Radar Naughty List: Dr. Daniel Shumer

Sophia
6 days ago
10 min read

Dr. Daniel Shumer is a pediatric endocrinologist who has built an entire career on medicalizing “trans kids.” Trained under Dr. Norman Spack at Boston Children’s Hospital’s gender clinic, he says he “became a clinical expert in the field of transgender medicine within Pediatric Endocrinology,” then was recruited to replicate that model at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor. In October 2015, he founded the hospital’s Child and Adolescent Gender Services Clinic. According to his own affidavit, the clinic has treated over 600 “gender diverse and transgender” patients since its founding. He admits he has personally evaluated and treated over 400 children and adolescents with gender dysphoria; that “the majority” are between 10 and 21 years old; and that most come from Michigan or Ohio. He estimates 400–500 active patients in his state, with around 100 new patients every year, many with co-occurring anxiety or depression.

As Clinical Director, he oversees a team of physicians, a psychiatrist, a nurse practitioner, social workers, and research staff. He brags that he lectures on “Puberty,” “Transgender Medicine,” and “Pediatric Growth and Development.” He is deeply invested in the theory that “gender identity” lives in the brain and has turned that belief into an aggressive program that targets autistic youth, blocks normal puberty in children as young as eight, and pushes irreversible hormones and surgeries on teenage girls. On top of that, he has been caught plagiarizing in his lucrative “expert witness” work. This is not neutral medicine. It is his entire professional identity, and it is aimed squarely at vulnerable children.

One of the most disturbing aspects of Shumer’s work is his focus on autistic and neurodivergent children. He co-authored a paper that argues all youth diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders should be systematically screened for “gender issues.” The paper states: “Given the increased incidence of gender issues among people diagnosed with ASD, youth with ASD should also be screened for gender issues. Screening may be accomplished by including a few questions about gender identity on an intake form and/or by including some content about gender issues in the clinical interview. If gender concerns are noted, a referral should be made to an appropriate gender specialist for assessment and supports.”

In other words, being autistic becomes a reason to hunt for “gender issues” and funnel these kids into a gender clinic. This is especially chilling in light of cases like Jonni, diagnosed with autism at age four, and later put on cross-sex hormones as a young teen. This is not a one-off. Shumer is the primary author of another study specifically targeting youth with Asperger’s, reinforcing the idea that neurodivergent kids are a key market for “gender care.” He is also the primary author of a manuscript on the medicalization of gender non-conforming children, shifting the frame from helping kids accept themselves to pathologizing ordinary differences in personality and interests.

He later co-authored a study that used 180 “transgender youth” as young as 12 years old, treating children as a cohort to be categorized rather than as emotionally fragile individuals who deserve real psychological care. In public comments, he describes cases like “Timmy,” socially transitioned at six and brought to the clinic at eight for gender non-conforming interests, and “Sarah,” a girl described as a childhood tomboy who, by fourteen, is socially withdrawn and cutting herself. Instead of investigating trauma, family dynamics, or mental health, he presents them as candidates for affirmation and eventual medicalization.

He also cites Boston Children’s Hospital data on the first 158 trans-identified pediatric patients:

45 percent had a psychiatric condition prior to being seen

About 35% of those had more than one (representing 16% of the total sample)

32% were on psychiatric medications

8.2% had prior psychiatric hospitalizations

18% had a history of self-mutilation

11% had a history of suicide attempt

Instead of treating these numbers as a warning sign that something is deeply wrong in how these kids are being handled, he suggests that transitioning them could reduce these problems. He even acknowledges the recent rise in rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), yet continues to cite his own Asperger’s study to justify moving children on the spectrum toward medicalization. In his clinical writing, Shumer lays out a roadmap for stopping normal puberty and reshaping children’s bodies with powerful drugs. For female-to-male (FTM) patients, he promotes starting puberty suppression with GnRH agonists at Sexual Maturity Rating (Tanner stage) 2, which can occur as early as eight years old in non-precocious puberty, then escalating to testosterone at Tanner stage 3, around age twelve.

