Legal Expert Highlights Definitional Crisis in Gender Medicine, Citing Research Impossibility

A prominent legal expert, Glenna Goldis, has voiced strong criticism regarding the scientific basis of "gender medicine," asserting that the lack of clear definitions for "gender" and the concept of "aligning a body to a non-corporeal quality" make scientific experimentation in the field impossible. Her remarks underscore a growing debate about the foundational terminology used in medical and social contexts surrounding gender identity.

"Devising a scientific experiment about gender medicine is impossible because no one can define 'gender' or explain how one might 'align' a body to a non-corporeal quality," Goldis stated on social media. This critique aligns with her broader advocacy, where she frequently questions the scientific rigor and ethical implications of gender-affirming treatments, particularly for minors. Goldis, a New York-based lawyer with experience in government and fraud investigations, has been a vocal participant in discussions surrounding the Health and Human Services review on gender medicine.

Medical and scientific communities generally differentiate between "sex" and "gender." Sex typically refers to biological characteristics such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs, usually categorized as male, female, or intersex. In contrast, "gender" is widely understood as a social construct encompassing roles, behaviors, expressions, and a person's internal sense of self, which may or may not align with their sex assigned at birth. This distinction, though evolving, has been a cornerstone of discussions by organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

Despite efforts to establish clear definitions, some medical professionals and researchers acknowledge challenges. Studies have noted the "scant amount of scientific data on the biological origins of gender identity" and the absence of "standardized scientific definitions of gender." This ambiguity can complicate research design and the consistent application of medical protocols. Goldis has previously highlighted concerns about misleading language in medical guidelines, even accusing the American Academy of Pediatrics of consumer fraud regarding claims of reversibility for puberty blockers.

The ongoing debate over terminology and scientific methodology impacts the development of evidence-based care and regulatory frameworks. Critics argue that without precise, universally accepted definitions, the efficacy and long-term effects of gender medicine interventions remain difficult to rigorously assess and ethically justify, particularly when involving irreversible medical procedures.