The credibility of the state’s expert witnesses became a focal point in Missouri’s defense of a law prohibiting minors from receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The trial in Cole County Circuit Court could heavily depend on these experts, including some with retracted studies and questionable theories. Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter, presiding over the case, scrutinized the credibility of John Michael Bailey, a psychology professor from Northwestern.
Bailey had previously authored a now-retracted study titled “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.” This study suggested that adolescents identify as transgender due to social contagion. Bailey’s credibility was further challenged due to his social media posts supporting Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester, and his endorsement of conservative commentator John Ziegler’s work on the case. “You believe the people testifying against Jerry Sandusky are lying?” Judge Carter asked Bailey.
Bailey defended his stance by referencing secondary sources such as podcasts and testimonies but admitted to having no direct conversations with eyewitnesses. Bailey’s study on transgender youth was retracted for issues related to informed consent, as the participants were unaware their responses would be included in the research. The study’s co-author, known by the pseudonym Suzanna Diaz, was linked to the website ParentsofROGDKids.com and was not a trained researcher.
credibility concerns in Missouri case
Bailey acknowledged he did not verify the gender dysphoria diagnosis of his study participants through direct means, often relying on forums such as Reddit. Dr.
Daniel Weiss, another defense expert, testified against the use of cross-sex hormones for both adults and minors. Although he once treated transgender adults, he no longer supports such interventions, citing a lack of scientific evidence. Weiss admitted he has not published any peer-reviewed articles on gender dysphoria, stating, “My article, if I were to write one, would be rejected by most medical journals because there is no good treatment.” Weiss was involved in the trial at the request of the Center for Christian Virtue, an advocacy group with anti-LGBTQ views.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Nora Huppert raised questions about Weiss’s clinical experience with minors, revealing he had none, which potentially limits the weight of his testimony. In the state’s pretrial brief, Solicitor General Joshua Divine argued that defendants need only demonstrate “medical and scientific uncertainty” to justify the state’s restrictions on gender-affirming care. Despite entering the trial with confidence, the credibility concerns regarding their expert witnesses might influence what Judge Carter will ultimately consider.
Other witnesses included parents who disagreed with their children’s decisions to transition, adding another layer to the complex and emotionally charged trial.
- MissouriIndependent.”Credibility of state’s expert witnesses questioned in Missouri transgender health care trial”.
- MissouriIndependent.”Ruling on Missouri transgender health care restrictions expected by end of year”.
- Advocate.”Missouri expert witness opposing gender-affirming care for minors faces credibility questions”.