Anti-Trans Court "Expert" Couldn't Name A Single Medication For Blocking Puberty

A new investigative piece delves into the anti-trans experts making the rounds across the United States. In it, we learn that one highly paid expert could not even name a common puberty blocking drug.

A cohort of so-called experts has traveled the United States, raking in more than a million dollars to contest gender-affirming care for trans youth in court battles. Judges have frequently dismissed them as lacking credibility, yet states continue to shell out for their services. A recent deep dive by HuffPost into court transcripts now casts serious shadows over their proclaimed "expertise." Astoundingly, one of these alleged specialists, Dr. James Cantor, couldn't even identify a single drug used in puberty-blocking treatments for transgender youth.

The article uncovers the details around a group of six witnesses that states have paid over a million dollars to defend anti-trans laws. These witnesses include:

• Paul Hruz - An endocrinologist who, according to court documents in Arkansas, has never treated a patient for gender dysphoria.

• Michael Laidlaw - An endocrinologist often associated with the Alliance Defending Freedom who has appeared in conferences that promote “curing homosexuality through faith healing.”

• James Cantor - A psychologist who did not see youth patients in his care typically, has never diagnosed gender dysphoria in young people, and who subscribes to the much discredited theory of “autogynephelia,” essentially calling being transgender a fetish.

• Stephen Levine - An ex-WPATH psychiatrist who argues for removal of gender affirming care for transgender inmates.

• Quentin Van Meter - Former president of the American College of Pediatricians, a SPLC-designated hate group that supports sexual orientation therapy.

• Patrick Lappert - A doctor who is also a deacon for Courage International, a conversion therapy organization encouraging gay people to “live chaste lives.”

Judges have consistently ruled these witnesses as not credible. For example, in Arkansas, Judge Moody declared Dr. Lappert and Dr. Hruz unqualified—both had attempted to defend the state's law. Moody pointed out that their views on gender-affirming care "are rooted in ideology rather than science." In Florida, a judge emphasized in a footnote that Dr. Hruz appeared as “a deeply biased advocate” and highlighted the underlying ideological insinuation from these so-called experts that “transgender identity is not real, that it is made up.”

These witnesses have, at times, made statements widely decried as cruel towards transgender people. Dr. Hruz has, for instance, once allegedly answered claims of transgender suicidality with the statement: “some children are born into this world to suffer and die.” Meanwhile, Dr. Lappert, in an interview on a Catholic YouTube channel, even compares pronouns to heresy, stating “no one is served by heresy.”

Now, in this latest investigative piece by HuffPost, new court transcripts have been analyzed and unveiled, including this stunning deposition of Dr. James Cantor, when he was unable to name a single puberty blocker:

Deposition of Dr. James Cantor

Because of moments like this, judges at the district court level have frequently ruled against anti-trans experts on the scientific grounds for bans on gender-affirming care. Specifically, in cases from Florida, Arkansas, and Tennessee, judges determined that the facts robustly endorse gender-affirming care's efficacy in curbing suicidality, anxiety, and depression in transgender youth. Yet, some of these rulings have been overturned at the appellate level in ongoing court fights. This shift isn't due to appellate judges being persuaded by these witnesses' testimonies. Instead, they lean on the recent Dobbs abortion decision, which permits such bans based on the premise that gender-affirming care “is not deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions.”

GOP-aligned judges in the 6th and 11th Circuit courts contend that transgender individuals don't constitute a “quasi-suspect class” under the equal protection clause. They argue that discrimination against transgender individuals doesn't amount to unlawful gender discrimination, essentially sidestepping the rationale the Supreme Court employed in Bostock v. Clayton County, which established Title VII rights for trans individuals. With this perspective, these circuits employ the “rational basis” review as opposed to intermediate scrutiny. This means states aren't obligated to demonstrate that these bans are precisely targeted and evidence-backed, but merely that the law has a rational connection to a legitimate governmental objective. This stance diverges from the 8th Circuit Court, which sustained the preliminary injunction in Arkansas using intermediate scrutiny.

To the advantage of these state "experts," they can persistently promote pseudoscientific perspectives on transgender care without genuinely substantiating the care's purported harm. This endeavor has proven exceedingly profitable for them. Based on public records requests, state and local governments have disbursed $1.1 million to such experts and an additional $6.6 million to affiliated teams. These numbers, as reported by HuffPost, likely are half of the true dollar figure given that many states did not release their spending.

There are many more court cases left - challenges are currently proceeding in places like Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and more states have court cases currently underway. Undoubtedly, these experts will continue to travel and defend anti-trans state laws in many of these states.

You can read the full investigative report from HuffPost here.