Celeb trans kids: Will the Gender Fairy bring dreams—or genital surgery nightmares?

Fourth in our series featuring Dr. Curtis Crane, phalloplasty surgeon. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here.

4thWaveNow contributor Worriedmom has practiced civil litigation for many years in federal and state courts.


by Worriedmom

These days, the world (or at least the media) certainly does not seem in short supply of telegenic, winsome, and appealing “transgender children.” One recent example is Jacob LeMay, pictured here, who as a nine-year old prompted Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren to commit to seeking Jacob’s input and guidance on her choice for Secretary of Education.

This wasn’t Jacob’s first time in the spotlight, either. As a transgender five-year-old, Jacob’s story was featured on NBC Nightly News and the Today Show. Because at the age of four, sensitive to what they interpreted as gender distress on his part, Jacob’s parents offered “a number of choices,” one of which was whether to start life anew as a boy.

Jacob’s parents have been generous with their transgender parenting expertise, sharing insights with Harvard’s Graduate School of EducationGood Morning America, New Hampshire Public Radio, “Here and Now” on Boston’s WBUR, and MSNBC, among others. Jacob’s mother, Mimi, has already written her memoir chronicling the family’s journey.

Some might find the idea of a memoir just a bit premature given that Jacob’s transgender journey is, at this point, only five years in duration, but honestly, you’d have to be a real meanie to object. Jacob is an undeniably cute kid, the entire family is good-looking, relatable, and well-educated, and they certainly seem to care a great deal about Jacob, as well as Jacob’s future well-being.

And while one might envision a series of memoirs, detailing Jacob’s life of fulfillment, it’s also entirely possible that this will be the first and only installment.

Even in the few short years since the “transgender child” became the media’s go-to story, several stars have skyrocketed to prominence, only to disappear. Remember Coy Mathis’ brave fight to use the little girls’ room at age six? No word on Coy’s doings since Coy was featured in a 2016 documentary film, “Growing Up Coy.” Similarly, Willa Naylor, the transgender eight year old and author whose sympathetic story motivated the entire country of Malta to change its laws, has been radio silent since 2016.

Lila Perry, the Missouri high school student whose quest to use the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms triggered a student walk-out, similarly has not been heard from since 2015.  Where do they all go?

It may be that Jacob’s transgender story will, at some point, go dark. We may never know whether Jacob, who like the others has been frequently lauded as “brave” and “inspirational,” will have the happy ending that early childhood transition, we are told, is guaranteed to produce.

Stories are important, but unfinished stories can be deceptive. Before we can confidently predict that Jacob, and peers will live “happily ever after,” we should take a look at another story.

This story received no media attention. There are no soft-focus interviews, picture books, or product tie-ins.

This is the story of M.

The only reason we know about M’s story at all is because M was one of at least nine former patients of Dr. Curtis Crane, late of San Francisco and currently of Austin, Texas, who filed medical malpractice or other personal injury cases against Dr. Crane. M’s case (CGC-17-560690) was, like the others, filed in the civil division of the San Francisco Superior Court under the pseudonym “John Doe.” (Note: Although M was repeatedly “doxxed” in the court records by the attorneys on all sides, we retain his privacy here, as we have no interest in shaming or causing further sadness to M [we use M’s preferred pronouns for the same reason].)

The court file reveals M’s journey to manhood, which, in his own words, entailed “many surgeries.” M’s transition journey is detailed below and all of the information is taken directly from the court file:

  • According to his attestation, M’s efforts to become a man began in late 2003 with a “social transition.” According to medical records, M was born in 1977, which made him 26 years old at the commencement of the transformation process.
  • In 2004, about six months after his social transition, M began treatment with male hormones.
  • In 2005, M received a bilateral mastectomy.
  • In 2006 M received a total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (which meant that M’s uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes and ovaries were all surgically removed).
  • In 2009, M received a metoidioplasty, an operation that uses tissue from the clitoris, which has typically been enlarged from testosterone use, to form a “neo-penis.” This operation was performed by the famous Dr. Miroslav Djordjević of Serbia, which was in the process of becoming an international hub of transgender surgery.

