Expert witness

Gregory A. Brown, Ph.D.

Exercise physiology · testified for the side defending the laws

Gregory A. Brown, Ph.D., an exercise physiologist, is retained by states and other defendants primarily in school-sports cases to argue that biological sex is a fixed, binary biological fact, and that males of all ages hold large, physiologically-grounded athletic advantages over females that persist through puberty and are not substantially reduced by testosterone suppression, cross-sex hormones, or (in prepubertal children) puberty blockers. He extends this claim to before puberty, arguing that small but measurable prepubertal sex differences in lean mass, body fat, and aerobic capacity are athletically meaningful even though he has not evaluated advantages between transgender boys and cisgender boys. He argues that existing sports-governance testosterone thresholds (e.g., IOC 10 nmol/L, IAAF/World Athletics 5 nmol/L, NCAA's one-year suppression rule) rest on a premise the recent literature has undercut, and that the policy goals of fairness, safety, and full transgender inclusion in sport are, in his view, irreconcilable for most sports. He has repeatedly disclaimed expertise on endocrinology, disorders of sex development, and the timing of puberty-blocker administration, and has acknowledged under oath that his citation practice was to include the portions of sources he agreed with while omitting portions he disagreed with.

Cases and documents

The documents are listed as the archive holds them. A document labeled with its kind alone, such as "Expert report", is one the archive attributes to the expert. One labeled "Mentions or contains" names the expert or includes the expert's testimony, and is not attributed to the expert.

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court · 2023

7 more documents

B.P.J. v. WV Secondary School Activities Commission 4th Cir. · 2023

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne 9th Cir. · 2023

L.E. v. Lee M.D. Tenn. · 2024

Lindsay Hecox v. Bradley Little 9th Cir. · 2020

Soule Ex Rel. Stanescu v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc. 2nd Cir. · 2021

1 more document
  • Mentions or contains: declaration: APPENDIX volume 1 of 2 pp. 1 - 180 on behalf of Appellant Chel In the case's documents

How courts have treated his testimony

Each ruling that discusses his testimony, by what it did for the side that called him. The counts are the profile's own, for the rulings it lists.

Discounted, criticized or limited: 4Neither: 2
Helped the side that called him: 0Credited against the side that called him: 0Discounted, criticized or limited: 4Neither: 2
2020

Hecox v. Little

Discounted, criticized or limitedCriticized

U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho · preliminary injunction · court order

His role: retained by defendants (State of Idaho) as medical/exercise-science expert opposing the injunction

In granting a preliminary injunction against Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act, the district court found Dr. Brown's opinion that testosterone suppression does not eliminate male athletic advantage was undercut by his own cited studies, including one (Handelsman) that reached the opposite conclusion, and found his evidence mostly addressed male/female differences generally rather than transgender/cisgender women specifically.

“the Court notes some of the studies Dr. Brown relies upon actually held the opposite.”

Hecox v. Little: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

“the majority of the evidence Dr. Brown cites, and most of his declaration, involve the differences between male and female athletes in general, and contain no reference to, or information about, the difference between cisgender women athletes and transgender women athletes who have suppressed their testosterone.”

Hecox v. Little: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Source: Hecox v. Little: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

2023

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

NeitherNot assessed

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · summary judgment · court order

His role: defendants'/intervenor's retained expert (subject of plaintiff's pending Daubert motion, Dkt. 316)

Ruling for defendants on summary judgment on other grounds (dissolving the preliminary injunction), the district court did not reach the merits of B.P.J.'s pending motion to exclude Dr. Brown's testimony (Dkt. 316, arguing he was unqualified to opine on the biological basis of sex and that his analysis was result-driven and unreliable). The court's order denied all other pending motions -- including that Daubert challenge -- as moot without addressing them.

“The preliminary injunction is DISSOLVED. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.”

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis

“exclude the proffered expert testimony of Gregory Brown, Ph.D., FACSM from consideration at”

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis

Source: B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis

2023

Doe v. Horne

Discounted, criticized or limitedLimited

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · preliminary injunction · court order

His role: defendant/intervenors' retained expert

Granting a preliminary injunction for transgender plaintiffs who had not undergone endogenous male puberty, the district court found much of Dr. Brown's evidence -- concerning advantages that arise from male puberty and testosterone -- not directly relevant to plaintiffs' circumstances, and declined to draw the extrapolation his report might invite. The court noted the Ninth Circuit's Hecox opinion had criticized Brown's reliance on the Handelsman study, and found that his and Dr. Hilton's testimony about pre-pubertal differences did not support defendants' position regarding these plaintiffs.

