A Texas woman who says she was rushed into irreversible gender transition procedures as a minor is now asking the Texas Supreme Court to clarify when the clock starts ticking on medical malpractice claims tied to such treatments.
Soren Aldaco, 23, shared her story publicly as her case moves through the state’s highest court. Aldaco argues that medical professionals affirmed her transgender identity as a teenager and authorized procedures that she now believes should never have been performed.
According to Aldaco, she began identifying as transgender at age 11 after spending time in online chat rooms where identity discussions were common. By 15, she said, a medical professional told her parents that her emotional distress stemmed from being “a boy trapped in a girl’s body.” That assessment, she contends, shifted the direction of her treatment.
Aldaco said that while one set of parents urged caution, another was persuaded by medical advice encouraging gender transition. She was placed on hormones at 17 and underwent a double mastectomy at 19. She later experienced serious complications and said her surgical team failed to provide adequate follow-up care, forcing her to seek emergency treatment elsewhere.
Within months of the surgery, Aldaco said she began reconsidering her decision and ultimately detransitioned. She attributes that change to personal reflection, her faith, and what she described as a growing awareness that her childhood experiences and mental health challenges had influenced her earlier choices.
Her lawsuit centers on whether the statute of limitations for malpractice began when a therapist issued a letter recommending surgery or when the surgery itself occurred. Aldaco’s legal team argues that harm could not have occurred until the procedure was performed, while the defense contends the clock started with the authorization letter.
The distinction is significant. In many malpractice cases, the alleged negligent act and the resulting harm occur at the same time, such as during surgery. In Aldaco’s case, however, the recommendation and the procedure were separated by months. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether her claim proceeds.
In addition to the broader authorization issue, Aldaco’s case also includes claims related to the surgical technique used, which she alleges contributed to her complications.
Texas lawmakers banned certain gender transition procedures for minors in 2023. Aldaco said she hopes her case will not only clarify legal standards but also prompt greater scrutiny of medical practices involving young patients.
Now married and rebuilding her life, Aldaco acknowledged that the physical and emotional consequences of her transition will remain with her permanently. She also described strained family relationships that developed during her transition, noting that acceptance of harm is often difficult for parents who believed they were acting in their child’s best interest.
A decision from the Texas Supreme Court could come within months, though the timeline remains uncertain. The ruling may shape how courts across the state handle similar claims as more detransitioners pursue legal action related to medical treatment they received as minors.