In February 2026, Doctors for Life International applied to the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, sitting as an Equality Court, to be admitted as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the Stellenbosch High School matter. Doctors for Life has since been admitted.
The case concerns a former learner whose identity is concealed and who is cited as “LS”. LS is biologically male. He is claiming damages from the school based on allegations that it discriminated against him by not fully accepting and treating him as a girl in accordance with his asserted gender identity. His asserted identity followed an alleged diagnosis of gender dysphoria by child psychiatrist Dr Simon Pickstone-Taylor.
Doctors for Life has placed expert evidence before the Court from:
- Dr Miriam Grossman, a well-known child and adolescent psychiatrist with particular experience in gender dysphoria;
- Dr Michelle Cretella, a paediatrician; and
- Dr Quentin Van Meter, a paediatric endocrinologist.
The central medical evidence is that socially transitioning a child diagnosed with gender dysphoria is not a neutral or harmless form of accommodation. It is an active psychosocial intervention that may reinforce the child’s distress and is not necessarily in his best interests.
In a school environment, social transitioning may include allowing or facilitating a biologically male learner to:
* wear a girls’ uniform or female clothing;
* use a female name and female pronouns;
* use bathrooms and changing facilities reserved for girls; and
* participate in girls’ sporting activities.
The experts submit that facilitating these measures is contrary to the best interests of children and is not supported by sound, evidence-based medical practice. They further contend that the so-called gender-affirming model upon which social transitioning has been based has been materially discredited and should no longer be treated as a settled or reliable standard of care.
The potential impact of the case is far-reaching. If LS succeeds, the judgment may establish or strengthen the principle that a school’s refusal to facilitate the social transition of a learner amounts to unlawful discrimination. This could place pressure on schools throughout South Africa to affirm a child’s asserted gender identity by disregarding his biological sex. Schools that decline to do so could potentially face damages claims and other legal proceedings.
The judgment could also influence school policies concerning uniforms, names, pronouns, bathrooms, changing facilities and sporting activities. More broadly, it may affect the rights and responsibilities of parents, teachers, schools and medical practitioners who hold legitimate medical and ethical concerns regarding the social transitioning of children.
Conversely, if the Court accepts Doctors for Life’s expert evidence, the judgment may recognise that social transition is not a settled medical standard and that declining to facilitate it is not necessarily discriminatory. Such a finding would provide important protection for children, parents, schools and medical practitioners and affirm that biological reality and the best interests of the child remain legally and medically relevant.
This is therefore more than a damages claim involving one learner and one school. The case has the potential to shape South African law and policy concerning gender dysphoria, biological sex and the manner in which schools are expected to respond to children experiencing distress concerning their sex.
To follow are Doctors for Life’s written submissions, together with the reports and submissions of its three experts.
The matter is scheduled to be heard in the Western Cape High Court, sitting as an Equality Court, during October 2026.