“The Court is not concerned with Dr. Brown’s opinion that such advantages are not reversed by testosterone suppression after puberty or are reduced only modestly, leaving a large advantage over female athletes.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

“The Court does not know whether Dr. Brown’s opinion that hormone and testosterone suppression cannot fully eliminate physiological advantages once an individual experienced male puberty has been revised since the peer review of the Handelsman study.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

“The testimony by Drs. Brown and Hilton that boys have some biological advantages related to physical fitness before puberty does not support a conclusion that Plaintiffs, who have not experienced male puberty, have any athletic advantage over other girls or pose a safety risk to other girls by playing on girls’ sports teams.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

Source: Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

2023

Hecox v. Little

Discounted, criticized or limitedCriticized

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · appeal of preliminary injunction · court opinion

His role: defendants' retained medical/exercise-science expert

Affirming the preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit held the district court did not err in crediting plaintiffs' expert Dr. Safer over Dr. Brown, finding Brown's opinion that hormone therapy does not eliminate male athletic advantage was not supported by the studies he relied on -- one of which (Handelsman) reached the opposite conclusion -- and that his own report supplied the finding that pre-puberty boys and girls do not differ physiologically. The panel also noted Brown offered no contrary opinion regarding girls who take puberty blockers before puberty. This panel opinion was reissued with identical substantive language in an amended opinion on 2024-06-14 (order).

“Dr. Brown’s opinion was not supported by the studies he relied upon, because the majority of the studies he cited discussed the average differences between male and female athletes in general, not the difference between transgender and cisgender women athletes.”

Lindsay Hecox v. Bradley Little, 2023(opens another site)

“the district court drew this finding from the defense expert, Dr. Brown’s, own report. See id.; Brown decl. ¶ 81.”

Lindsay Hecox v. Bradley Little, 2023(opens another site)

“the defense expert, Dr. Brown, appears to have offered no contrary opinion on this point.”

Lindsay Hecox v. Bradley Little, 2023(opens another site)

Source: Lindsay Hecox v. Bradley Little, 2023(opens another site)

2024

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

Discounted, criticized or limitedGiven little weight

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · appeal of preliminary injunction · court opinion

His role: defendant/intervenors' retained expert, identified as "Professor of Exercise Science in the Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences at the University of Nebraska Kearney"

Affirming the preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that appellants' experts, including Dr. Gregory A. Brown, disagreed with the district court's finding of no significant prepubertal athletic differences between boys and girls, but held that under the deferential clear-error standard applicable at the preliminary-injunction stage, that disagreement did not show the district court's findings were clearly erroneous.

“We recognize that Appellants’ experts—including Dr. Emma Hilton, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher in developmental biology at the University of Manchester, UK, and Dr. Gregory A. Brown, Ph.D., FACSM, a Professor of Exercise Science in the Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences at the University of Nebraska Kearney”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: FILED OPINION (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and DAVID A. EZRA) AFFIRM

“disagree with these findings, but our review of a district court’s factual findings is limited and deferential”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: FILED OPINION (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and DAVID A. EZRA) AFFIRM

Source: Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: FILED OPINION (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and DAVID A. EZRA) AFFIRM

2026

Stephanie Lynne Brown v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association

NeitherDescribed, not weighedmedium confidence

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · preliminary injunction · court order

His role: retained by plaintiffs (the parent, herself named Stephanie Brown, and K.M.K.) -- the opposite side from his usual defendant/intervenor role in other cases in this record

Denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the court summarized Dr. Gregory A. Brown's report (retained by plaintiffs to show males retain an athletic advantage after feminizing hormone therapy) descriptively, including his own acknowledgment of very limited research on puberty blockers and sports performance. The court did not credit or discredit his opinions by name; it used the acknowledged limits of his and another expert's reports to find plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of increased risk of harm to K.M.K. A footnote in the order also recites the parties' representation that a report by Dr. Brown was rejected by the district court in a different case, Female Athletes United v. Ellison (that ruling is not itself in this record; see not_found_but_expected).

“Dr. Brown identifies “there is very limited research on how puberty blockers affect physical fitness and none on sports performance.””

Stephanie Lynne Brown v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association: ORDER: Having considered Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No.

