Professor Sues University of Louisville for Alleged Termination Due to his Transgender Views

There is a potentially important lawsuit pending in Kentucky on academic freedom and free speech. The University of Louisville is accused of retaliating against Professor Allan Josephson for his participation at a Heritage Foundation event on transgenderism.
The lawsuit has a novel defense from the university, which is spending public funds to fight free speech rights.Professor Allan Josephson has a long and impressive career. He became a medical doctor in 1976 and a board certified psychiatrist in 1982. He taught and held clinical positions in psychiatry at the University of Minnesota Medical School and the Medical College of Georgia. Ultimately, Dr. Josephson became a full professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia and the Chief of its Division of Child, Adolescent, and Family Psychiatry. He is also a distinguished fellow at a host of leading associations and has a long list of publications and prestigious appointments.

On October 11, 2017, Dr. Josephson participated in Heritage Foundation’s panel presentation entitled “Gender Dysphoria in Children: Understanding the Science and Medicine.” He was joined on the panel by Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, and Dr. Paul Hruz, Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the Washington University School of Medicine.

The complaint alleges that Stacie Steinbock, director of the LGBT Center at the University’s Health Science Center, Brian W. Buford, then the Executive Director of the LGBT Center, and Dr. Christine Brady, assistant professor in the Division took the lead in efforts to retaliate against Josephson for holding opposing views on gender dysphoria.

Notably, the complaint also alleges that one group involved in these efforts held opposing interests in another pending case involving Dr. Josephson: “On October 29, 2017, Dr. Josephson learned that Lambda Legal, the LGBT advocacy group representing the plaintiff in the federal case in Florida for which he served as an expert witness, intended to subpoena multiple University officials.”

Ultimately, Josephson was stripped of his position as the chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology and demoted to a junior faculty member status. Later the university refused to renew his contract. I have previously written about how such contract faculty are particularly vulnerable to pressure and coercion over their academic or political views.

What is interesting is the latest skirmish in the litigation. On November 14, the university argued that Dr. Josephson must prove that he was aware the university was allegedly harassing him to use the alleged incidents as evidence. It insists that some of these meetings and measures were carried out without his knowledge and therefore could not have contributed to a “hostile environment” or made him “suffer.”

On the subjective component, while “a plaintiff does not need to be the target of, or a witness to harassment” for the incident to be legitimate evidence,“ he does need to know about it .” Berryman v. SuperValu Holdings, Inc., 669 F.3d 714, 718 (6th Cir.2012) (discussing Jackson, 191 F.3d 647) (emphasis added). “[I]f the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment.” Id. at 717 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1993)). “[A]n event should only be considered part of the totality of the circumstances if an individual employee claimed he was aware of it .” Id. (emphasis added).
In short, a plaintiff must “marshal basic evidence” to show actual awareness of claimed harassment

The argument strikes me as a tad forced in these circumstances since Josephson clearly was aware of the hostile environment shortly after the panel discussion.  The complaint contains this representations of the facts:

136. During the week of November 6, 2017, Dr. Josephson had several conversations with Defendant Carter and Dr. Brady.

137.  Defendant Carter and Dr. Brady expressed their concerns about Dr. Josephson’s views regarding the treatment of youth experiencing gender dysphoria based on his Heritage Foundation remarks.

138. Defendants Carter and Brady wrongly viewed Dr. Josephson as “hostile” to the treatment of patients experiencing gender dysphoria.

139. Dr. Josephson outlined a proposed program for treating youth experiencing gender dysphoria that involved cooperation between identified leaders from child psychiatry and pediatric endocrinology and detailed both how a patient would enter each system and be selected for medical and mental health treatments.

140. Dr. Josephson proposed that Dr. Brady could lead this proposed program in concert with endocrinology.

141. Defendant Carter and Dr. Brady curtly rejected Dr. Josephson’s proposal.

142. Dr. Brady declared that she did not trust Dr. Josephson to treat children experiencing gender dysphoria, claimed that he was not qualified to do so, and impugned his overall knowledge of these patients.

143. At the time, Dr. Brady had barely three years of clinical experience, compared to Dr. Josephson’s over thirty-five.

The implications of the university’s arguments could be quite stark for victims of such retaliation. So long as meetings and measures occurred in secret, a university could deny the use of such evidence at trial. In this case, the hostile environment encountered by Dr. Josephson appears to have been open and immediate despite not knowing the specifics of some of the meetings or communications made outside of his presence.

What is equally striking is the effort and expenditures of the University of Louisville in this case. The University appears entirely hostile not only to Dr. Josephson but the underlying principles of academic freedom and free speech. It seems clear that these measures would not have been taken if his views were in conformity with others on the faculty.

While I am not familiar with all of the views of Dr. Josephson, the question is why a faculty member cannot hold dissenting views on such subjects if he is not engaging in acts of discrimination or retaliation against patients, students, or colleagues.

The concern is that faculties have become echo chambers for a type of academic orthodoxy. Indeed, some have defended the trend to remove conservative faculty members from universities on the basis that conservative views are unworthy of being taught.

The editors of the legal site Above the Law have repeatedly swatted down objections to the loss of free speech and viewpoint diversity in the media and academia. In a recent column, they mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools.

Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law.  (Patrice regularly calls those with opposing views “racists,” including Chief Justice John Roberts because of his objection to race-based criteria in admissions as racial discrimination). He explained that hiring a conservative academic was akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism (or that the sun orbits the earth) to teach at a university.

