Looking at the recently delivered findings and conclusions in Brandt et al. v. Rutledge et al., full text here. On pp. 56-57 of the PDF, one of the expert witnesses is discussed (emphasis added):
Dr. Levine was the State’s only expert witness who has experiencetreating patients with gender dysphoria. In his practice, he hasenabled minor patients with gender dysphoria to access hormone therapyon a case-by-case basis. (Tr. 785:3-6, ECF No. 246 (Levine)).
Dr. Levine does not support banning gender-affirming medical care foradolescents with gender dysphoria. He has concerns about Act 626’simpact on youth who are currently receiving gender-affirming hormones.
Dr. Levine testified that doctors who provide gender-affirming medicalcare to adolescents with gender dysphoria encourage patients toidentify as transgender and provide hormones immediately withoutassessing patients and addressing other mental health conditions orinforming patients and their parents of the risks and the limitationsof the evidence regarding treatments. Id. at 809:18- 810:4;811:21-812:10; 824:5-14 (Levine). He offered no evidence thattreatment was being provided this way in Arkansas or anywhere in theUnited States. Dr. Levine conceded he has no knowledge of how mostgender clinics provide care and, thus, does not know how common it isfor care to be provided in the way he described. Id. at 887:19-888:25(Levine). He further does not know how care is provided by doctors inArkansas. Id. at 888:24-891:16 (Levine).
The Court found Dr. Levine a very credible witness who struggles withthe conflict between his scientific understanding for the need fortransgender care and his faith.
From p. 60:
The legislative findings in Act 626 assert that there is insufficientevidence of the efficacy of gender-affirming medical care for minors.Some of the state’s expert witnesses—Dr. Levine and Dr. Hruz—offeredopinions to that effect. (Tr. 833:12-16, ECF No. 246 (Levine); Tr.1274:15-25, ECF No. 249 (Hruz)). The Court does not credit theseopinions because it finds that the evidence showed that decades ofclinical experience in addition to a body of scientific researchdemonstrate the effectiveness of these treatments.
p. 71:
The State argues that minors with gender dysphoria will desist withage. They contend that there is a significant risk of harm to a minorwho elects to undergo gender hormone therapy or surgery because theywill eventually identify with their sex assigned at birth and regretthe treatment they sought as a minor. The State offered the testimonyof Dr. Levine to support this argument. The Court found Dr. Levine’stestimony to be inconsistent and unreliable in this area. To thecontrary, the evidence proved that there is broad consensus in thefield that once adolescents reach the early stages of puberty andexperience gender dysphoria, it is very unlikely they willsubsequently identify as cisgender or desist. (Tr. 310:13-25, ECF No.220 (Turban)).
In this context, what does it mean to describe a witness as "very credible", and yet not to credit their evidence? The court clearly had significant doubts about the accuracy of his testimony, the findings note his lack of knowledge on key points, and that his testimony was in some areas "inconsistent and unreliable". How do those reconcile?
Does "credible" here mean "comes with good credentials" (e.g. his experience treating trans children) rather than "gave evidence that should be credited"? Or is there some other nuance here?
(I'm not looking for discussion on the merits of the case, only on how this description of a witness reconciles with the assessment of his evidence.)