“the “existing data demonstrate that puberty blockers do not eliminate male advantages in lean body mass, muscle strength, or body height”

Stephanie Lynne Brown v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association: ORDER: Having considered Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No.

Source: Stephanie Lynne Brown v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association: ORDER: Having considered Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No.

Not in the archive: (1) The Fourth Circuit's eventual merits opinion in B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education following the 2023 oral argument (rid 701996) is not in this corpus, so it is unknown whether/how that court ultimately ruled on Dr. Brown's testimony or qualifications; the case was later taken up by the Supreme Court (see West Virginia v. B.P.J., not in this corpus). (2) The district court's ruling in Female Athletes United v. Keith Ellison (D. Minn.) that, per footnote 8 of the Stephanie Brown v. WIAA order, "rejected" Dr. Brown's expert report is referenced but not itself included in these files; only the later Eighth Circuit oral argument (rid 701937) is present. (3) The Supreme Court's decision in Hecox v. Little following the 2026 oral argument (rid 702330) is not in this corpus; the case was submitted without a recorded ruling. (4) B.P.J.'s underlying Daubert motion papers (Dkt. 316, Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of Gregory A. Brown) appear only as an appendix exhibit; no court order ruling on that specific motion's merits was found -- it was denied as moot along with all other pending motions when summary judgment was granted on other grounds.

Cases and roles

CaseYearsArenaRetained byWhat he filed
B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education
S.D. W. Va. (No. 2:21-cv-00316), on appeal to the 4th Circuit
2022-2024sportsDefendant State of West Virginia and Defendant-Intervenor Lainey Armistead, per the plaintiff's Daubert motion MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite deci…JOINT APPENDIX by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson.ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS…INDEX TO APPENDIXJOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 1 OF 9 (JA0001-JA0530)JOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 2 OF 9 (JA0531-JA1084)JOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 3 OF 9 (JA1085-JA1735)JOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 4 OF 9 (JA1736-JA2152)
+5 moreJOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 5 OF 9 (JA2153-JA2566)JOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 6 OF 9 (JA2567-JA3111)JOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 7 OF 9 (JA3112-JA3736)JOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 8 OF 9 (JA3727-JA4302)JOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME 9 OF 9 (JA4303-JA4647)
B.P.J. v. WV Secondary School Activities Commission
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
2024sportsnot established for this specific docket; the same underlying litigation's district-court record (see B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, above) identifies the State of West Virginia and Intervenor Lainey Armistead as the parties who disclosed his report ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS…
Hecox v. Little
D. Idaho (No. 1:20-cv-00184-DCN)
2020sportsnot established (no own-authored Hecox document was available to review; only cross-references to it in his other declarations) Reply to Response to Motion
Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne
D. Ariz. (No. 4:23-cv-00185-JGZ), on appeal to the 9th Circuit
2023-2024sportsProposed Intervenors Senator Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, and Representative Ben Toma, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
L.E. v. Lee
M.D. Tenn. (No. 3:21-cv-00835)
2022sportsDefendant State of Tennessee (Governor Bill Lee, et al.) DECLARATION OF STELLA YARBROUGHExhibit 20 - Gregory A. Brown, PhD., FACSM, Expert ReportExhibit 22 - Dr. Gregory A. Brown Depo Transcript Excerpts
Soule Ex Rel. Stanescu v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
2023sportsnot established DeclarationDeclarationJOINT APPENDIX VOLUME 1 (PAGES JA1-180)JOINT APPENDIX VOLUME 2 (PAGES JA181-291)
Soule v. Connecticut Association of Sch
2d Cir
2021-2023sportsnot established JOINT APPENDIX, volume 1 of 2, (pp. 1-180), on behalf of Appellant Chelsea Mitc…APPENDIX volume 1 of 2 pp. 1 - 180 on behalf of Appellant Chel
Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc.
D. Conn. (No. 3:20-cv-00201-RNC)
2020sportsnot established (the declaration itself does not name the retaining party, and states he was uncompensated for it) Exhibit A

Typical stance

Biological sex is dichotomous

He argues sex is a dichotomous biological fact fixed at conception by chromosomes, is distinct from gender, and is fundamental to nearly every tissue system, so it is the correct basis for athletic eligibility categories.

