Sinead Haupt, a 25-year-old resident of Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, has filed a lawsuit alleging medical negligence following gender-affirming surgery that he says left him physically and psychologically harmed. Haupt, who initially transitioned from male to female beginning in his late teens, underwent an orchiectomy last year—a surgical removal of his testicles—believing it would improve his mental health. Instead, he reports severe impairment of sexual function and worsening depression, prompting him to begin detransitioning back to male.

Haupt’s legal action, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, accuses the hospital, doctors, and therapists involved of failing to adequately assess his mental health and of not providing sufficient warnings about the irreversible consequences of the surgery. The lawsuit contends that healthcare professionals misrepresented the risks, leading Haupt to consent without fully understanding the potential long-term impacts. His attorneys assert that he was left “disfigured and without a properly functioning body,” a claim the hospital declined to comment on due to ongoing litigation. A representative for the mental health providers stated their intention to defend the care delivered.

Haupt’s experience is part of a broader and increasingly visible phenomenon as more individuals who have undergone gender-affirming treatments seek to reverse those interventions and, in some cases, pursue legal recourse. Over the past decade, gender-affirming care in the United States expanded considerably, with specialized clinics for youth growing from a single centre in Boston in 2007 to more than 60 nationwide by 2023. Insurance coverage for transgender healthcare also broadened during this period, contributing to a rise in treatments including puberty blockers and surgical procedures. According to an industry analysis, gender-affirming procedures increased from 4,552 in 2016 to 13,011 in 2019, with nearly 8 percent performed on individuals aged 12 to 18.

However, the landscape has shifted amid growing public and legal scrutiny. In January 2026, Fox Varian, a 22-year-old detransitioner from New York, won a landmark $2 million medical malpractice verdict after arguing her providers failed to obtain appropriate consent in approving a double mastectomy she had at age 16. The ruling marked the first time a jury found in favour of a detransitioner in a malpractice case related to pediatric gender-affirming surgery. Following the verdict, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons updated its guidance to recommend that gender-affirming surgeries be delayed until patients are at least 19 years old—a change some experts have described as tantamount to a ban.

Other detransitioners, such as 24-year-old Soren Aldaco of Texas, are pursuing similar legal claims, alleging inadequate psychological evaluation and coercion. Aldaco, who had a double mastectomy at 19, contends she was “gaslit” into transitioning without proper treatment for trauma experienced during childhood. Defendants in these cases deny wrongdoing and are contesting the allegations.

Access to gender-affirming care, particularly for minors, remains a contentious issue in the United States. While gender-affirming surgeries for under-18s are relatively rare, opponents argue that minors lack the capacity to consent to irreversible procedures. Supporters maintain that such care is crucial for alleviating gender dysphoria and improving the mental health of transgender youth. The debate has intensified amid state-level bans and efforts by the federal government to restrict funding for transgender healthcare services, leading some hospitals— including in states typically supportive of transgender rights—to suspend youth programs.

Haupt, who continues to take testosterone to counteract effects of the surgery, said he thought the procedure would be life-changing in a positive way but instead experienced harm. “They didn’t ask me if I was certain that I really needed to be physically a woman in every way, shape and form,” he said. While cautious about how his lawsuit might be perceived, including by advocates for gender-affirming care, Haupt emphasizes that his case is about accountability for the care he received, not a broader judgment on transgender healthcare. “It did cause harm,” he reflected.