He writes: “For example, a FTM patient who starts on GnRH agonist medication at SMR 2, and then starts on testosterone in later adolescence, may not require masculinizing chest surgery and will also forgo menstruation. If suppression occurs at SMR 3 or 4, prior to full breast development, a less invasive chest surgery (for example, through an areolar incision rather than an inframammary incision) may be considered. A FTM patient presenting after full breast development has occurred would get less benefit from GnRH agonist treatment. While a GnRH agonist would suppress dysphoric menses, other, more cost-effective interventions, such as treatment with a progestin, may accomplish a similar result.”

Natural puberty is treated as a design flaw to be interrupted early for maximum cosmetic impact.

For male-to-female (MTF) patients, he is just as blunt: “For MTF, use of GnRH agonist medication prior to the development of male secondary sex characteristics can dramatically improve gender attribution, the ability to pass as the affirmed female gender. For example, a MTF who starts on GnRH agonist medication at sexual maturity rating 2, who continues on it as estrogen therapy is initiated in later adolescence, and then proceeds with gonadectomy and vaginoplasty after age 18, will never develop masculine facial and body hair, will not have a deep voice, and will not have masculinization of the facial bones and skeletal frame.”

Dr. Daniel Shumer’s focus is not on resolving distress or addressing underlying mental health. It is on “gender attribution,” passing, and ensuring the body never looks like the child’s actual sex. He openly supports puberty-blocking GnRH agonists for adolescents at Tanner stage 2, acknowledging that this typically occurs at ages 9–14 in males and 8–12 in females. Your daughter’s normal breast budding becomes a “problem” if she says she is “trans.” He then insists that “GnRHa have no long-term implications on fertility,” even as he recommends these drugs at the very start of sexual development. He admits that puberty blockers stop not only secondary sex characteristics but also bone and brain development. He concedes he is not sure if children will “catch up” once they are put on hormones, saying it “requires more investigation,” yet still insists the treatment is reversible.

In addition to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, Dr. Shumer also advocates a range of other medications for minors: medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera, Provera), norethindrone (Micronor, Aygestin), estradiol plus progestins, and androgen-suppressing drugs. He calls progestins “especially helpful” when a girl has completed breast development and started menstruating but is “too young” or not ready for testosterone, or when a male-to-female patient cannot access GnRH agonists and needs extra suppression to promote breast development and minimize further masculinization. He even mentions cyproterone acetate as another anti-androgen used abroad, without mentioning serious concerns such as hepatotoxicity, blood clots, loss of fertility in males, and meningioma.

The Endocrine Society suggests cross-sex hormones “around age 16.” Shumer explicitly undercuts this caution: “The Endocrine Society suggests that cross-sex hormones can be considered ‘around age 16.’ In our practice, we have found that for many patients, there is a significant psychosocial risk in waiting until age 16 years to start cross-sex hormones if the patient is otherwise stable in their transgender identity. It is therefore our practice, and the practice of similar institutions, to consider cross-sex hormone treatment initiation as young as age 14 years.” He is also clear that underage girls can be considered for irreversible breast removal: “Genital surgeries are typically not recommended until the patient has reached the legal age of majority. Chest surgery in FTM patients can be considered earlier.”

His own case examples show what this looks like in real life:

An 11-year-old boy was given puberty blockers, then put on hormones at 14, and sent for surgery at 18.

A 10-year-old girl with “characteristically male interests and behaviors” who becomes distressed by breast budding; she is put on blockers, then testosterone at 15, and has a hysterectomy at 19.

A 15-year-old boy was given androgen suppressors after insurance rejected a puberty blocker prescription.

A 16-year-old girl was given norethindrone specifically to stop her periods.

A 12-year-old boy who was started on puberty blockers, stopped them at 14, and decided he is “genderqueer” and uses they/them pronouns.

In his treatment protocols, Shumer describes adolescent transition as a process that “typically includes” social transition and medications, “including puberty-delaying medication and hormone therapy.” He insists that after puberty starts, puberty-delaying medications and hormone-replacement therapy “both individually and in combination"—can significantly improve mental health, align physiology with gender identity, and reduce misidentification with a child’s actual sex.

