Australian Family Court Allows Cross Sex Hormones for Teen

[NotYourCisterinAus]

https://archive.is/y7tNF

Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall in frustration.

Oh if that's what you are saying then yes, I'm 100% on board with separating sex and gender. Loads of posts about it.

Key thing is it starts by having separate language for these separate things. So the words for sex, and as a result all the provisions and concepts that are based on sex, go back to just being about sex. No one's gender is "woman" or "man", so no one's gender gives them access to women's (or men's) provisions.

Then we can finally start to have sensible conversations about what this thing called "gender" that people are experiencing is and what support and understanding they need.

Quoting my own post here, for you again @Harassedevictee .

Having cleared up the misunderstanding that you thought I was struggling with a "situation", could you answer my question? What is your interpretation of the judge's comments?

@FlirtsWithRhinos Key thing is it starts by having separate language for these separate things.

Absolutely. Glad we clarified the position. 💐

I have been on Mumsnet a long time. I comment on threads and ask questions but it’s not often I get as involved in a lengthy debate. In my experience most posters are respectful and are happy to have a robust but respectful debate.
Sometimes wires get crossed or misunderstandings happen but by explaining their or my position we clarify. We acknowledge fair points and apologise if we get something wrong. We respect each other’s rights to hold different views.

This thread was primarily focused on the article the op posted along with a subsequent article. As with any article on a judgement it will contain snippets and these can be used to support the authors view. I read the original article and drew a different conclusion than most posters. I felt the judge was being criticised for doing his job, when the criticism lay with others. A judge can only make a judgement based on the evidence presented.

I was happy to explain my position and my beliefs. I answered most posters questions or points, although there was one answer I didn’t expand on until after I read the judgement. I hope I kept my responses respectful and didn’t push if a poster chose not to give a direct answer.

Several times I was misquoted or my position was misrepresented. I was clear I am not an absolutist but respect those who are. I am pragmatic and think when debating one case you have to consider the current climate. Most posters have been respectful of this whilst disagreeing.

We then had a link to the judgement and it was clear what a heartbreaking case this was but also, in my view, showed that the judge did consider all the evidence.

I posted my initial thoughts on the judgement and some posters continued a respectful debate.

@OldCrone you and I have a different view on the subject, that is perfectly fine. However, in your posts you seem to be trying to push me to a position I don’t hold based on potentially an incorrect assumption. You chose not to give a direct response to a question I asked - that’s fine no one has to respond. I knew it might be a difficult question so didn’t push for a response.

OldCrone · 13/01/2025 20:09
Do you believe that people can be literally born in the wrong body? This seems to me to be the only way one could rationalise harming a physically healthy body in this way.

Harassedevictee · 13/01/2025 20:16
No.
The Cass review recognises gender dysphoria and that PB may be right for a few.
Do you disagree agree with the Cass Review?

Having posted my initial thoughts about the judgement I was shocked that your first post on reading the judgement was to respond to a earlier post stating “The word 'landmark' doesn't appear in the judgment.” That was your first thought!

Your second post was continuing the debate around two words in the later article.

Your third response was to indicate you thought I had drawn an incorrect conclusion. I decided at this point to step back and responded accordingly. You have then reposted this badgering me for a response. That is not in the spirit of the debate.

At no point having read the judgement have you expressed a view on it or sympathy for what is a difficult family situation.

To answer your question:

I read it as the judge thought it inappropriate for a Prime Minister to make any statement “whilst the Cass Review was being finalised:” as this was politicising the review.

I will not be posting again. Thank you to those who have debated respectfully,

Do you disagree agree with the Cass Review?

Is this the question you say you asked and I didn't answer?

I assume you meant to type Do you disagree or agree with the Cass Review?

I gave a brief answer to this question. I said: I don't agree that any children should be given puberty blockers because they want to be the opposite sex.

So I disagree with that particular part of the Cass review. I didn't expand on that, because it wasn't on topic for this thread, but I'll add a bit more since you have said that this answer was unsatisfactory.

I also disagree with Dr Cass that people can "be trans". The review implies that there are some people for whom "being trans" is real. I disagree that this is an absolute, objective state, and I believe that people who identify as trans are suffering from various mental health disorders, or in some cases have a paraphilia. In my mind, a belief in "being trans" as a real, objective state implies a belief in people being literally "born in the wrong body", which is not a belief I subscribe to.