It is that easy. You simply declare that conservative views shared by a majority of the Supreme Court and roughly half of the population are not acceptable to be taught.

In this context, there is the added element of whether the views of a physician have lead to the denial of care for patients. However, there is no indication that such a finding was ever made against Dr. Josephson, who details efforts to reach out to the LGBT community. For example, Dr. Josephson cites a minor exchange as an example of how he was rebuffed in these efforts:

148. In the fall of 2017, Dr. Josephson became aware that many faculty members displayed rainbow stickers in their offices to communicate support for LGBT people.

149. Dr. Josephson desired to post a rainbow sticker in his office and instructed his assistant to request one from the LGBT Center, which she did on November 10, 2017. A true, accurate, and complete copy of the request from Dr. Josephson’s assistant is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4.

150. Three days later, Mr. Buford refused to provide Dr. Josephson the requested sticker. Ex. 4 at 1. 151. Mr. Buford refused to provide the sticker because he objected to the views Dr. Josephson expressed at the Heritage Foundation and in his expert testimony.

152. Mr. Buford falsely claimed that “Dr. Josephson has recently given speeches and taken part in other activities in which he refutes the existence of transgender identity.” Ex. 4 at 1.

153. In actuality, Dr. Josephson never refuted the existence of gender dysphoria; he simply advocated a different method for treating individuals experiencing it.

154. Mr. Buford insisted that Dr. Josephson’s expression “is in direct conflict with the spirit of the ally campaign.” Ex. 4 at 1.

The alleged denial of a sticker is obviously a small matter, but it is offered by Dr. Josephson as part of a more general effort to show that he was unable to demonstrate his support by those who insisted that he did not support the whole community.

Dr. Josephson is advancing five claims:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech Retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech Content & Viewpoint Discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to be Free from Unconstitutional Conditions (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process of Law (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Law (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

This case could have significant impact for not just the University of Louisville but other universities. We will continue to watch it closely.

Here is the complaint: Josephson v. Bendapudi

Here is the Defendant’s Response: Def’s Resp. to Josephson’s Chart 

80 thoughts on “Professor Sues University of Louisville for Alleged Termination Due to his Transgender Views”

  1. Walkers ruling is extremely narrow limited ONLY to colleges and universities.

    I would note that Walkers ruling also makes college safe spaces illegal and canceling campus speakers.

  2. Did the Deep Deep State “Swamp” superRINO “Bumpkin From Bakersfield,” Kevin McCarthy open impeachment proceedings, starting with Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray yet?

  3. So if I burglarize your home, but you don’t happen to know I was there or what I stole, a burglary didn’t occur? Anyone remember the comedy “Soap,” with actor Richard Mulligan as character Burt? Burt would snap his fingers and believed he was invisible, and his family often played along. Sounds like this case.

  4. Using that measuring stick, everyone that supports the doctor’s view would also support Christian minister, Raphael Warnock’s morality over Herschel Walker’s. Unless religion is just being exploited to win elections.

    Warnock is the minister at Martin Luther King’s church.

      1. Dude or Dudette, It’s 2022 not 1700. There’s this new thing called birth control. You and your progressive klan should check it out. Re. rape: if progressive “criminal reform” State AGs were not promoting rape and violent crime, there’d be less rape victims desiring abortions.

        What happened to this pre-and-post-Roe meme (lie?:) “Once abortion is safe and legal all babies will be wanted!”

        Tell the audience once and for all: what exact and specific material, physical quality makes you human that a zygote lacks? Answer: nothing. Abortion is the forced murder of an unborn living human being, half of which are females. Once you open that door, then all bets are off to justify any unjustifiable taking of life.

        1. Its always the atheists who think they are center of the universe, that they know better, as if truth flows from them including declaring a child was born in the “wrong body”. The atheists embrace the unnatural act of undermining life at every turn, even ending life right after birth with decapitation.

          Primates and Hominids like Chimpanzees are just the opposite – they literally embrace life. They know their place in the animal kingdom and the universe. They know life is precious and to be revered. Not atheists though. Goes to show chimps can teach atheists a few things about reality. This chimpanzee mother has a better understanding of mothering than pro-abortionists womyn (Note: I am not a biologist!)

          At Sedgwick County Zoo in Wichita, Kansas a few days ago

      2. Abortion Disproportionately Targets Black Babies; CDC: 74% of Abortions in Mississippi Were Performed on Black Mothers

        CDC: 36% of Abortions Abort Black Babies
        —-

        Can that be called black genocide or do we refer to it as a helping hand to all those black folk living on the Democrat plantation?

  5. TRANSGENDERISM; A DANGEROUS PATH TO SEXUAL ANARCHY.
    11 / 2 / 2010

    A recent term in usage is “Transgenderism”; essentially an empty word conjured up as a neutral label for any individual not conforming to common social rules of gender expression. The term was created to help unite very disparate individuals under a vague commonality of interest in gender, in order to provide a basis for mutual benefit and support within an often violently antagonistic society.
    Transgenderism can refer to those who cross-dress, those who are intersexed, those who live in the opposite societal role of their physical sex, those who play with gender expression for any purpose whatsoever and transsexuals as well. The primary function is social and political, and not clinical, despite the efforts of some to legitimize this essentially meaningless term. It includes also what was called transsexual, a real disorder that should be treated, but is extremely rare.
    Transgender definition.