“Sex is dichotomous, with sex determination in the fertilized zygote stemming from unequal expression of sex chromosomal genes.”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 20 - Gregory A. Brown, PhD., FACSM, Expert Report

“sex often influences gender, but gender cannot influence sex.”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 20 - Gregory A. Brown, PhD., FACSM, Expert Report

Seen in: L.E. v. Lee, Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

Males hold a broad athletic advantage over females

At every level of competition (elite, collegiate, scholastic, recreational), he contends men, adolescent boys, and male children outperform comparably gifted and trained females in almost all athletic events.

“men, adolescent boys, or male children, have an advantage over equally gifted, aged and trained women, adolescent girls, or female children in almost all athletic events”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 20 - Gregory A. Brown, PhD., FACSM, Expert Report

“men, or adolescent boys, have an advantage over women, or adolescent girls, in almost all athletic contests”

Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc.: Exhibit A

Seen in: Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc., L.E. v. Lee, Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

Advantage is physiologically grounded

He attributes the male performance gap to measurable physiological differences (muscle mass and upper-body strength, bone size and density, VO2max, hemoglobin, pelvis/hip biomechanics) that are established during and after male puberty.

“This translates into 44% less upper body strength for women, providing men an advantage for sports like boxing, weightlifting and skiing.”

Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc.: Exhibit A

“This translates into 44% less upper body strength for women, providing men an advantage for sports like boxing, weightlifting and skiing.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

Seen in: Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc., L.E. v. Lee, Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

Advantage exists before puberty too

He argues that small but detectable sex differences in lean mass, body fat, and aerobic capacity give prepubertal boys an athletic edge over prepubertal girls, contrary to the common assumption that no such advantage exists before puberty.

“It is often said or assumed that boys enjoy no significant athletic advantage over girls before puberty. However, this is not true.”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 20 - Gregory A. Brown, PhD., FACSM, Expert Report

“It is often said or assumed that boys enjoy no significant athletic advantage over girls before puberty. However, this is not true.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

“I never claimed that prepubertal boys and girls are physically different in every respect.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

Seen in: L.E. v. Lee, Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

Testosterone suppression does not eliminate the male advantage

He argues that androgen suppression and cross-sex hormone therapy after male puberty reduce some traits only modestly (e.g., grip strength) and do not substantially eliminate the male performance advantage, even after a year or more of treatment.

“The available evidence shows that suppression of testosterone in a male after puberty has occurred does not substantially eliminate the male athletic advantage.”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 20 - Gregory A. Brown, PhD., FACSM, Expert Report

“The available evidence shows that suppression of testosterone in a male after puberty has occurred does not substantially eliminate the male athletic advantage.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

Seen in: L.E. v. Lee, Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

No evidence puberty blockers eliminate the pre-existing advantage

He asserts there is no published scientific evidence that administering puberty blockers to prepubertal males eliminates the athletic advantage he says prepubertal males already have over prepubertal females.

“there is no published scientific evidence that the administration of puberty blockers to males before puberty eliminates the pre-existing athletic advantage that prepubertal males have over prepubertal females in almost all athletic events”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 20 - Gregory A. Brown, PhD., FACSM, Expert Report

“there is no published scientific evidence that the administration of puberty blockers to males before puberty eliminates the pre-existing athletic advantage that prepubertal males have over prepubertal females in almost all athletic events”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

Seen in: L.E. v. Lee, Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

Existing sports-governance thresholds rest on an outdated premise

He argues that testosterone thresholds adopted by bodies like the IOC and IAAF assumed suppression to female-range testosterone would remove the male advantage, and that recent science contradicts that premise, making the goals of fairness, safety, and full transgender inclusion irreconcilable for many sports.

“But what we currently know tells us that these policy goals—fairness, safety, and full transgender inclusion—are irreconcilable for many or most sports.”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 20 - Gregory A. Brown, PhD., FACSM, Expert Report

“But what we currently know tells us that these policy goals—fairness, safety, and full transgender inclusion—are irreconcilable for many or most sports.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

Seen in: L.E. v. Lee, Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

Small percentage advantages are still competitively decisive

Responding to criticism that the prepubertal differences he cites are small, he argues that small physiological margins are still meaningful in competition, analogizing to banned doping substances and equipment that confer similarly small percentage advantages.

“Anabolic-Androgenic steroids provide a 5-20% advantage in muscle strength (Hartgens and Kuipers, 2004) and are almost universally banned as performance enhancing substances.”

Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL

Seen in: Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne

Self-described limits on the scope of his opinions

He repeatedly frames his expertise as limited to comparing biological males and biological females generally, and disclaims opinions on disorders/differences of sex development, endocrine treatment timing, and comparisons among transgender individuals.

