In the midst of an ongoing legal battle over Missouri’s ban on gender-affirming care, so-called expert witnesses in favor of the ban have had their credibility called into question, meaning their testimonies may either be thrown out or given little weight in the court’s decisions.
John Michael Bailey, a fringe psychologist who promotes the debunked theory of autogynephilia, was called by Missouri’s Attorney General as an expert witness in support of the legislation, The Missouri Independent reports. Autogynephilia refers to the idea that trans women transition either due to the act of transitioning being a sexual fetish or to lure straight men into a relationship.
Related:
Bailey is also the author of a retracted study on the also debunked concept of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), the idea that being trans is a trend that youth rapidly latch on to due to social pressure. Bailey was examined by Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter over the reliability of his study along with his views on some controversial subjects.
Stay connected to your community
Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter.
Bailey’s study did not verify if any of the participants were actually diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Instead, it surveyed participants from ParentsofROGDKids.com, a website dedicated to parents who believe ROGD is a valid concept that has afflicted their children. The co-researcher on the study was someone under a pseudonym who was tied to the website, and Bailey did not even know who the person actually was.
Bailey has claimed that his study – which was retracted due to issues of informed consent – was actually retracted due to pressure from activists.
Additional work he’s done involved him looking into Reddit threads with people who consider themselves ‘detrans’ and ‘desisting.’ These concepts refer to trans people who have stopped transitioning or stopped identifying as trans.
But the main issue calling his credibility into question centered on Jerry Sandusky, a former college football coach who was convicted of sexually assaulting young boys over the course of 15 years. Bailey believes Sandusky is innocent.
“You believe the people testifying against Jerry Sandusky are lying?” Carter asked him.
“I can see that if you are not familiar with the evidence that I am familiar with, you would be shocked,” Bailey told him.
Bailey got his information from a podcast and praised conservative commentator John Ziegler.
“Do you know [Ziegler]? Have you talked to anybody that was an eyewitness in that case?” Carter pressed.
“I have read testimony, but I have not talked to anyone,” Bailey responded.
All of this cast doubt on Bailey’s authority as a medical professional.
The court also called into question the supposed expertise of endocrinologist Dr. Daniel Weiss, as it was revealed that he had not published any research on trans youth and did not have clinical experience with minors. He was paid by the Center for Christian Virtue, a conservative Christian advocacy organization, to serve as an expert witness, the Independent reported.
He said of whether he’d publish research on gender affirming care, “My article, if I were to write one, would be rejected by most medical journals because there is no good treatment. I call it child-harming treatment. There is no good intervention.”
The Missouri bill in question, Senate Bill 49, completely restricts anyone under the age of 18 from accessing any form of gender affirming care, including puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and surgeries.
In addition to the ban, state officials have quietly made it harder to change gender markers on driver’s licenses and have also attempted to restrict care for trans adults.
The fate of gender-affirming care will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court this fall with the case U.S. v. Jonathan Skrmetti et al, which concerns Tennessee’s ban on care for minors. This case will decide whether or not trans kids will be able to transition in Tennessee, with expectations that it will effect gender-affirming care for all minors across the nation. It is unknown how the Supreme Court will rule, although the current Court has historically ruled conservatively on social issues.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