    Every society has morals, but these vary in different cultures. With the advent of the technology revolution and globalization the normal flux and changes in these basic values seems to have accelerated, many times with adverse results. In our country, a society based on Judeo-Christian values and an inherited European culture many advances have been made, especially in the area of inclusiveness and acceptance of others. In the forefront of these changes are the diminution of discrimination toward homosexuality, and the union of same sex individuals. In order to clarify my point of view on this difficult and controversial topic, we have to define what biology does, and its influence on behavior. A genetic origin will determine an impulse or desire, but by definition does not determine behavior or morality. A homoerotic desire does not force an act, willpower will determine its execution depending on whether the behavior is acceptable or not. This is why tolerance of a specific conduct by society is so important. The genetic studies on homosexuality done in twins and the lab show an indication of a biological origin, but they are mostly inconclusive. The gay and anti-gay lobbies push biology or behavior depending on their views, an important factor because a conduct could be changed much easier than one biologically determined. In the mental health professional world, we believe in the acceptance of this sexual orientation as a small deviation of normal as it only manifest itself on this particular orientation. Indeed, homosexuals are an important and integral part of our society in all its aspects. Facts clearly define both biology and will as influential, but neither is defining. As far as the prevalence of this sexual orientation the census show a figure of close to 2% of the population. The only other sexual deviation, using the medical definition, which has the potential of a physical determination and is, as it should, accepted by our society is transsexual. In a transsexual individual, its gender is not concordant with its sex. They may have been born as a boy or a girl, but feel as being of the opposite gender. Again, this dysphoria has indications of a biological determinant, but studies are not conclusive. The American Psychiatry Association defines this disorder’s prevalence as one in thirty thousand. Some recent studies n the Netherlands increases this frequency, the highest being one in twenty five hundred. Even this number means that only 0.04% of newborns suffer from this malady, classifying it as “extremely rare”. Rare or not it is an extremely serious condition that might commence in childhood, but cannot be confirmed until post-adolescence, and can lead, if not surgically corrected, to much suffering, depression and suicide. In most cases the gender doubts that existed in childhood resolve after adolescence the only precaution needed if doubt is professional supervision. Labeling as a disorder at that age is only could be described as child abuse. In order to understand the danger implied in the term “transgender” or “trans”, we have to know the difference between gender and sex. Gender is identity, and sex is the physical form and function that corresponds with one’s identity. Both are determined by brain function at different levels. More than ninety nine percent of individuals are born with gender/sex concordance. Of these, only from two to five percent have a biological predisposition to a different sexual orientation, but otherwise are perfectly satisfied with their gender. In other words, the “trans” movement claims to represent many forms of behaviors regarding gender, other than the few that are biologically legitimate disorders. Regardless of sexual orientation, both hetero and homoerotic individual’s values and morals as determined by the culture that we live in, are threatened. The tacit acceptance, as now has caught on with our media and television, of sexual fetishes, perversions, psychological disorders, mental illness and criminal behaviors as being “trans”, and thus “normal”, has to be understood as another way of destroying the very fabric of our society. The ultimate goal of this movement is to abolish the biological determinant of two genders, male and female, and establish a “gender neutral” society. Already we face fewer unions of couples, and more “open marriages” and hedonistic life styles. When instincts and the pursuit of pleasure become dominant in the population, it becomes the beginning of the end of its existence. Traditions and morals might vary in different cultures, but no civilized society has been able to survive without rules that control excess on its behavior, and where amorality rules. We are presently facing this danger.

    Fernando J. Milanes, MD
    Professor and Vice-Chairman Dpt. of Psychiatry, UM (Ret.)
    ACOS for Mental Health Dpt. of VA, Miami VA Hospital (Ret.)
    Chairman, Mental Health Council VA Hospitals and Clinics, Florida and Puerto Rico (Ret.)

    I warned about this movement over a decade ago!

    1. So do you think medical boards should disbar the Bush-era “torture-doctors” and “torture-psychiatrists” for violating their Hippocratic Oath? This lack of ethics and morality, you mention, seems to have started with not holding the George W. Bush doctors accountable.

      1. Ashcrofts Zersetzung-
        Ethical lapses in medicine are legion over the ages. As for the doctors engaged in the Bush interrogation methods, they were operating under a legal cover given them by the administration. Not sacrosanct by any measure. Also each case would require a specific examination of the case by a panel in the states where the doctors had their medical licenses. Also it’s not disbarment, it’s termination of the license to practice medicine, or a lesser punishment such suspension, additional medical education on ethics in medicine , or supervised practice where all charts or a certain number are reviewed for a period of time. Other punishments have been used.

      2. This started with establishment of the Pro-Choice ethical religion to sanction doctors performance of human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes, which was most recently consecrated in the Obama era in clinics, on the field, at the border, etc.

        1. Re: n.n

          There are several Christian interpretations. Not all persons of religion are united on any single interpretation. If there were only one interpretation, we would only have one church. We wouldn’t have Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics or Jewish (Old Testament).

          Even among Christian denominations, some churches believe in the “free will of man” on every issue. You can preach to them but people are free to make choices. These Christians usually don’t wear Christian tee shirts with Jesus holding automatic weapons [Frontline documentary “Mike Flynn’s Holy War” in 2022].

