across the bow of every paediatric gender clinic and (just as importantly) every medical malpractice insurance carrier in the US. As of the day I am writing this column, approximately 30 similar cases are pending across the country. It is expected that favourable judgments and settlements will continue to roll back mutilating paediatric surgery in the US.
Shortly after the Varian judgment was entered, the US Supreme Court dealt a further blow to trans ideology, this time in public schools. The state of California enacted a law that requires teachers in public schools to conceal ‘social transition’ of students from the students’ parents if the child requests it. The law even required teachers to lie to parents if asked about such social transition. By a vote of 6–3, the Court effectively struck down this law in the case of Mirabelli v Bonta, saying that it infringes both parents’ religious liberty under the US Constitution and their common law authority over their minor children’s decisions. While the case is in California, it applies to any state in the US that implements similar ‘secret transition’ laws or regulations.
These two cases follow another pair of Supreme Court cases, one of which has already been decided and another that will likely continue the string of victories in June or July 2026.
In June 2025, the Court handed down its judgment in United States v Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that bans administration of puberty blockers and cross-hormone therapy for the ‘treatment’ of gender dysphoria in minors. While this case does not prevent other states from permitting this practice, it protects states that ban it. Thus legislatures in many states are following Tennessee’s lead in protecting children from paediatric trans ideology. Coupled with the Varian case described above, this is a significant victory for vulnerable children.
In January 2026, the Court heard oral argument in the case Little v Hecox. This is a challenge to laws in the states of Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit males from competing in female athletic competitions. Though the case is immediately applicable to these two states, the outcome will have a direct impact on similar statutes in about 27 other states in the US. Hecox will not be decided until June or July, but the January oral argument strongly indicates that these laws will be upheld, probably by a 6–3 majority. The outcome will not compel states to bar boys from girls’ athletics, but it will protect those that do. It will also provide a roadmap for legislatures in other states to enact similar legislation.
These battle victories have not decided the outcome of the war against dehumanising trans dogma. But they are significant wins, portending a levelling of – if not a retreat from – this pernicious ideology.
