Australian Family Court Allows Cross Sex Hormones for Teen

It seems to be rather simplistic to say it is not true. It is just that that it is not an exact 25 and it is not all changes to the brain.

It is known that there are other parts of the brain that develop throughout life and others that develop in adulthood largely independent of age. "Maturity" is a difficult concept to define (though that doesn't mean it doesn't exist) and a number of different features of brains will contribute to it. However, as I understand it, scientific evidence suggests that parts of the brain that deals with learning/higher level thinking develop throughout childhood and into the early 20s, and sometimes beyond. While it isn't the whole story, the idea that brains mature at 25 is a (in my view, very useful) rule of thumb to reflect this finding.

@NotYourCisterinAus I was clear Baroness Cass conducted an independent review I.e. free from political interference.

However, commissioning of the Cass Review was political and it has been used politically by both sides of the argument and by politicians of all parties.

Judges make decisions on the evidence presented, which in relation to Cass appears to include the political climate around the review which changed considerably between its commissioning and outcome.

It is not clear what evidence was submitted about WPATH. A judge is not permitted to do the research you suggest and should not be criticised if the evidence was lacking.

Did the judge dismiss Cass or did he decide the experts evidence in relation to WPATH was more compelling, particularly when coupled with the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines?

@Harassedevictee The facts are that Cass is political. It was a response by the government of the day to a toxic debate.

And yet most conclusions of the Cass review have been accepted not only by the Conservative "government of the day" which commissioned the review but also by the subsequent Labour government, and by the SNP government in Scotland however unwillingly from a political point of view .

The fact that Baroness Cass is a woman of integrity and highly experienced means she conducted a medical/data driven independent review does not change that. There are GC people who feel the review was not neutral so both sides of the debate are not 100% happy - in my view usually a good sign.

The Cass review was executed without political interference in its research process, its recommendations or its publication. Its conclusions were based on all the evidence including international evidence. And all the evidence reviews commissioned for the Cass review and conducted by York University were published in full, as well as the final report and recommendations.

This is unlike the evidence review that WPATH conducted, where all but two of several reviews commissioned by WPATH from Johns Hopkins university were suppressed by WPATH. The judge could have found about that since there are lawsuits going on in the US courts over the suppressed reviews. That's law not medicine.

(See for example www.bmj.com/content/bmj/387/bmj.q2227.full.pdf www.bmj.com/content/bmj/387/bmj.q2227.full.pdf]]]] )

The Cass review made many conclusions and I agree with most of them. When I don't agee (I still don't see how don't see how a clinical trial of puberty bvlockers could be conducted in an ethical way) my disagreement does not mean that she was not "neutral".

None of this justfies a judge dismissing the findings of Cass review. I'm glad you raised it though, because this "it was political" argument confuses people.

Good point. If Ash is too young to harvest their own eggs, then maybe Ash needs to delay cross-sex hormones until that is possible.

Don't quite the 25 year old stuff. It is not true. It is based on misunderstanding of scientific research.

Well, I suppose that's one way out for her. Even her family couldn't really challenge that 😥

Why isn't Ash freezing her own eggs if she thinks she might want children some day?

The judge is clearly a moron.

I wonder what happens if Ash's ten year old sister later decides she wants to be a trans man too?

Don't be ridiculous.

Humans aren't fully mature until 25 years old. As a 30 year old with two kids who wanted to be sterilised I had to have the third degree about whether I was old enough/maybe I'd want more kids etc etc.

From almost everything the judge said, I would have expected him to come to the opposite conclusion. Absolute madness!

The Australian treatment guidelines that are referred to were developed by the RCH Melbourne. They’re the wokest of woke in Victoria, and especially RCH Melbourne for gender identity in children. They’re not exactly politically neutral.

It appears that a mysterious medical expert (at least I hope that Dr is referring to medical expertise) had a big effect on the judge's decision. Never a good thing when the expert is allowed to be anonymous. Quote from the article below. My bold for emphasis.

'Justice Tree relied heavily on the evidence of a gender clinician who was a witness for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, known to the court as Dr O.
Dr O favoured the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines as “by far the best available guidance at this time, and … informed by decades of expert clinician experience”.
Justice Tree agreed, giving the guidelines – as well as the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines and state government policy – “great weight, because they are models of care arrived at by consensus of the relevant professional bodies”.
He said the Cass Review, a landmark probe that recommended “extreme caution” be taken when prescribing hormones to children, was undertaken “in a vexed environment”.
“I do not overlook that there may have been an overt political imperative behind the Cass Review – which was, after all, initiated by the UK executive government,” he said.'