          Even among Catholics, some Christian nuns are strongly opposed to abortion but believe in the “free will” interpretation of religion. Although strongly opposed to abortion, they don’t believe a male-controlled nanny state government should be dictating to women. They essentially have a libertarian view that woman (citizen) not a male politician running for office should make decisions the woman has to live with.

          The male politician has no skin in the game. Men in Congress won’t even care for kids after they are born, why would anyone trust these guys? Nobody has a monopoly on religious interpretation. Many Christians are both Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion. Maybe that’s Herschel Walker’s stance on abortion?

          1. “There are several Christian interpretations. Not all persons of religion are united on any single interpretation. If there were only one interpretation, we would only have one church. We wouldn’t have Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics or Jewish (Old Testament).”
            So ? Does that mean you get to dictate to the Baptists how they understand the bible ?
            Are you an actual christian ? If not, then why is your interpretation of the bible meaningful ?

            “Even among Christian denominations, some churches believe in the “free will of man” on every issue.”
            Actually all Judaeo Christian religions and all or nearly all other religions, as well as nearly all philosophy accept free will.
            There are only 3 other possibilities in philosophy and none of those are particularly appealing.

            Regardless, Free Will in Judaeo christian theology does not mean “anything goes” – It means that you are free to choose to do good or evil.
            Of all the creatures god created only Human’s can choose between doing good and evil. All other creatures are driven by instinct or conditioning.
            They can not choose between good and evil and therefore they have no culpability for their choices.
            Free Will does not mean that anything goes. It means you are free to choose, and morally culpable for your choices.

            “You can preach to them but people are free to make choices.”
            That is quite literally the central tenant of Judaeo Christianity – except that you omit the part where we are morally culpable for our choices.
            I would note that is also true of the social contact – except that we are legally culpable for our choices, and we are [unished for violating the law by government not god. Regardless, it is still free will – and culpability.

            “These Christians usually don’t wear Christian tee shirts with Jesus holding automatic weapons [Frontline documentary “Mike Flynn’s Holy War” in 2022].”
            What is this supposed to mean ?
            Can I presume you are not christian ? You are certainly ignorant about christianity.

            “Even among Catholics, some Christian nuns are strongly opposed to abortion but believe in the “free will” interpretation of religion.”
            Please take a course in comparative religion, or philosophy of religion. Anglican nuns would be “christian nuns” – catholic nuns would be catholic nuns.
            There is no “free will” interpretation of religion. You really have no clue about christianity. Frankly you have no clue about free will.
            Plato was certainly not christian, but even he addressed free will – the choice to act justly or unjustly, and the consequences of acting unjustly.

            ” Although strongly opposed to abortion, they don’t believe a male-controlled nanny state government should be dictating to women.”
            More accurately
            Matt 25:15
            “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
            Whether abortion is legal or not is the domain of Caesar.
            Christians are not barred from trying to make the laws of god the laws of man.
            But we are all responsible to Government when we excercise Free Will to violate the laws of man.
            Whether it is moral is the domain of God.
            We are all responsible to God when we excercise Free Will to violate the laws of god.

            “They essentially have a libertarian view that woman (citizen) not a male politician running for office should make decisions the woman has to live with.”
            Are you a liberatian ? Clearly not. There is no libertarian position that only women can make the laws that govern women.
            I would note that “Free Will” is the central tenant of libertarians as well as Christians (and Jews, and most other religions).
            Most libertarians adhere to the NAP – Non-Agression Principle – You are prohibited from initiating force or fraud against another.
            Or as framed by Kant in the Categorical imperative – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

            Regardless, it is not wise to pontificate about things – like free will, christianity, and libertarianism which you CLEARLY know nothing about

            “The male politician has no skin in the game.”
            Finally something not altogether stupid.
            I will be happy to agree that those without “skin in the game” should never make decisions for others.
            That is an incredibly librtarian posession that you thoughtlessly tripped into.

            You make arguments that you have heard bits of but do not actually understand – or their implications.

            Faucci and out public health experts have no skin in the game – they are unelected, fundimentally unfireable, and have no consequences for the decisions they make.

            The same is true of nearly everyone in the entire government. When unelected officials make bad choices – nothing happens to them.
            When elected officials make bad choices – it is 2 or 4 or 6 years before they have to appear before voters again.

            “Men in Congress won’t even care for kids after they are born,”
            Very weird statement. How many men in congress actually have children that are not adults ? How many men in congress have wives who are likely to give birth ?
            Today that might be a few – but as our country was founded the presumption was that public service was an obligation – one with little or no pay, that one performed AFTER you completed a career and family.

            “why would anyone trust these guys?”
            Why should anyone trust anyone in government ?
            “Nobody has a monopoly on religious interpretation.”
            Membership in a particular denomination requires affirming belief in the “religious interpretation” of that denomination.

    2. I find it sad but understandable that only retired academics feel free to express clear, cogent and very much on point opinions as Professor Milanes’ above. The situation in Climate Science™ is much the same.

        1. A minority of a minority gas, plausible, but not probable, without established attribution, and an effect characterized in isolation supported in the wild through inference from transreality (i.e divergent from) backward and forward-looking models.

          Trillions of dollars invested in the Green blight to reach flatline renewable/intermittent/unreliable converters.

      1. Ray
        Not necessarily true but one always has to measure the cost before speaking or publishing. In a way it’s like being married. Most of the time you may win the argument and lose the war. In those circumstances just say “yes dear” and get on with it. Bigger questions may require you to say “I won’t stand for it and resign”. It’s even more painful if you set up across the street and take your patients with you. There may also be a non-compete clause involved which often has different ramifications between resigning and being fired with or without “for cause”. Would wonder if the University of Louisville had a non compete clause that they tried to invoke even after not rehiring him. Stranger things have happened.