Alas, M’s gender journey was far from over.

  • In 2011, M underwent his first phalloplasty or surgical construction of a penis, with Dr. Toby Meltzer. This operation was not planned to, and did not, include construction of a functioning urethra. (We note that Dr. Meltzer has also been widely panned by at least some of his SRS patients.) The tissue to form the neophallus in the 2011 surgery was apparently taken from M’s back, and left behind a “dog ear.” During the 2011 surgery with Dr. Meltzer, M also received a vaginectomy (surgical removal of the vagina) and a scrotoplasty (construction of an artificial scrotum).

After all of this, M continued to suffer from gender dysphoria. In 2014, M came under the care of Dr. Curtis Crane. The surgical consent form indicates that M was to receive:

The plan for this surgery was to remove the “old” phallus from 2011, and to re-construct a new one, this time with tissue from M’s left forearm (M underwent electrolysis and laser hair removal on the forearm area for six months prior to the surgery to prepare the skin for transplant). The new penis would have a functioning urethra. The lawsuit against Dr. Crane arose because, while M alleged that he repeatedly told Dr. Crane and his staff that he did not need a vaginectomy and a scrotoplasty, those having already been performed by Dr. Meltzer in 2011, M stated that Dr. Crane over-rode his instructions and both cut into the area where M’s vagina had previously been, and damaged and dis-placed M’s scrotum (as discussed more fully below).

The legal papers contain another interesting and tantalizing suggestion that is never developed in the record. Specifically, M alleges that when M complained to Dr. Crane that vaginectomy and scrotoplasty were listed on M’s informed consent document, when those operations were not supposed to be performed, Dr. Crane reassured M that they were listed on the document either as a typo or for billing purposes [emphasis added]. A curious fact, if true.

According to court records, M’s lawsuit against Dr. Crane was dismissed on March 15, 2019. As is customary, there is no indication whether Dr. Crane, or his insurer, paid any damages to M.

Following the 2015 phalloplasty and other procedures with Dr. Crane, incredibly, M required at least three additional surgeries. In April 2016, M underwent a “phallus shortening” procedure, which involved “telescoping entire phallus into suprapubic area.” In November 2017 M went to Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles and received a urethroplasty in a two-stage procedure, to close the neourethra which was placed by Dr. Crane. Then, in March 2018, Dr. Garcia and another surgeon again performed surgery on M, this time to “re-place” the existing penis (which was also displaced), and to re-orient M’s scrotum. In his lawsuit against Dr. Crane, M alleged that during the 2015 surgery, Dr. Crane had “displaced” his scrotum by three centimeters, leaving it immediately adjacent to his anus. Moreover, M claimed, Dr. Crane had moved M’s testicles from their customary “side by side” position and re-placed them one in front of the other.

In March 2019 (following the three post-Crane surgeries), M stated that he still had an abscess in his pelvis where his vagina had been. Moreover,

At this point, words cannot really begin to describe M’s ordeal.

M was forced to take off work from September 2015 through February 2016 (5 months), then returned to work in March of 2016, but had to stop working again in November 2017. It’s unknown whether he ever returned to full-time work (in a court filing dated March 2019, M stated that he had been out of work for “the majority” of the past three years). The filing also stated that, because of the surgeries he had undergone, M had to assume a new job for which he was paid 50% less, and was then living “paycheck to paycheck.”

M alleged that his out of pocket expenses for the September 2015 surgery with Dr. Crane were approximately $6,500, while his out of pocket expenses for the November 2017 surgery with Dr. Garcia were approximately $4,000, and he expected to spend about $4,000 more for the “last” surgery in the spring of 2018.

