Victoria, Australia: consent to sterilizing your child or be prosecuted

[NZdad]

Following up on this thread from June 2022: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4561587-victoria-australia-parents-consent-to-puberty-blockers-or-be-prosecuted?flipped=1&page=1

At some point in December 2022, the Victoria 'Human Rights' Commission changed their legal guidance. Instead of saying that parents must provide consent to whatever the child wants, including puberty blockers, on pain of prosecution, it now says parents must provide consent to whatever a child wants as long as some health professional agrees:

"Examples of illegal practices

Practices that would be considered illegal under the Act include:

[...]

a parent rejecting the recommendations of qualified health professionals and refusing to support their child’s request for medical treatment that will prevent physical changes from puberty that do not align with the child’s gender identity, because the parent believes it is against nature and a boy should be a boy and a girl should be a girl"

I suppose this is 5% less horrifying than before, eg it leaves a gap for when a parent refuses consent because they are (legitimately!) unconvinced by the incredibly weak evidence for the health benefits of "gender affirming care".

The previous text was:

""Examples of illegal practices

Practices that would be considered illegal under the Act include:

[...]

a parent refusing to support their child’s request for medical treatment that will enable them to prevent physical changes from puberty that do not align with the child’s gender identity and denying their child access to any health care services that would affirm their child’s gender identity"

Source: "Have you experienced a change or suppression practice?" https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/change-or-suppression-practices/have-you-experienced-a-change-or-suppression-practice/ "

Anyway, it's still awful. A parent is perfectly within their rights, and objectively, scientifically, correct, to think that "it is against nature and a boy should be a boy and a girl should be a girl", and this refuse consent for the chemical and surgical alteration, sterilization and or mutilation of their child.

I do wonder, though, if this change indicates some second thoughts from the lawyer types at the Human Rights Commission. They may be beginning to realize what a pickle they would be in if a court decided that the Human Rights Commissions legal advice would violate human rights if the advice was followed.

And there was a court case in Australia where a doctor withdrew their pro-puberty blocker advice after experts started disputing the usual Trans Rights Activist talking points viewing puberty blockers and hormones with rose-colored glasses.

Or maybe it was being embarrassed on Mumsnet that made them change!

"and this" -> *"and thus"

Why is the parents consent needed when they are legally forcing it to happen?
Oh right, so when it all goes wrong they can still shriek BLAME THE PARENTS!! THEY DID IT!

So what happens when parents seek a second opinion? I imagine the teenager involved goes berserk and the world is against them but what does the law imply here? I get second opinions for most chronic condition management as I have to live with it for a long time and I have been known to refuse benign surgeries if I felt the surgeon was recommending this without due care.... and that's just common sense. Does it also apply here?

All families will soon be claiming refugee status in Sweden! I’m actually tempted 😔

"Examples of illegal practices

Practices that would be considered illegal under the Act include:
 [...]

a parent rejecting the recommendations of qualified health professionals and refusing to support their child’s request for medical treatment that will prevent physical changes from puberty that do not align with the child’s gender identity, because the parent believes it is against nature and a boy should be a boy and a girl should be a girl"

I'd be interested to see what would happen in court if a parent was prosecuted for this.

The health professionals would have to stand up in court and explain what a gender identity is and why a child should have their physically healthy body medicated to accommodate it.

And as for "the parent believes it is against nature and a boy should be a boy and a girl should be a girl", surely this should read "the parent holds the scientifically accurate belief that people can't change sex and that a boy will still be a boy and a girl will still be a girl even if they undergo this treatment."

"Should be" implies that a choice is involved. Which is ridiculous. So I would hope that parents would be able to convince a court that their objections are based on science, not waffle about "against nature".

Yes, how can consent even be valid in the first place if it is coerced (threat of prosecution)? What on earth is the point?

Yeah, what does consent even mean if it's legally forced?!? It's insane!!

Principles 16, 17, and 18. Not 15 obviously.