He repeatedly warns that without medicalization, these kids will be depressed or suicidal; he cites low reported rates of regret in highly screened cohorts. He leans on longitudinal data and his own clinic’s experience to claim that when “transgender adolescents are provided with appropriate medical treatment and have parental and social support, they are more likely to thrive and grow into healthy adults.” At the same time, he acknowledges the rise in rapid-onset gender dysphoria and admits that many of the patients he treats have co-occurring anxiety or depression. Rather than addressing those drivers, he doubles down on blockers and hormones. For “non-binary” youth, he suggests that medicalization can be completely customized. Secondary sex characteristics are treated like menu options; kids pick what they want from each sex, and he structures medication regimens around personal preference. He even compares the parental hurdle of a child declaring a trans identity to something as trivial as a kid choosing to play soccer instead of baseball.

Beyond the clinic, Shumer is a paid “expert witness” in litigation aimed at striking down state protections for children. According to one federal court document, “Dr. Shumer has provided expert testimony in at least 13 other cases on behalf of transgender plaintiffs and is being compensated for his time spent on this case.” In every affidavit, he notes that he is being paid hundreds of dollars per hour for “any review of records, preparation of reports, declarations, deposition, and trial testimony.”

He has opposed:

Georgia Senate Bill 140, which restricts gender procedures on minors, telling the court, “Over time, I watch patients flourish and grow.”

Texas’ attempts to restrict gender-affirming interventions on minors in Loe v. Texas.

Kentucky’s SB 150 in Doe v. Thornbury, where he claims that discontinuation of GnRHa will simply “result in commencement of puberty” and cites low regret rates.

Utah’s protections for girls’ sports in Roe v. Utah High School Activities Association.

Across these cases, he repeats the same script: puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are safe, effective, reversible, and life-saving; regret is rare; and the alternative is depression and suicide. He cites the same studies, including his Asperger’s research, and reuses the same framing across multiple states. In Arizona’s Doe v. Horne, his “expert” image took a serious hit. As an expert witness challenging the state’s Save Women’s Sports Act, he was confronted with evidence that he had plagiarized portions of his report. Confronted under oath with his university’s definition of plagiarism, he admitted: “All that being said, I think that it’s clear that some of the words I used were used from other sources without appropriate credit and that that meets this definition.”

Legislative leaders followed with a letter to Pam Bondi detailing a second instance of plagiarism, noting that the Department of Justice had terminated him before the State of Washington retained him. A Motion for Miscellaneous Relief and related filings lay out multiple instances where his language mirrors other experts’ work. One response describes his opinions as “not reliable because he plagiarized them, he lacks the qualifications to offer them, and he has presented no objective proof that his opinions represent good science.” Although the court ultimately allowed his testimony to remain admissible in that particular case, the record of plagiarism, double-speak, and cut-and-paste “expertise” is now public. In a separate video clip, he smirks and says, “I can be pretty convincing,” while bragging about persuading insurance companies to cover his medicalization of children. The tone is chilling, given the stakes.

Dr. Daniel Shumer has built an entire career on the idea that children as young as eight should have their puberty chemically blocked, that fourteen-year-olds should receive cross-sex hormones, that teenage girls can be considered for irreversible mastectomy and even hysterectomy, and that autistic, anxious, and self-harming youth should be screened and funneled into gender clinics. He promotes puberty blockers as harmless and reversible while admitting they halt brain and bone development, and he claims they have “no long-term implications on fertility.” He leans on the debunked suicide narrative to justify aggressive interventions, treats “non-binary” identity as a build-your-own-body project, and trivializes parents’ concerns by comparing them to choosing between soccer and baseball. Meanwhile, he profits as an expert witness, reuses the same framework across states, and has admitted under oath to plagiarism.

Dr. Daniel Shumer is on the Naughty List this year because he has turned distressed children into test subjects, marketed sterilizing drugs and irreversible surgeries as “affirmation,” and cashed in as an “expert” whenever lawmakers try to protect minors. This is not safeguarding children; it is an industrial-scale experiment on vulnerable kids.

References

Associated Press. (2023). Transgender ban lawsuit in Georgia heads to hearing. AP News.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-ban-lawsuit-georgia-hearing-3578cb486f73369f6079f52297ad0871

Arizona Legislature Leaders. (2025). Letter to Pam Bondi [Letter]. Scribd.

https://www.scribd.com/document/839947882/AZ-Legislature-Leaders-Letter-to-Pam-Bondi?secret_password=q6BOpY5NGMDUlxfakpMw#from_embed

Doe v. Horne. (2025). Docket entry 265. CourtListener.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67215664/265/doe-v-horne/