JD

J. D. v. Lackner

Good Law
145 Cal. Rptr. 570·1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1401·80 Cal. App. 3d 90
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 20, 1978Civ. 42125California3,810 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Abbe, J.

The essential facts in this case are not in dispute.

Appellant, who has been and shall be allowed to proceed herein under the fictitious name J. D. was born physically a male on January 1, 1948. At a very early age, she developed many female characteristics which became more obvious as she grew older. The evidence presented at the hearing was that appellant has never experienced an erection or had sexual relations and has failed to develop secondary male sex characteristics, such as facial hair and a deepening of the voice. Her mother and father were unable to accept this. Appellant’s childhood was unstable and she developed a drinking problem in late adolescence. As a result of family problems, appellant moved to San Francisco at age 20, adopted a female name and started living completely as a woman. She obtained employment at various places but was unable to continue in these jobs more than a month or so and then she would be fired or would quit due to her failure to undergo physical examinations because of her fear of having her genital identity discovered. She has suffered severe depression and has attempted suicide on several occasions.

In 1969, appellant sought…

dissent Opinion

Scott, J.

I dissent, for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in G. B. v. Lackner, ante, page 64 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 555 ]. The case at bench, like G. B. v. Lackner, involves a person who is physically a normal male, but who feels that he is a woman. Although appellant does not have a deep voice or facial hair, and appellant testified that he had never experienced an erection or had sexual relations with a woman, substantial evidence was presented that appellant is, physically, a normal male. Appellant presented a letter dated September 10, 1976, at his fair hearing, in which Dr. David Feldman, assistant professor of medicine at Stanford University, stated that appellant’s “genitals appear to be that of a normal male with questionably slight testicular atrophy. Our impression was that the patient was a genetic male and that there was no endocrinologic abnormality present.” After making several hormone measurements, Dr. Feldman concluded, “At this point there does not seem to be an endocrinologic abnormality except for the elevated *96 estrogen which I feel is most likely due to ingestion of estrogen.” Consequently, I would uphold the decision of Dr. Lackner to refuse Medi-Cal benefits…

Opinion

The essential facts in this case are not in dispute.

(1) Appellant, who has been and shall be allowed to proceed herein under the fictitious name J.D. was born physically a male on January 1, 1948. At a very early age, she developed many female characteristics which became more obvious as she grew older. The evidence presented at the hearing was that appellant has never experienced an erection or had sexual relations and has failed to develop secondary male sex characteristics, such as facial hair and a deepening of the voice. Her mother and father were unable to accept this. Appellant's childhood was unstable and she developed a drinking problem in late adolescence. As a result of family problems, appellant moved to San Francisco at age 20, adopted a female name and started living completely as a woman. She obtained employment at various places but was unable to continue in these jobs more than a month or so and then she would be fired or would quit due to her failure to undergo physical examinations because of her fear of having her genital identity discovered. She has suffered severe depression and has attempted suicide on several occasions.

In 1969,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.