Glenna Goldis, formerly an assistant attorney general in New York, recently found herself at the center of a significant controversy. Her candid criticism of “gender-affirming care” resulted in her dismissal by Attorney General Letitia James. Goldis, who identifies as a “lefty lesbian lawyer,” has not shied away from expressing her views on this contentious issue, particularly regarding the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors.
During her time in the New York Attorney General’s office, Goldis became increasingly vocal about what she perceived as dangerous practices within pediatric gender medicine. In her tenure with the consumer fraud bureau, she highlighted potential consumer fraud by PGM providers. In January, she shared on social media that her outspoken stance resulted in her termination. Goldis stated, “I was fired by NY Attorney General Letitia James for speaking out against pediatric gender medicine (PGM).”
Goldis’s critical remarks included claims that “gender identity, the way it is defined by gender doctors, has no definition.” This assertion reflects her broader argument that the current practices in adolescent gender reassignment may pose risks. Her perspective, which has now led her to a new role, caught the attention of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). There, she has been appointed as a senior litigator in the Bureau of Consumer Protection, where she will lead investigations into the implications of so-called “gender-affirming care.” Joe Simonson from the FTC praised Goldis, calling her “extraordinary, brave, and intelligent.”
This change of allegiance from the New York Attorney General’s office to the FTC is telling. It underscores the complex landscape of opinions surrounding pediatric gender medicine and highlights the challenges faced by those who speak out. Goldis’s experience signals a growing divide in attitudes towards PGM within legal and medical communities.
Her public statements have not only triggered her dismissal but also sparked broader conversations about the definitions and implications of gender identity in medical practice. During a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, Goldis articulated her belief that the current medical narrative has harmful repercussions for impressionable youth. She mused, “Some kids do wish they were the opposite sex – and you tell them they can’t be.”
As events unfold, Goldis’s journey serves as a focal point in the ongoing debate over gender identity and medical ethics. Her new position at the FTC may enable her to pursue inquiries that can influence policy discussions and consumer protection in this arena. Goldis’s transition reflects the broader societal conversations about gender, health care, and the significant ramifications these discussions hold for the future of youth and medical practices.
"*" indicates required fields