M’s out of pocket expenses pale in comparison to the price tag for the surgery performed by Dr. Crane, however, which was approved by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care in the amount of $126,508.  Given that fact, the total financial cost of M’s gender journey is no doubt somewhere north of a million; the personal cost is, of course, incalculable. And yet M’s gender dysphoria endures.

So returning to the celebrity trans kids at the beginning of this article: What do you suppose young Jacob, and Jacob’s transgender peers, are hearing about their likely futures? Do you think that, being young children after all, they expect that one day the Gender Fairy will pay a visit? Or do they believe that, as Diane Ehrensaft claims, “God got it wrong,” and someday they will return to the womb and re-emerge as their correct gender? After all, nobody is better at magical thinking than young children, and raising a girl as a boy, or vice-versa, is implicitly, if not explicitly, affirming the child in the belief that one day her wish will come true.

M’s phalloplasty story isn’t suitable bed-time fare, at least not for Jacob. But for Jacob’s parents, and their many peers, perhaps it should be. After all, the Gender Fairy could someday deliver a real-life nightmare.

Catching up with renowned phalloplasty surgeon, Dr. Curtis Crane

by Worriedmom

Third in a series. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.

4thWaveNow contributor Worriedmom has practiced civil litigation for many years in federal and state courts.


Since our last coverage of medical malpractice litigation against renowned phalloplasty surgeon Curtis Crane, M.D., we’ve received frequent inquiries about the current status of the lawsuits and his practice. Research has revealed some interesting facts and circumstances about Dr. Crane.

First, as of this writing, there no longer appear to be any open civil cases against Dr. Crane in the state of California. All eight of the malpractice cases that had previously been pending in the San Francisco Superior Court have now been “dismissed with prejudice” (read on to understand the meaning of “with prejudice” in the settlement context, since this doesn’t mean what some folks may assume it does).

Specifically:

Doe v. Crane, CGC-16-550630 was dismissed April 5, 2017.

Carter v. Crane, CGC-16-554254 was dismissed December 10, 2018.

Raynor v. Crane, CGC-17-556713 was dismissed November 8, 2018.

Carson v. Crane, CGC-17-556743 was dismissed October 10, 2018.

Doe v. Crane, CGC-17-557327 was dismissed November 8, 2018.

Davis v. Crane, CGC-17-557363 was dismissed December 10, 2018.

Shepherd v. Crane, CGC-17-559294, dismissed October 3, 2018.

Doe v. Crane, CGC-17-560690 was dismissed March 15, 2019.[1]

A ninth malpractice case, Hansen v. Crane (CGC-18-571442), brought in November of last year, was also dismissed on January 14, 2019. As with the other actions listed above, this lawsuit also alleged malpractice in connection with genital surgery:

Interestingly, the plaintiff in that case alleged that at the time he consulted Dr. Crane, Dr. Crane told him that “none of his patients had ever had a serious complication from phalloplasty, that it was a safe procedure, and that only 5% of his patients have needed surgical repairs.”

As of the writing of this article, however, all of the malpractice litigation filed against Dr. Crane in San Francisco has now been dismissed. What does this mean? It’s impossible to know.

What we do know is that none of these dismissals appear to have been the result of a jury or other type of fact-finding proceeding that evaluated Dr. Crane’s conduct and made any findings about negligence or malpractice. In other words, it does not appear that an independent arbiter has reviewed the facts of these cases and ruled on whether the care provided either complied, or did not comply, with established “standards of care.” This is not surprising, since over 90% of all medical malpractice cases never go to trial.

One might reasonably conclude, then, that all of these actions have been settled out of court. For what amount of damages? We can’t know. It could be zero, it could be $10 million. The amount paid in settlement of such a claim is confidential virtually 100% of the time. The medical liability insurance carrier is, in most cases these days, the party that decides whether or not to settle a case, and this is a “business decision” on the carrier’s part.

