Judicial Court Files And Judge Gavel.

When the Law of Scientific Evidence Collides with Medical Practice

By Barbara Pfeffer Billauer

Approaches to resolving scientific evidentiary issues continue to diverge throughout the country.[1] A prominent recent example includes the rejection of the medical diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) to reflect disparate views in the scientific, medical, and legal communities.

Under guise of making a scientific evidentiary ruling, a New Jersey court has just dismembered the medical diagnosis of SBS, with the judge disavowing the condition’s validity. The decision concerned two babies, both under one year old, who suffered devastating neurological injuries while under the care of their fathers.

Read More

a man waves an intersex-inclusive progress pride flag in the wind on the sky.

Certainty and Uncertainty in Trans-Intersex Science Politics

By Maayan Sudai

Joanna Wuest’s Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement describes the evolution of the “born this way” framework through pivotal moments in the history of the LGBTQI+ movement.

A central theme of the book’s analysis is the role that “certainty” and “uncertainty” play in the legitimation of science-based policy regarding sexuality and gender issues. Uncertainty of what might happen has been pitted against LGBTQI+ reforms, from when conservative researchers and practitioners argued the exposure of young children to an openly gay guardian or schoolteacher could be harmful (p.92), to present-day attempts to leverage uncertainty to block trans access to sex-segregated bathrooms, prisons, and shelters (p.181).

Read More

Medical Caduceus Symbol as Scales with backlight over Wall in dark room.

Gender-Affirming Care, Abortion, and the Politics of Science: A Response to Wuest’s ‘Born this Way’

By Aziza Ahmed

On August 21, 2023, the 11th Circuit issued a decision that allowed a ban on transgender care to go into effect in Alabama. The Alabama ban, formally called the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, is one of the most extreme of the many bans on gender affirming care. The law defines sex as the “biological state of being female or male, based on sex organs, chromosomes and endogenous hormone profiles…genetically encoded into a person at the moment of conception…” and targets physicians who might undermine this notion of sex with criminal prosecution. Their punishment could be up to ten years in prison.

Read More

SACRAMENTO, CA, U.S.A. - OCTOBER 9, 2021: A mother and child march with Proud Mom and Trans Rights are Human Rights signs during the National Trans Visibility March.

Protecting Trans Children: Scientific Uncertainty and Legal Debates Over Child Custody and Access to Care

By Marie-Amélie George

A tweet turned Luna Younger’s personal struggle into a national controversy. Using 148 characters, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services would be investigating the seven-year-old’s family. Prompting his declaration was a jury’s award of custody to Luna’s mother, Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician who supported Luna’s gender transition. A year before the case made its way into court, Luna had asked her parents to call her Luna, rather than her (traditionally male) legal name, to reflect her gender identity. That same year, a therapist diagnosed Luna with gender dysphoria, which is distress from the mismatch between a person’s assigned sex at birth and their gender identity. As a result, medical professionals recommended that Luna be referred to as “she” and be allowed to wear the feminine clothing and keep the long hair that she preferred. Luna’s father, Jeffrey Younger, registered his objection to Luna’s gender identity by shaving her head, even as he allowed Luna’s twin brother to maintain his locks. Georgulas petitioned for an order prohibiting her ex-husband from “engaging in non-affirming behavior and/or taking Luna outside the home as [her birth name], or allowing others to do so.” Jeffrey Younger counterclaimed for sole legal custody.

Read More

Washington, DC, USA - December 1, 2021: Abortion rights rally at the Supreme Court, Jackson Women's Health v. Dobbs.

Biological Determinism, Scientific Uncertainty, and Reproductive Rights

By Mary Ziegler

As Joanna Wuest writes, the role played by science in the LGBTQ+ movement “is at once a celebratory and cautionary story.” Something similar could be said of struggles over reproductive rights in the half century since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade.

Today, after decades of staying on the sidelines, physicians have once again been at the forefront of struggles over abortion, launching a ballot initiative in Ohio, bringing lawsuits, and speaking against state criminal bans. Physicians’ investment in the struggle — and the scientific arguments they bring to bear — seem like a possible turning point in future struggles over reproductive rights and justice. After all, medical professionals have both special expertise and political capital that could make a difference at a time when disapproval of abortion bans is already high.

But history suggests that arguments based on science have played a far messier role in struggles over reproductive rights. As often as scientific evidence has advanced reproductive rights, abortion foes have used claims about scientific uncertainty to justify new restrictions — and have harnessed claims of biological difference to assert that there is no connection between sex equality and abortion.

Read More

MONTREAL, CANADA -16 AUG 2015- The annual Fierte Montreal parade took place on August 16, 2015 on Boulevard Rene Levesque in Central Montreal. It is the largest Gay Pride in the Francophone world.

“Born This Way,” LGBTQ+ Rights, and the Politics of Uncertainty

By Joanna Wuest

“Medical uncertainty” is no straightforward matter when it comes to LGBTQ+ health and civil rights. Take for instance the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals 2020 decision striking down a pair of municipal ordinances in Florida that had banned so-called “conversion therapy” for minors (contemporary psychology’s preferred nomenclature is “sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts”). In an enormous blow to the evidence-based notion that such change efforts are harmful — they are indeed responsible for much trauma and death — two Trump-appointed judges declared that the science of sexual orientation and gender identity was much too uncertain to justify the bans. Gesturing to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) renowned 1973 removal of homosexuality from its list of disorders, the judges explained that “it is not uncommon for professional organizations to do an about-face in response to new evidence or new attitudes.” Ergo, because the APA had changed its mind once fifty years ago, it may just as easily reverse itself again. According to this view, we may one day wake up to find that mental health professionals have reclassified queerness as a malady to be cured rather than a sense of self to be embraced and protected by law.

Read More