    3. Dr Milanese
      Well written and exhaustive, I could not agree more.
      Internist and critical care medicine, retired. Graduate of Medical College of Georgia.

    4. Trans refers to a state or process of divergence from normal through medical, surgical, or psychiatric corruption celebrated with pride in parades.

    5. The doctor might want to check out the #1 documentary on Hulu in November (starring Donald Trump) titled “God Forbid”.

      It’s not that there was anything immoral done by Trump’s friends, but that far right Religious Right movement judges everyone else by a different standard.

      “God Forbid” is a must-see documentary!

    6. The discussion of the biology. psychology of all of this is interesting, but for the most part unimportant to me.
      I do not care if being gay is biological or a choice.

      Except to the extent that we legitimately oppose discrimination for factors outside our control, but are free to discriminate for those that are in our control.

      But the most fundimental problem we have with this area of sexuality today is that we are being forced to accept it, even participate in it.

      You are free to chose your own pronouns – you are not entitled to force me to refer to you by name much less the pronouns of your choice.
      Your are not entitled to respect from others. You are not entitled to anything that imposes a duty on others.

      I would note that if homosexuality, and transgenderism is biological – there is no need to do anything in public school, beyond prevent bullying.
      If it is a choice – there is no need to do anything at all.

      In those areas of life where we build sexual distinctions into law – those distinctions MUST rest on biological sex, or those distinctions must go.

      Either we have men’s and womens rooms – where that means biological men and women, or we have restrooms for everyone.

      Either we have men’s and women’s swimming,. golf, tennis, … or we have sports without sexual separation.
      Biology is not a choice. If biological males are different from biological females chosing to identify different from your biological sex, does not change your biological sex.
      Alternately if gender is not a choice – an MTF biological male is STILL different from a biological female – if genders is not a choice – then we are either left with ending all sex distinctions – or adding atleast 2 more – regardless a biological male presenting as a female is not the same as a female.

    7. There is alot of good information in your post.

      But I would address some things.

      Human morality predates judaic origins. Morality is something that has been evolving through human existence.
      By evolving – I do not littlerally mean changing – though it does change. But more that it is being discovered.
      On occasions moral principles that were necescay 50K years ago are not now.
      But for the most part the evolution of morality is the process of discovering which moral values work and are necessary and which do not.

      The anglosphere – not most of the world is far more tolerant of diversity today than humanity has been in the past.
      It is arguable that diversity is an asset – but arguable is not the same as proven.

      Through most of human history sexual morality has been mostly driven by the survival of the species.
      Briefly in the modern era the threat of over population resulted in counter reproductive morality – as in china’s forced abortions, or sexual morality completely independent of reproduction in most of the west.

      Regardless, much of the world now faces the threat of declining population – and this is a very real and serious threat – both modern welfare state culture and more traditional culture depend on growing populations all kinds of norms and laws and programs will fail with declining populations.

      The very same people who were forcing abortions on chinese women are not ferverently advocating more children.
      At some point that is likely to change from advocacy to force.

      In the west pressures to reduce population were not coercive. Though pressures to accept non-reproductive sexual diversity are increasingly coercive. We could easily see the very same people advocating for sexual diversity shifting to opposition as populations decline.
      I would note – this applies to the morality of homosexuality and transgenderism, but also to the morality of abortion.

      The ultimate test of morality is does it work.

    8. I am confused and curious about your remarks regarding the brain.

      Is there biological evidence that the brains of men and MTF trans are different ?
      That transgenderism is biological rather than a choice ?

      1. There is no evidence of trangenderism as this not a condition! when I wrote that opinion (12 years ago), there were some small initial studies about transexuality ( now gender dysphoria, 00.1% prevalence) that were worth a continued study. The rest of the “so called” transgender (over 40 plus names) are figments of their imagination, not based in any study.

        1. I am not challenging you I am trying to understand what you are saying – or what is known or you think is known.

          I am aware of one study that linked homosexuality to a shift in hormones in the uterus at the wrong time during pregnancy.
          I do not know if that has held up.
          I am unaware of any other biological indicator of homosexuality.
          I am aware of no biological indicator of transexualtiy.

          I am not claiming no such thing exists, Only that I do not know that such a thing has been found.

          The next possibility is some mental developmental difference.
          I am not aware of a sociopathy gene, but we do know that sociopathy manifests itself early – though all children manifestating sociopaths tendencies do not become sociopaths. We also know that atleast in adults the brains of sociopaths are different from people who are not sociopaths.

          Is there anything like that regarding homosexuality or transexulatiy ?

          We know that homosexuality occurs rarely in other mammals – that suggests that it is biological rather than a choice.
          Is ther evidence of transsexuality in other mammals ?

          Finally we have seen a modern explosion of homosexuality and transsexuality.

          This COULD be because the societal pressures making these unacceptable have disappeared – that also undercuts the claims of LGBTQ groups that they are CURRENTLY facing significant discrimination.
          But that is not the only possible explanation.

          We know that as transsexuality became acceptable in the UK that there was a massive explosion in FTM transsexuals AND the disappearance of anorexia and Bulimia.