Apart from this, I think that the Cass review is an important and well-researched document and I agree with most of its contents.

I hope this answers your question.

Having posted my initial thoughts about the judgement I was shocked that your first post on reading the judgement was to respond to a earlier post stating “The word 'landmark' doesn't appear in the judgment.” That was your first thought!

No, it wasn't my first thought. My post was a reply to @BonfireLady who said:

If they were meant to be his words, the sentence only works if he also used the word "landmark" when/if quoting from it. Given his views on it politically, and its apparent irrelevance versus Australian medical documents, it seems unlikely that he would have done so.

I commented to her that the word 'landmark' didn't appear in the judgment, which supported her view that it wasn't a word he was likely to use to describe the Cass review, and also backed up the view that this was a word used by the journalist, not a direct quote from the judge.

@Harassedevictee "The fact remains some people believe they should be the opposite sex and as of now it is called gender incongruence and (bizarrely) classed as Sexual Health. The reality is it does impact a persons mental health, the question is which come first mental health or gender incongruence is up for debate. Baroness Cass found several pathways into gender incongruence and I can understand a CSA victim wanting to disassociate from their body due to trauma. To say there is no mental heath aspect would not be logical."
I agree with you here. But I think I'm less optimistic than you that gender youth medicine in Australia currently provides young people with holistic care, including mental health care.
In the Bernard Lane substack linked above the expert psychiatrist for the Applicant (i.e. the one pro testosterone injections for female children who the judge decided to to trust fully) was utterly disparaging about the role of psychotherapy in youth gender clinics. I think it's a mistake (and I hope it soon becomes a scandal) that gender incongruence has been reclassified as a Sexaul Health condition, and that good mental health care is not the foundation of youth gender medicine any more.
I have someone I dearly love in a situation close enough to Ash's to make this quite emotional for me, so my shock is genuine shock, that, wow, we're now in a place where a judge can review a situation like this and say, yep, makes sense, dose her up. I believe 20 years ago, if a judge had been hearing a similar case and the female teenager involved had talked about wanting to get pregnant, the judge would have said, hold up a bit, that doesn't make sense, are you really wanting to live as (close to) male (as possible)? So, yes, big reaction from me.
I guess I hope you're right, that Ash (and the many trans young people like Ash) is receiving good mental health care alongside other treatments. But I'm not confident.

Edited: I need to regrab the comment I was responding to....

Apologies for the length of this comment but it's such a key point.

Like so many girls in her situation, my daughter remains at significant risk of the conflation of autism-related puberty distress and gender identity. The article doesn't say that Ash is autistic, so I'll assume not, but the Cass Report makes it clear that autism is one of many "co-morbidities" that can be conflated with gender identity. Hannah Barnes' book Time to Think revealed that 97.5% of GIDS patients had issues in addition to being gender questioning, such as autism, trauma from sexual assault and more.

My daughter is still really struggling with her mental health (her biggest current issue by far is that she's struggling to navigate friendships, feels lonely, and - owing to high anxiety - ends up reacting and pushing people away without realising this is what she's doing) and isn't actively gender questioning any more. But she still hates her breasts, still hates puberty, still thinks that girls are weak etc etc. We're currently seeking counselling for her but so far haven't found anyone appropriate, because of the risk of conflated understanding and accidental bias towards gender identity being "the answer". There are autistic boys at similar risk, although there are obviously differences - and this thread is about a female.

In the course of various conversations about my daughter, I am speaking to some professionals who are thankfully sympathetic to the idea that her primary needs are related to autism and could easily be overshadowed by gender identity conflation. I'm referring to the wider network here, not specifically counselling (school, Local Authority, OT, CAMHS, Social Workers etc). However, even those who think they are taking a neutral position are often not doing so.

Yes, but we need to change the knee jerk activist-created expectation that "dignity and respect" means some form of transitioning even if it's only social.