“I have been retained as an expert witness in this matter primarily dealing with biological male and biological female and not as an expert on disorders or differences of sexual development.”

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis

“No, I have not evaluated that.”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 22 - Dr. Gregory A. Brown Depo Transcript Excerpts

Seen in: L.E. v. Lee, B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

How his positions have shifted

His earliest declaration (Soule v. CIAC, filed 2020-02-12, source_id 110435, uncompensated) addresses only post-pubertal male advantage and androgen suppression/cross-sex hormones; it does not discuss prepubertal children or puberty blockers. By the L.E. v. Lee report (2022-10-07, source_id 101008, $200/hour), he had added a substantial new section arguing that prepubertal boys already hold a measurable advantage over prepubertal girls and that puberty blockers are not shown to eliminate it -- a claim not present in the 2020 declaration. The 2023 Doe v. Horne declaration (source_id 104552) largely reuses the L.E. v. Lee report's structure and prose verbatim but updates the sports-governance survey to include 2023 developments (World Athletics' March 2023 transgender/DSD regulations, World Triathlon, World Boxing, FINA). A rebuttal declaration filed 2023-06-29 within the same Doe v. Horne record (source_id 104552) responds to opposing experts Dr. Shumer and Dr. Budge, who accused him of misrepresenting a cited paper (McManus & Armstrong 2011); in that rebuttal he narrows his claim, stating he never claimed prepubertal boys and girls differ 'in every respect,' only in some athletically relevant respects, and adds a doping/equipment analogy to defend the significance of small percentage differences. In deposition testimony in the B.P.J. and L.E. v. Lee litigation (source_ids 250/103063, 101010), he disclaimed several adjacent opinions -- on disorders of sex development/CAIS, on transgender-boy-versus-cisgender-boy comparisons, and on quantifying social versus physiological causes of prepubertal performance differences -- that he had not addressed in his written reports.

Under cross-examination

His own answers in depositions.

A consensus statement he cited · B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Question (paraphrased): Asked at his deposition why his report did not disclose that the FIMS consensus statement he cited also states that a 5 nmol/L testosterone limit is a scientifically justifiable threshold for transwomen athletes (his deposition answer, as quoted in the plaintiffs' motion to exclude his testimony)

“I disagree with that key point”

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis
How he chose what to cite · B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Question (paraphrased): Asked how he decided which portions of a source article to include when writing his report (his deposition answer, as quoted in the plaintiffs' motion to exclude his testimony)

“I cited the information that I agree with.”

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis
His report and peer review · B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Question (paraphrased): Asked whether the opinions in his expert report should be held to the same standards or rigor as a peer-reviewed article (his deposition answer, as quoted in the plaintiffs' motion to exclude his testimony)

“in a peer-reviewed article, you are not providing opinions; you are summarizing literature”

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis
Differences of sex development · B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Question (paraphrased): Asked about his qualifications to offer an opinion on the athletic participation of women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) (his deposition answer, as quoted in the plaintiffs' motion to exclude his testimony)

“I have been retained as an expert witness in this matter primarily dealing with biological male and biological female and not as an expert on disorders or differences of sexual development.”

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis
A study he summarized · B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Question (paraphrased): Asked why his discussion of the Klaver 2018 study omitted its findings that transgender women's body fat and overall body composition were similar to cisgender women's (his deposition answer, as quoted in the plaintiffs' motion to exclude his testimony)

“is not intended to be a summary of the article in its entirety.”

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education: MOTION by B.P.J. and Heather Jackson for stay pending appeal., to expedite decis
Transgender boys in athletics · L.E. v. Lee

Question (paraphrased): Asked whether he was providing testimony about the competitive advantages transgender boys have against cisgender boys in athletics.

“No, I have not evaluated that.”

L.E. v. Lee: Exhibit 22 - Dr. Gregory A. Brown Depo Transcript Excerpts

Testimony that travels

Sentences that appear word for word in his filings in different cases.