          I am personally strongly suspicious that Transsexuality is made of 3 distinct groups.
          A tiny percentage of people who MIGHT actually have some thus far undiscovered biological cause who may actually be happier and well adjusted living as the opposite sex.
          A larger portion of people who are suffering from mental health issues – most likely Anxiety and depression. I think that rather than calling sexual dysphoria its own mental health disorder, that it is a less common symptom of anxiety and depression.
          And finally a much larger group for which it is just a sexual fetish.

        2. For the most part my interest in homosexuality is just curiosity.

          Aside from the possibility that homosexualtiy threatens the survival of the species, it is in all other respects harmless.
          It does not matter if it is biological or a choice or a mental disorder.

          The only extent to which the possibility that it is biological matters is that we have decided to bar discrimination against innate condictions.
          It is highly problematic to bar discrimination against things that are choices. When you say you can not discriminate against people based on the choices they make you have a massive logical contradiction.

          But Transexulaity poses more problems. Particularly MTF transsexuality.
          Biological men – no matter how they identify, and what causes it inherently have male physical advantages over biological women.
          If you allow MTF trans to compete in domains that we have chosen to be exclusively female – biological women will completely disappear from those domains. We might as well just eliminate the sex preference entirely.
          The next problem it poses that without some biological litmus test for actual transexuals, any societal structure that broadly allows men to identify as whim at whim pours gasoline on the fire of Pedophelia.
          I do not believe that Trans people are pedophiles. But I absolutely believe pedophiles will identify as trans if that gives them access to children.

          I really do not care about peoples fetishes.
          With the exception of a few areas – Trans, not, Gay, whatever – I do not care. I do not care if it is biological or a choice.
          I do not care if you change with the day.

          I do care that MTF trans will drive real women out of some womens only domains.
          I do care that we do not create a gateway to sexually abuse a generation of kids because we can not restrict MTF trans access to children.
          And I do care about sexualizing children. I am not providing 3rd graders with Hustler. I do not consider sex education of any kid part of the core to public education. I certainly do not think that rare, sexual conduct needs featured or encouraged. Kids have enough problems with schools as it is. I do not want bandage or Sado Mascochism taught in school. Adults are free to do as they please. Homosexuality and transexuality should be covered as part of sex education proportionate to their very low frequency. Schools should deal with bullying – whatever the cause.
          Absent actual physical or sexual abuse – teachers and schools should not be looking for homosexuality or transsexuality, and even when it is brought to their attention there role is to forward the issue to parents.
          Again absent physical or sexual abuse – parents are the finalauthority on their kids and schools can not keep secrets from parents.
          Bad and unaccepting parents are not an excuse. Schools are not substitute parents. and government does an incredibly poor job when they try.
          Se Charlie Manson.

  6. Dr. Josephson might have been crucified if he quoted scripture.

    Here’s some of LGBTQ’s most hated bible verses:

    Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    Romans 1:26 – For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    Jude 1:7 – Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    1. If you are going to quote Bible verses maybe consult with a real Christian, like Jimmy Carter or Ted Olson (former George W. Bush Solicitor General).

      Here are two great 2022 documentaries to watch: “Jimmy Carter Rock & Roll President” and Frontline’s show “Michael Flynn’s Holy War”.

      1. Zitsingzung,

        You post, mock & make sport just like Satan, with railing accusations

        Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.

        Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

  7. Dr Josephson’s proposal for setting up a clinical study to highlight or discern the difference in clinical approach and outcomes between child psychiatry and pediatric endocrinology was especially insightful and appropriate. This is called science, which is why it was so abruptly dismissed. Can’t have facts corrupt the agenda.
    For those of you who wonder about the treatment of gender dysphoria disorder, I would say “follow the money”.
    It is far more lucrative monetarily to prescribe puberty blockers (which are incredibly expensive) and do surgery like bilateral mastectomies and then plastic and general surgery to manipulate external and internal genitalia than to sit in a room and undergo psychiatric ad psychological counseling. Which is equally efficacious but not very dramatic.
    This insanity is money driven and agenda driven with really no significant scientific support. The non medical supporters of this line of treatment show a corruption of values and lack of empathy for the lives they are destroying. The medical adherents of this process just show corruption. A sad state for medicine these days.
    Lastly this society of ours roundly condemned female genitalia mutilation in the 3rd world for years and when it raised it’s ugly head here and rightly so. Now some of us advocate the same sort of mutilation of male and female children that we used to condemn. Such hypocrisy know no bounds

    1. GED, you are right. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from lifetime demand from those who use sex hormones or undergo surgery, and hospitals gain revenue, especially from surgeries, as Matt Walsh has highlighted. There is a lot of money supporting this ideology.

  8. Not only are these universities instruments of totalitarian indoctrination but breeding grounds for pseudo-science and scholarship. Lysenko has been reincarnated in the American University. One can only imagine the thousands of lives that will certainly be destroyed by these monsters. The notion that a prepubescent teen or even pre-teen has the mental capacity to made a decision that would permanently disfigure their body is ludicrous. So a sixteen year old is incapable of rationally deciding to vape, but a 12 year old is sufficiently rational to start hormone blockers without parental notification? Please tell me if there is not the definition of a demented society.

