Trans Woman Sues OB-GYN for Refusing Treatment of Male Genitalia
A trans woman in Chicago has filed a lawsuit against a local OB-GYN clinic after allegedly being denied treatment related to her male genitalia, raising legal and ethical questions surrounding transgender healthcare access and provider obligations.
According to court documents filed Monday, the plaintiff, identified as Alyssa M., claims that she sought care at Rosewood Women’s Health Clinic for pain and swelling in her groin area. The clinic specializes in obstetrics and gynecology, but also advertises “inclusive, LGBTQ+ affirming care.” Alyssa, a 34-year-old transgender woman, alleges that after disclosing the nature of her symptoms, the attending physician declined to treat her, stating that the clinic was not equipped to manage issues related to male anatomy.
“I was shocked and humiliated,” Alyssa said in a statement through her attorney. “They pride themselves on being inclusive, yet I was told to seek care elsewhere — simply because my body doesn’t fit their idea of who belongs there.”
The lawsuit claims that the denial of care violates both the Illinois Human Rights Act and provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, including gender identity. Alyssa is seeking unspecified damages and a formal apology from the clinic.
Rosewood Women’s Health has responded to the allegations, stating in a press release, “We are deeply committed to treating all patients with dignity and respect. However, our clinic is specialized in gynecological and obstetric care, and our medical staff are not trained or credentialed to provide urological services. Our decision to refer the patient to a more appropriate provider was based solely on clinical scope of practice.”
This case has reignited broader conversations about the responsibilities of healthcare providers in serving transgender patients, especially in gendered medical specialties.
Legal experts note that the outcome may hinge on whether the refusal constituted discrimination or a medically justified referral. “This case sits at the intersection of civil rights and medical licensure,” said Dr. Natalie Reed, a professor of health law at Northwestern University. “Clinics are not required to treat every condition, but if the patient was turned away solely due to her gender identity, that may constitute a legal violation.”
Advocacy groups have voiced support for Alyssa, calling the case a stark example of the healthcare hurdles trans individuals face. “Trans people are often forced to navigate a medical system that isn’t built for them,” said Alex Chen of the Trans Rights Defense League. “This case highlights why comprehensive provider training and clear anti-discrimination policies are urgently needed.”
Meanwhile, the incident has sparked debate online. Some argue that medical specialization should not be politicized, while others insist that any clinic advertising inclusive care should be prepared to accommodate diverse needs or have direct referrals in place.
As the case proceeds, it’s likely to serve as a legal and cultural test for how transgender patients are treated in traditionally gender-specific medical fields — and whether inclusion in healthcare truly lives up to its name.
