New York Attorney General Fires Lawyer Over Gender-Affirming Care Concerns

Glenna Goldis, a consumer fraud lawyer formerly employed by New York State Attorney General Letitia James, has brought public attention to her recent dismissal, claiming she was terminated for voicing concerns about pediatric gender medicine. In a detailed statement shared on social media platform X, Goldis described how her professional concerns about potential consumer fraud in gender-affirming care for minors were initially dismissed within the Attorney General’s office before ultimately leading to her termination. As a lesbian with 15 years of public interest law experience, Goldis expressed particular disappointment in how her concerns were handled by an administration that claims to champion LGBTQ+ rights. Her case highlights the growing tension between professional obligations to identify potential fraud and the politically charged nature of discussions around gender-affirming treatments for young people.

According to Goldis, her concerns about pediatric gender medicine began earlier this year, when she started documenting potential red flags both internally and on her personal Substack. She maintains that she was simply fulfilling her professional responsibilities as a consumer fraud attorney by identifying concerning practices that could potentially constitute fraud against consumers. However, rather than finding support for these investigations, Goldis claims her concerns were treated dismissively, with colleagues in the AG’s office allegedly struggling to articulate precisely why her statements were problematic. The situation escalated when Goldis cited the holding from a federal case (US v. Skrmetti) which determined that banning pediatric gender medicine isn’t discriminatory—a legal position that directly contradicted the Attorney General’s stance on related issues.

The conflict reached its breaking point when Goldis was allegedly warned that taking a public legal position opposed to the Attorney General’s views was “unethical.” She interprets this warning as an attempt to silence her professional assessment rather than address the substance of her concerns about potential fraud. The Attorney General’s office confirmed Goldis’s termination in a statement, citing “flagrant and repeated disregard” of office rules and protocols, claiming her actions “disrupted and undermined” their efforts to protect New Yorkers’ rights. This justification stands in stark contrast to Goldis’s assertion that she was simply performing her duty as a consumer fraud attorney by identifying questionable practices in pediatric gender medicine that warranted further investigation.

This situation unfolds against the backdrop of ongoing federal lawsuits in which the New York Attorney General’s office is actively challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict gender transition procedures for minors. Goldis suggests that this political positioning has created an environment where legitimate professional concerns about consumer protection can be interpreted as political dissent. She argues that the polarized nature of the debate has made it difficult for professionals, even those who consider themselves progressive, to raise questions about pediatric gender medicine without facing professional consequences. This dynamic, Goldis claims, explains why public discussion around these treatments often differs dramatically from private conversations among medical and legal professionals.

In her public statements, Goldis highlights what she perceives as a troubling disconnect between the private concerns many progressive professionals harbor about pediatric gender medicine and the public positions taken by leadership figures. She notes that many of her colleagues in progressive legal circles are “leery of PGM [pediatric gender medicine]” in private, yet remain silent publicly due to fear of professional repercussions like those she experienced. This observation speaks to a broader concern about the quality of public discourse on controversial medical practices, suggesting that important perspectives and legitimate concerns may be suppressed when complex medical issues become politicized. Goldis frames her experience as illustrative of why discussions about gender medicine can appear one-sided in progressive environments like New York City.

The case raises important questions about the balance between professional responsibilities, institutional loyalty, and public health concerns. For professionals working in consumer protection roles, identifying potential fraud is a core function—one that can sometimes conflict with institutional or political priorities. Goldis’s situation highlights the challenges faced by professionals whose work intersects with highly politicized topics, where raising concerns can be interpreted as taking a political stance rather than fulfilling professional obligations. As both sides entrench in their positions, with the AG’s office characterizing Goldis’s actions as disruptive and undermining, while Goldis maintains she was simply doing her job, this case demonstrates how the polarization around gender-affirming care for minors has extended beyond public debate into professional environments, potentially affecting the integrity of consumer protection efforts in this contentious area of healthcare.