  9. I am thrilled to see that Dr. Josephson has launched this lawsuit. His credentials are impeccable as are his 35 years of experience. Just for some background, the Medical College of Georgia has an especially significant past in psychiatry, especially Drs. Thigpen and Cleckly who years ago wrote the book The 3 Faces of Eve and provided much of the insight on the Multiple Personality Disorder now known as dissociative identity disorder. Both had long and distinguished careers in Psychiatry and at MCG and it is highly likely Dr Josephson had significant interaction with them in his time there. This specialization would bear very much on the closely similar gender dysphoria disorder. Dr. Brady (the Dr. With 3 years clinical experience) telling this distinguished Professor of Psychiatry that he was not qualified to treat gender dysphoria patients is the height of arrogance and stupidity.
    That would be like a clinical assistant professor of surgery telling Dr Debakey or Dr Cooley they were unqualified to resect an aortic aneurysm. The only difference would have been the clinical assistant professor of surgery would have disappeared and never been seen again (professionally).
    Doctors fresh out of training can be especially dangerous in many circumstances for about 5+ years. They are packed with knowledge and arrogant as hell (male or female). If they have come from a low volume medical school and residency program they have usually not been exposed enough to the adverse effects of their actions and this tends to reinforce the arrogance. Experience and a great amount of it tends to leaven the knowledge and arrogance and eventually (but not always) improve the physician’s insights and performance, no matter the specialty.
    I hope to see Dr Josephson’s “enemies driven before him and hear the lamentations …”. Was always looking for a place to put that quote.

  10. The complaint is extraordinary. Assuming the allegations in it are true, Josephson should win big. I fail to see why his knowledge of meetings is relevant to their value as evidence of a 1st Amendment violation.

    I have read a lot of these types of complaints, but this one is exceptional for its depiction of a blatant surrender by administrators to unwarranted complaints by woke faculty. It is extraordinary that arguments by a highly qualified doctor in favour of a traditional approach to a psychological disorder in children and against a new, unproven therapeutic approach that can have dangerous and irreversible consequences should be viewed by anyone as grounds for dismissal.

    He should be reinstated, the record purged and be awarded punitive damages.

  11. There is a potentially important lawsuit pending in Kentucky on academic freedom and free speech.

    There is one in Florida where the Chief US District Judge of Northern Florida, Mark Walker, an Obama appointee, ruled against censorship and muzzling of university professors, on the grounds of, wait for it,….free speech. And his order is awash in snark, high and mighty virtue signaling and gleeful smacking of Florida Legislators and Gov DeSantis for their “Florida Stop Woke Act”. The Federal Judge even starts his order with a quote from George Orwell. Oh, the hypocrisy irony, of Federal Judges.

    “Novoa v. Diaz — Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction”
    https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/novoa-v-diaz-order-granting-motion-preliminary-injunction

    banana republic much?

    🍌🍌🍌

  12. And the ROW (Rest of the World) just laughs and laughs (and is also horrified) at what’s going on in America —
    I hope that Dr. Josephson not only wins his case, but it leads to a ‘teaching moment’ for those who have targeted him —-
    and big bucks too!
    This is insane — I really don’t recognize my country any longer —

  13. Dear Prof Turley,

    The greatest thing Academics ever did was invent the concept of ‘tenure’. Presumably, once freed from the mundane shackles of mortal competition in the market-place of ideas, Academics are free to give speeches at institutions like the Heritage Foundation without fear of retribution. I shall assume Dr. Josephson ain’t got none.

    This is what I call a ‘talking cross purposes’ tort. Clearly, Dr. Josephson has no inherent animosity against LGBTQ or BLM for that matter. LBJ took the IRA down to 4th Steet USA and what did he find: the youth of America on LSD (*Hair, the musical).

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Someone, and I’m not saying who, needs to give Dr. Josephson that LGBTQ Sticker, kiss and make up. And there will be the peace @ UofL.

    *’The Sun moves in a fixed place’ ~ Quran, 7th century AD

    1. The problem with the tenure system is that now that the new generation of leftists are in charge they will stop giving tenure to conservatives and they will slowly disappear from our universities. They will not be any new hires, the older conservatives will retire and the left will be in complete control.

      1. Sorry to be a grammatical nit picker but you have used an incorrect verb tense several times. Please replace “…have stopped..” for “…will stop…” in the first sentence. Suggested re-write of the second sentence: “There have been no conservatives hired to replace the older conservatives who have retired or been forced out.” Thank you.

        1. re: Ray

          If you love grammar, you will love Comedian George Carlin’s video “7 dirty words you can’t say on TV”.

        2. Ray, please note that I was referring to an action that will take place in the future, hence “they will stop…” They haven’t quite stopped yet, but they WILL STOP.

          They was a mistake as it should have been there, but other than that nobody needs a rewrite by you. “Now that they are in charge they will is not a nit that needs to be picked. But you do sound like a fun person.

      2. HullBobby,
        Grammar aside, you are correct.
        As the good professor has noted in past articles, conservative professor’s have become a minority on college campuses. Just as conservative clubs find themselves embattled against progressives.
        All the more reason why we need alt-universities where the focus is on quality education, and not indoctrination.

  14. Re.:
    …“[A]n event should only be considered part of the totality of the circumstances if an individual employee claimed he was aware of it .”
    Id. (emphasis added). In short, a plaintiff must “marshal basic evidence” to show actual awareness of claimed harassment. …

    SO….
    The ‘Means’ DOES NOT HAVE TO justify the ‘Ends’ – So long as the Subject is oblivious to it.
    Sounds a lot like Covert-Ops. Office Politics have been viral (Hostile) like this for Years.
    Particularly in Governmental and Union Jobs.
    Or as Rudy Giuliani put it: The Truth ‘IS NOT’ the Truth.
    Keep your Eyes Wide Shut – and Keep your Job.
    This type of ‘Contagion-of-Inefficiency’ will eventually be the demise of the U.S.,
    much like the former U.S.S.R..