  • “The available evidence shows that suppression of testosterone in a male after puberty has occurred does not substantially eliminate the male athletic advantage.” in 2 documents: 101008, 104552
  • “This translates into 44% less upper body strength for women, providing men an advantage for sports like boxing, weightlifting and skiing.” in 3 documents: 110435, 101008, 104552
  • “It is often said or assumed that boys enjoy no significant athletic advantage over girls before puberty. However, this is not true.” in 2 documents: 101008, 104552
  • “But what we currently know tells us that these policy goals—fairness, safety, and full transgender inclusion—are irreconcilable for many or most sports.” in 2 documents: 101008, 104552

Curriculum vitae

Current positions

  • Professor of Exercise Science, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, University of Nebraska Kearney (professor rank since 2012); also Director of the General Studies program source
    “I serve as Professor of Exercise Science in the Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences at the University of Nebraska Kearney”
  • Has held a tenured or nontenured professorship at universities since 2002 source
    “I have served as a tenured (and nontenured) professor at universities since 2002.”

Education and training

  • Ph.D., Health and Human Performance (emphasis: Biological Bases of Physical Activity), Iowa State University, August 2002; dissertation on androgenic supplementation in men source
    “Doctor of Philosophy, Iowa State University. August 2002 -- Major in Health and Human Performance, Emphasis in the Biological Bases of Physical Activity”
  • M.S., Exercise and Sport Science (emphasis: Exercise Physiology), Iowa State University, May 1999 source
    “Master of Science, Iowa State University, May 1999 -- Major in Exercise and Sport Science, Emphasis in Exercise Physiology”
  • B.S., Physical Education (emphasis: Pre-physical Therapy), Utah State University, June 1997 source
    “Bachelor of Science, Utah State University, June 1997 -- Major in Physical Education, Emphasis in Pre-physical Therapy.”

Past positions and roles

  • Associate Professor, University of Nebraska Kearney, HPERLS Dept., 2007-2012 source
    “Associate Professor: University of Nebraska Kearney, HPERLS Dept. (2007-2012)”
  • Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Kearney, HPERLS Dept., 2004-2007 source
    “Assistant Professor: University of Nebraska Kearney, HPERLS Dept. (2004- 2007) Full”
  • Assistant Professor, Georgia Southern University, Jiann-Ping Hsu School of Public Health, 2002-2004 source
    “Assistant Professor: Georgia Southern University, Jiann-Ping Hsu School of Public Health. (2002-2004) Full Graduate Faculty status awarded Nov. 26, 2002”
  • Laboratory Director, Human Performance Laboratory, Georgia Southern University, 2002-2004 source
  • Research Assistant, Exercise Biochemistry and Physiology Laboratory, Iowa State University, 1997-2002 (also Graduate Teaching Assistant and Temporary Instructor there in overlapping years, per the same vita) source
    “Research Assistant: Exercise Biochemistry and Physiology Laboratory, Iowa State University, Department of Health and Human Performance. (1997-2002)”

Publications and research

  • Author or co-author of a 1999 randomized controlled trial on androstenedione (a testosterone precursor) and resistance training in young men, published in JAMA source
    “Effect of Oral Androstenedione on Serum Testosterone and Adaptations to Resistance Training in Young Men: A Randomized Controlled Trial, JAMA 281: 2020-2028 (1999)”
  • As of the October 2022 L.E. v. Lee report: more than 40 refereed publications and more than 50 refereed presentations in Exercise Science source
    “I have authored more than 40 refereed publications and more than 50 refereed presentations in the field of Exercise Science.”
  • As of the June 2023 Doe v. Horne declaration: more than 50 refereed publications and more than 70 refereed presentations in Exercise Science (an increase from the 2022 count) source
    “I have authored more than 50 refereed publications and more than 70 refereed presentations in the field of Exercise Science.”
  • Research areas include the endocrine response to testosterone prohormone supplements, effects on strength training adaptations, energy drinks and exercise physiology, and sex-based differences in athletic performance source
    “My areas of research have included the endocrine response to testosterone prohormone supplements in men and women”
  • Has served as peer reviewer for numerous journals including the American Journal of Physiology, International Journal of Exercise Science, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, and Journal of Applied Physiology source
    “I have served as a peer reviewer for over 25 professional journals, including The American Journal of Physiology, the International Journal of Exercise Science”

Licenses, boards, honors

  • Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine (FACSM), awarded April 23, 2008 source
    “Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine. Awarded April 23, 2008”
  • ACSM Certified Exercise Physiologist, 05/21/1998 to 12/31/2021 (per the 2020 CV; the certification's stated end date is 2021, and no later renewal is documented in the files reviewed) source
  • USA Track and Field, Level One Coach certification source
    “USA Track and Field: Level One Coach”
  • Mortar Board Faculty Excellence Honors, Xi Phi Chapter, University of Nebraska at Kearney, honored 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2019 source
    “Mortar Board Faculty Excellence Honors. Xi Phi Chapter, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Honored in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2019”
  • College of Education Outstanding Faculty Teaching Award, University of Nebraska at Kearney, 2019 source
    “College of Education Outstanding Faculty Teaching Award. University of Nebraska at Kearney 2019”

