Last week, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the malpractice lawsuit of detransitioner Soren Aldaco, whose vulnerable mind was preyed upon by the coerciveness of transgender ideology starting at age 11.

Aldaco was convinced that to get the identity-based affirmation she ostensibly needed, she had to pursue medical intervention. As she wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “Too young to vote or drink, I became immersed in the idea that hormones and surgeries would fix me.”

At 17, a nurse practitioner who influenced Aldaco’s decision on cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers (this NP attended a transgender support group that Aldaco had attended since age 13) finally prescribed her testosterone and estrogen blockers.

At 19, Aldaco got an elective double mastectomy to aid her body in looking more masculine. She underwent this procedure while taking 10 different hormone-affecting drugs. The procedure caused her to have serious side effects. The doctors who cut her up tried to tell her that her severe bruising was normal. It was not. She finally saw breast oncology doctors who removed three cups of blood from her botched surgery and added a Penrose drain. It was this experience that woke Aldaco up to the predatory nature of those who peddle in “gender-affirming care.”

Aldaco sued her doctors in 2023. However, the statute of limitations for such malpractice suits is generally two years. What her lawsuit is arguing, though, is that the statute of limitations has not passed because the complaint is based on the continuing harm that the surgeries did to her and not the actual date of the surgery. This is why the Texas Supreme Court must determine if Aldaco can take legal action against her butchers.

This lawsuit is the next in a series of cases set for trial. The first one, which recently occurred in New York, was won by detransitioner Fox Varian. Shortly after that legal victory, major medical groups changed their tune on so-called gender-affirming care for minors. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons declared that there is no proven benefit to butchering mentally confused children.

In related news, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is officially going after the World Professional Association for Transgender Heath (WPATH). Official civil investigative demands were issued on January 15.

BREAKING! HUGE!! HUGE!!

The FTC is going after WPATH for deceptive trade practices!!

Finally!!!!

The Federal Trade Commission has opened a consumer protection investigation into two major nonprofit medical organizations:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and… pic.twitter.com/kckhiMPxjw

— Jennifer 🟥🔴🧙‍♀️🦉🐈‍⬛ 🦖 (@babybeginner) February 11, 2026

WPATH stands accused of deceptive trade practices, which is under the auspices of the FTC. WPATH has responded with a counterpetition to “quash” the investigation. There are pages and pages attached to the petition, but the main claim from WPATH is that it cannot be investigated by the FTC because it doesn’t sell anything. Except that WPATH is selling something: a lifestyle, an ideology, and a permission structure for medical professionals to experiment on people in mental distress.

WPATH has already been exposed by Michael Shellenberger for its shady and sinister operations. The FTC just needs to finish the job.

In the Texas case, it will be interesting to see if that state’s high court agrees with the plaintiff. There is a lot of hope. If a detransitioner can win a malpractice suit in New York, how could one not win in deep-red Texas?

As for the FTC, going after WPATH is the logical next step in bringing down the house of cards that the predatory ideologues have built. It started crumbling in Europe when Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala of Finland began sharing her findings. After employing the “Dutch Protocol” (a.k.a “gender affirmation” method) for years, she changed her approach in 2016. She has been trying to share her wisdom in the U.S. ever since, but too many doctors here are too tribal to listen to reason.

Common sense isn’t convincing some American doctors, but it seems that money — or the loss of it through malpractice lawsuits — will.