Glenna Goldis, a lawyer who once served New York Attorney General Letitia James, found herself unexpectedly on the other side of a legal battle after voicing concerns about “gender-affirming care.” Her outspoken stance ultimately led to her dismissal, a consequence she described as a direct result of challenging prevailing narratives.
Goldis, identifying as a “lefty lesbian lawyer,” raised alarms within the Attorney General’s office regarding the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors. She believed these practices potentially constituted a dangerous consumer fraud, a conviction she publicly articulated despite internal pressure.
Her concerns weren’t confined to internal discussions. Goldis participated in an FTC roundtable, boldly stating that the very definition of “gender identity,” as used by medical professionals in this context, lacked a concrete foundation. This assertion sparked immediate attention and debate.
The fallout from her public statements was swift. In late January, Goldis announced her termination by Attorney General James, citing her critique of pediatric gender medicine as the reason. She felt her warnings were dismissed and she was treated as an obstruction.
Goldis didn’t retreat. She published a scathing analysis of James’s response to responsible medical professionals, arguing that her firing stemmed directly from undermining the Attorney General’s position on transgender legal arguments and overall credibility.
A surprising turn came with an offer from the Federal Trade Commission. Goldis was hired as a senior litigator, tasked with investigating potential harms related to “gender-affirming care.” The FTC lauded her bravery and intelligence, recognizing her extensive background in consumer protection.
This appointment represents a significant shift, bringing a critical voice with firsthand experience into a position to examine the practices she previously questioned. It signals a renewed focus on potential consumer protection issues within the realm of gender-affirming treatments.
In a conversation with Megyn Kelly following her dismissal, Goldis passionately argued against the normalization of medical interventions for children grappling with gender dysphoria, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging and respecting a child’s initial feelings without immediately resorting to potentially irreversible treatments.
Goldis’s journey, from within the ranks of a prominent Attorney General’s office to a key role at the FTC, underscores the growing complexity and intensity of the debate surrounding gender-affirming care and the legal ramifications of these evolving medical practices.