    IMHO His best Bet:
    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to be Free from Unconstitutional Conditions (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

  15. Do t have the source for this but I’ve read that the demographic supporting the medical transition of their children is primarily white liberal women, horrifying if true

    1. Mims, I think it may be some new and odd form of Munchausen syndrome or else just a new and dangerous version of virtue signaling with the kids being used as the device to achieve some strange status in rich white enclaves.

      1. In 1990, upon starting as counselor on a new childrens’ psych inpatient unit, Munchausen’s was the diagnosis du jour. I truly see this as a likely component of the current Gender Dysphoria wave. Additionally, Tweens and Teens usually develop some diagnosis to set them apart from others in their cohort. Self injury among middle school girls was a huge thing until it reached almost 25% and then became ‘normal’ until it faded away again.

  16. It’s good that the medical-professor didn’t give that speech in Florida, he might have been arrested for using the term “gay”

    1. Fish, that is the biggest amount of bologna (I cleaned up my own thought) I have seen in these comments in some time. You know it is a lie, we know it is a lie and yet you thought it would be funny to spout such nonsense. Here in FL we are actually free to say gay, but you are not free to teach our 5 year old children about gender and sexuality. Groomer.

      Now do do have any comment on the fact this conservative professor was harassed, or do you really not care about freedom on campus?

      1. If the professor had been talking about children and gay and transgender issues, and had been in favor of more research and discussion, someone in FLA would have either reported or gone bonkers about it, and thats not BS. And since you used the term “groomer” arguments and more discussion is not merited.

          1. Carole, Fishwings ignores the fact that the law stipulates that these topics are not to be discussed WITH CHILDEN from 5 to 8, it does not, as you say, stop any adult discussion, especially learned discussions.

            Fishwings is just a partisan hack, or a typical “activist” who needs to lie and obfuscate in order to win his case. Notice that it was the Dems and liberals who all refused to debate or limited debates because they cannot win when the issues are discussed honestly. Without the media shouting down conservative ideas the left could never win. This is how we get people like Fishwings saying that in Florida you can’t say gay when in reality the law stops groomers from telling a 5 year boy that he may be a girl. For some reason the ;eft and the Trans activists are dying to talk to the children about these adult topics.

          1. Jim22,
            That right there.

            And, I have no recollection of discussing my family life, or my teachers discussing their personal lives in the class room.
            There was a definite line between personal and professional lives the teachers were expected to abide by.
            Professionalism. It was a merit of quality.
            Thinking back on it, I would wager a few of my teachers may have been gay. Two of which were my favorite teachers. What were they there to do? Teach. Not promote an ideology or political agenda. They checked that at the door. But now, polls show that 30% of people believe it is their right to bring their ideology to their work place (not just public schools).

            1. Several teachers in my HS – straight and Gay were having sexual relations with students.
              Many of the teachers doing so, were ones that I liked.

              This was wrong then. in many cases it was and is illegal.

              Teachers do not belong in the sex lives of students – not then, not now.

    2. I am not here to discuss the merits of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. However, please cite in this law, or any other law passed in Florida, where you can be arrested for using the term “gay”.

      1. If a child were to talk in class about his gay dad, and the teacher engaged and discussed, the teacher could be charged. The law is pretending to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The actual bill states that “instruction by school personal or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur”

        1. If a childs were to talk in class about his preacher dad and the teacher engeged in scripture and discussed, you would be fine with that, correct? Groomer.

        2. The classroom is not where personal family problems are supposed to be revealed. Are you ignorant of everything?

        3. I asked you to show me where it says using the word “gay” is illegal in Florida. You have not.
          Let me address what you did discuss,,,,
          You quote that “the actual bill states that “instruction by school personal or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur”. However, you must not have read the rest of the paragraph you quoted. Here it is “ “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards” in public schools and prohibits public schools from restricting parental access to their student’s education and health records.
          The teacher should remind the student that this is a discussion between the student and the parent.

      2. Fishy is a fool so don’t expect any response that provides fact or rational. He has learned to swim in dirty water.

        1. And you prove that this is the swamp, and you want it to remain a swamp. Because its comfortable for you.

          1. Where is your fact or rational thinking of the subject matter? It is non-existent, so you continue to play the part of the fool.

    3. Fish is jealous that Dave Rubin has a supportive, committed husband and 2 surrogate kids, while he just has Peter Shill for hookups.

      Fish, contact Dave Rubin to see if he has any single gay male friends for you to date and rid you of your foul disposition. But beware, they likely have values and integrity

  17. There is no integrity left among liberals. Their refusal to discuss and debate important issues, and to stigmatize, bully and “cancel” anyone who doesn’t robotically follow their agenda, is characteristic of a group so self-righteous and arrogant that they constitute a real danger to society. Have any of them ever thought for a moment they may be wrong on the transgender issue, and may be ruining the lives of thousands of children? Unfortunately, since they refuse to consider any alternative to their gender ideology (as opposed to actual science) they may not see the error of their ways until it’s too late for their victims. Again — where are the parents opposing this travesty?

Leave a Reply