Disclosed compensation

  • L.E. v. Lee: $200 per hour source
  • Helen Doe v. Thomas Horne: $200 per hour source
  • Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc. (2020 declaration): uncompensated for this declaration source

Testimony he lists himself

  • Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc. 2022 (as reported) · declaration/deposition
  • Hecox v. Little 2022 (as reported) · declaration
  • Soule v. Connecticut Association of Sch / Soule Ex Rel. Stanescu v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc. pre-2022 · expert report

and 5 other matters he lists that are not in the litigation archive.

Named at oral argument

Lawyers or judges mentioning him at argument; not rulings.

  • Lindsay Hecox v. Bradley Little (2022): At oral argument on a mootness question, Hecox's counsel described defendants' expert Dr. Brown as having introduced studies about boxing and basketball to argue the case was not narrowly limited to track and cross country. This is advocacy characterizing his evidence, not a judicial finding. transcript(opens another site)
  • B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education (2023): At oral argument, defense-side counsel argued there was no basis to think the still-unresolved Daubert challenge to Dr. Brown would succeed on remand, noting he holds a PhD with a concentration in the biological basis of physical activity. The panel did not rule on the Daubert question at argument; no decision on it appears in this record. transcript(opens another site)
  • Female Athletes United v. Keith Ellison (2026): At oral argument on appellants' bid to reverse the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, appellants' counsel argued favorably that Dr. Brown's report cited eight peer-reviewed studies showing males retain an athletic advantage after puberty blockers, and used his C.C. Telfer example to argue athletic advantage need not mean winning every race. This is advocacy; the panel had not yet issued an opinion ("we will issue an opinion in due course"). Per the Stephanie Brown v. WIAA order, the district court below had already rejected Dr. Brown's report, but that district court ruling is not itself in this record. transcript(opens another site)
  • Hecox v. Little (2026): On rebuttal at oral argument, counsel for Idaho cited Dr. Brown's report and its C.C. Telfer example to argue medical transition does not reliably suppress all athletic advantages. The case was submitted without a ruling described in this record. transcript(opens another site)

Sources and method

Built from the litigation archive: 55 excerpts of opinions and oral arguments and 19 court documents that name him, and 6 filings of his own. Every mention was checked for identity (47 mentions of other people with the same surname were set aside). Every quote on this page (56) was checked word for word against its source; 3 that did not match were left out. Profile version 1. Gaps: Full own-authored text is available for only 6 of the 27 indexed documents (doc_ids 101008, 101010, 103063, 104552, 110435, 250); the rest (Hecox declarations 110619/110624, Soule 2d Cir appendix volumes 102829/102830/102865/102868/710/712, B.P.J. declaration 103020, WVSSAC order 103235, and the nine B.P.J. joint-appendix volumes 103079-103087) exist only as index/payload metadata, so their content, and who retained him for Hecox and for all three Soule-case entries, could not be verified from source text and is marked 'not established.' are near-duplicate copies of the same plaintiff's Daubert brief in the B.P.J./W.Va. litigation (appearing at both the district-court and appellate dockets); characterizations and deposition quotes drawn from them are opposing counsel's framing of his testimony, not his own report, and several (e.g. 'I disagree with that key point,' 'I cited the information that I agree with') were left out of self_reported_testimony because they bear on credibility/methodology rather than his litigation history. No independent transcript of the B.P.J. deposition was available; the CAIS-related quote is only as reproduced inside the brief. The attached CV is dated to the 2020 Soule filing; his refereed-publication and -presentation counts changed between the 2022 (40 pubs/50 presentations) and 2023 (50 pubs/70 presentations) declarations, so the CV numbers here are given as of each report's date rather than as a single current total. No clinical practice was found anywhere in the files; he is an academic exercise physiologist, not a treating clinician (though he held an ACSM Certified Exercise Physiologist credential through 12/31/2021, with no later renewal documented). Home address, personal phone, email, and Boy Scouts/family-related community-service entries appearing in the attached CV were deliberately omitted per instructions.

Back to the anti-trans experts