Pity that no-one was pointing out the pitfalls of WPATH.

Sorry. Thanks for the correction.

“It is likely that most Australians would now think the lack of direct genetic connection between a child and their parent is irrelevant. Likewise there remains the prospect of adoption and surrogacy.” Quote from the judge in the linked article.

I disagree. As an Australian I think most still value a direct genetic connection between child and parent. As for adoption, what adoption? There’s almost none here. Very rarely are babies available for adoption. Almost never. There aren’t agreements in place between Australia and many other countries to allow adoption. Even if there is it’s insanely expensive.

@thirdfiddle People calling Cass biased are trying to discredit the report because they don't like what it says. That's a political act too. Not the report itself.

Even those who disagree with the recommendation for clinical trials?

Finally, I don’t think anyone should be given PB but can see why in this case a 16 year old has been granted the right to take them.

It's not PB, it is Cross Sex Hormones. At 16.

@BettyFilous remember the article is extracts from the judges summing up, The full evidence may or may not show an understanding of the fuller risks. I would hope these were also discussed with Ash.

The facts are that Cass is political.
Commissioning a report is a political decision.

The contents of the report is not. It's evidence-based. Prepared by a highly qualified medical team. Led by Cass who is scrupulously neutral, even if this results in her using more TRA-influenced language than I'd personally like to see in a medical report. They didn't commission someone working in the Tavistock who might be biased one way, they didn't commission a gender critical activist doctor who might be biased the other way, they commissioned a highly respected and neutral paediatrician.

People calling Cass biased are trying to discredit the report because they don't like what it says. That's a political act too. Not the report itself.

Ash’s pact with their 10 year old sister shows an understanding that Ash may be left sterile, may want children and may require an egg donor to become pregnant. No one expects a 10 year old to be held to this pact. It’s more it illustrates Ash’s comprehension of the negative aspects of PB I.e. that there are downsides.

Point taken about the pact showing some understanding that the treatment may result in sterility. However, the fantasy of a pregnancy with a donated egg means Ash has not understood the risks of vaginal atrophy and hysterectomy with cross-sex testosterone, so belies a superficial understanding of the long term risks. That’s before you even unpick the total inappropriateness of that conversation with their 10 year old sibling. Madness.

No one’s decision should be leveraged on risks to another person.

Well said @BettyFilous

I am going to get flamed for this but the judge is not a medical expert and has to consider and balance three different medical views The Cass Review, the WPATH guidance and the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines.

His reasoning on which to follow is not unreasonable given he is in Australia not the UK. A judge in the UK would likely give more weight to Cass than the Australian guidance. It’s not surprising an Australian judge would do the opposite. WPATH (wrongly) have a lot of credibility e.g. the NHS uses the guidance.

The facts are that Cass is political. It was a response by the government of the day to a toxic debate. The fact that Baroness Cass is a woman of integrity and highly experienced means she conducted a medical/data driven independent review does not change that. There are GC people who feel the review was not neutral so both sides of the debate are not 100% happy - in my view usually a good sign.

He is clearly aware there will be detransitioners and these will result in court cases.

Ash’s pact with their 10 year old sister shows an understanding that Ash may be left sterile, may want children and may require an egg donor to become pregnant. No one expects a 10 year old to be held to this pact. It’s more it illustrates Ash’s comprehension of the negative aspects of PB I.e. that there are downsides.

The judge acknowledges Ash maybe left sterilised etc. but at 16 Ash has demonstrated they understand this and there is a point where a judge has to take onboard a child/young persons wishes. I hate the idea that surrogacy is seen as one of the judges solutions to this.

Essentially this judge is doing what is proposed in the UK as part of a trial. The Cass Clinical trials means some children will be given PB and this will be based on their individual cases.

I acknowledge my response is based on the article and not hearing all the evidence.

Finally, I don’t think anyone should be given PB but can see why in this case a 16 year old has been granted the right to take them.

It’s hard to think about the fallout for the two siblings when the younger sister realises the enormity of egg donation. There could be intense emotional manipulation to go through with it or a bust up if she rightly says no. No one’s decision should be leveraged on risks to another person.

Could hardly believe what I was reading there. His 10 year sister, FFS! Don't know who is the most deluded; Ash, or the judge.

Trained, qualified medics make medical decisions.