From interrogatory answers filed in the Raynor case, cited above, we do know something about Dr. Crane’s professional liability and medical malpractice coverage in 2016, the date the malpractice alleged in that case was claimed to have occurred (see Motion for Relief from Waiver of Discovery Objections dated April 16, 2018, Declaration of Corban J. Porter and Exhibit D thereto):

Private settlement agreements also typically include “NDA” (or non-disclosure agreement) provisions, in which the parties agree to keep all terms of the settlement confidential, and further agree to the payment of damages in the event of a breach. These NDA provisions have, of course, come under public scrutiny as part of the “MeToo” movement and the Stormy Daniels affairs. Some commentators argue that keeping medical malpractice settlement amounts confidential hurts the public:

Secret nondisclosure agreements also affect patient safety by allowing bad doctors and other dangerous medical providers to continue to harm patients because their incompetency is hidden from their present and future patients and employers.

Finally, these litigations were also dismissed “with prejudice,” which means that the plaintiff cannot bring another lawsuit based on the same facts. This makes sense, because otherwise no defendant would ever pay money in settlement of a litigation if he or she knew that the plaintiff could simply re-file the same lawsuit another day.  So, it’s important to understand: When dismissal “with prejudice” is entered as part of a settlement, it does not indicate that anyone has ruled on the merits of the case.

That’s it for our legal update, but for those of us who are interested in Dr. Crane and his business model, there have been some additional developments.

Most important, it appears that Dr. Crane may no longer be performing surgery in the state of California (although his medical license is still current in that state). His prior practice, Brownstein & Crane Surgical Services, seems to be out of business. Any internet searches for brownsteincrane.com result in a re-direct to “Crane Center for Transgender Surgery,” a practice operating in California and Texas.

In and of itself, this is not surprising. According to the Crane Center’s Facebook page, Dr. Brownstein retired in 2013, after having performed “thousands of FTM chest surgeries” and passing this extensive knowledge along to Dr. Crane.

What is notable is that, as of the time of our earlier article in 2018, Brownstein-Crane was a thriving California transgender medical practice. According to the Wayback Machine, which is the only source for information on the practice, back in March of 2018, Brownstein-Crane, in addition to Dr. Crane, employed:

  • Thomas Satterwhite, M.D. (plastic surgeon);
  • Heidi Wittenberg, M.D. (OB/GYN, surgeon);
  • Michael Safir, M.D. (uro-genital reconstructive surgeon);
  • Ashley DeLeon, M.D. (uro-genital surgeon);
  • Charles Lee, M.D. (micro-surgeon);
  • David Chang, M.D. (surgeon);
  • Gabriel Kind, M.D. (plastic surgeon); and
  • Michael Parrett, M.D. (plastic surgeon).

A photograph that appeared on Brownstein-Crane’s now-defunct website.

Of all those doctors, today only Drs. DeLeon and Safir remain affiliated with Dr. Crane. Dr. Crane now appears to practice in Austin, Texas, and has been joined there by Dr. Richard Santucci (together with Dr. DeLeon); Dr. Safir holds down the fort in San Francisco and has been joined by Dr. Angela Rodriguez. Dr. Crane’s website indicates that information about the Crane Center’s doctors is “coming soon.”

It’s not clear when Dr. Santucci joined Dr. Crane’s practice, but he does not appear to have been part of the earlier Brownstein-Crane incarnation:

Source.

Not to worry, though: Dr. Safir remains busy in San Francisco.

 Source.

The Crane Center has wasted no time in accessing potential new patients, sending attractive representatives to attend such conferences as Gender Odyssey in San Diego and the Philadelphia Trans Wellness Conference, and sponsoring art festivals and pride events.

For an added bonus, prospective patients may even be able to receive a free initial surgery consultation, right there at the conference!

What is the story behind Dr. Crane’s relocation to Texas?

It’s impossible to know. Perhaps some of his current or former patients will enlighten us.


[1] Interestingly, on March 7, 2019, Crane’s defense counsel in this case was ordered to pay a $1,800 sanction for “misuse of the discovery process.”