COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – The trial that could impact healthcare for Ohio’s transgender minors has hit the halfway point.
The plaintiffs in the trial are asking Republican Judge Michael Holbrook to strike down the Saving Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. If enacted, the law would ban minors from receiving gender-affirming care. It was supposed to go into effect in April but was put on hold by Holbrook before it could, and at least for the duration of the trial.
Wednesday was a slow start to the morning to get the trial started, as the defense was calling for the case to be dismissed. Ultimately, the judge decided to move forward with testimony as the defense called its first witness, Dr. James Cantor, to the stand.
“Now politics have become so extreme on both sides, it’s very, very difficult to get an objective measure,” Cantor, a sex researcher, said.
Cantor said he has been a sex researcher of what he called “atypical” behaviors for three decades. His testimony took a stark contrast to medical experts from the past two days, who said gender-affirming care can help save lives. Cantor testified to the contrary.
“People with gender dysphoria do indeed have elevated rates of suicide and suicidality but that is also true after treatment,” Cantor said. “It doesn’t come down after treatment, they continue to have higher rates.”
Cantor went through direct examination for about three hours and has not yet been cross-examined by the plaintiffs. During those three hours, he also testified that often, based off his research, he finds that minors realize they are not transgender as they go through puberty.
“As they start to experience the onset of sex drive and getting crushes and so on, the majority of them figure out that they felt like the other sex just because they were destined to be gay or lesbian, but they misinterpreted their affiliation for dolls instead of sports, they misinterpreted what they meant,” Cantor said. “They interpreted that to mean they were the other sex.”
Cantor said that “medicalized transition doesn’t even need to get this far,” adding that the risks outweigh the benefits.
“That’s enough to say that one oughtn’t do it except in very restricted circumstances,” he said.
On Tuesday, Dr. Sarah Corathers testified that she finds the exact opposite in her clinical experience.
“After a series of hundreds of encounters now with families in which we’ve gone through an informed consent discussion, we find together that the relative benefit of these therapies far outweighs the relative risk of these therapies,” she said
At the conclusion of the trial, the decision whether to allow the law to go into effect or to strike it down will be up to Holbrook alone, not a jury.