Two relevant examples which highlight how children like my daughter (and Ash) are being pulled along the gender clinic pipeline, even by those who are trying to be neutral:

1. a new child has joined my daughter's autism unit at school. This child is female but identifies as male. I mentioned to a senior member of staff in the unit (who has been great at supporting us, listening, critical thinking etc) that I was concerned about the impact that this child may have on others in the unit, as well as my daughter, particularly around their understanding of the differences between males and females. In amongst the response, paraphrased:
   "Oh no, it's not like that at all. We're taking a very neutral position and he's very relaxed. He says that it doesn't matter if people slip up on his pronouns".
   I said (politely) that I didn't see this as a neutral position and that, even though I don't like saying this about a child, the phrase 'slip up' is very controlling. Even if the control isn't intentional and comes from a fear or anxiety. It's setting the implicit understanding that opposite-sex pronouns are correct and anything else is wrong. I also reiterated what I have said to this member of staff before: I won't be a part of any child's social transition because social transition is not a neutral act and changes the lens through which everything else is seen. I again reiterated that I would be using no pronouns whatsoever for [name]. That I wouldn't use "he" because this child is female (and I won't be put in a position where I'm forced to pretend that I believe everyone has a gender identity) and that I wouldn't use "she" because it's clear that doing so would cause upset, including to my own daughter. Yes, I'm aware that many people have strong feelings about pronouns... this is another reason why I avoid them, as any use of them tends to then dominate a conversation. Obviously the school can't and won't talk to me about any child's circumstances but from what is apparent so far, it all sounds incredibly difficult and I wouldn't be surprised if the parents are in a position where they believe social transition is the only option to address suicide prevention.

2. I had a phone conversation this week with someone in the "wider system" who has encountered many children in my daughter's circumstances. I was asked how I would feel if my daughter became gender questioning again (concerned) and whether I would agree to opposite sex pronouns, if my daughter requested it, as part of a "step by step" journey (I said no). This person genuinely believed that her position was neutral when she had helped children to "take things slowly", firstly by listening to what the child wanted and then speaking to schools and parents to make small, considered changes. Including changes to pronouns. It's fair to say that there was an audible gasp when I said no, so I expanded on this. I pointed back to the Cass Report, that social transition isn't a neutral act and that when my daughter was previously actively gender questioning, I had told her that I was happy for her to explore everything that she was feeling but that it was incredibly important that while she did so, no changes were made that moved her away from the fact that she is a female. That to address her discomfort with her breasts, we used sports bras and regarding her periods, the mini-pill. She still uses a "neutral" nickname at school and in external activities but, of her own volition (we were doing our best to use it too), uses her original nickname at home and with wider family and friends. I had previously discussed with my daughter that the significant difference was that a change in pronouns, even to neutral pronouns, was a step away from "being" female. A nickname doesn't do this.
   The person I spoke to said that I had made a "persuasive argument". It's fair to say that we're not on the same page as each other on this but each of us was listening to the other and each of us acknowledged that doing so was the best way to help my daughter.

I have absolutely no doubt that both of these professionals believe that they are taking a neutral, considered position which is putting the needs of children first. That they are striking the balance between actively thinking about what's best and affording children dignity. They are also clearly both good at their jobs. Equally, I know that they are both receiving lots of guidance from their respective institutions that aligns with an affirmation model. Even worse, that the safeguarding framework within which they are working positions parents who have any concerns about transition as potential domestic abusers. Obviously that includes me - and yes, it's very clear that this is how it's being framed in our circumstances.

This is the excellent post to which I was responding.

I agree with Baroness Cass that affirmation is not a neutral act, but neither is not allowing children and adults to explore who they are. You don’t have to let go of reality, you don’t have to prescribe drugs or surgery but you do respect their right to have a different opinion.

Italics added by me.

Hopefully the (long!) post that I wrote goes some way to unpicking this key point. It's impossible to "explore who you are" if you firstly untether yourself from reality. It's important to be grounded in reality before this exploration. Yes, many people believe that we all have a gender identity but this should never be positioned as fact by public institutions. They are obligated by the Nolan principles. Anything that takes a child or adult away from reality and affirms the concept that we all have a gender identity is a breach of the Nolan principles. I know that many people feel strongly that it's important to use sex-based pronouns to affirm reality but in the case where someone genuinely holds a belief in gender identity, pronoun avoidance has a key role to play. It stays within the Nolan principles by neither directly challenging the other person's belief, nor promoting a belief in gender identity as fact.

How you define gender/gender identity is for the lawmakers, difficult and I expect controversial but not impossible. I respect people’s right to believe in gender/gender identity.

Agreed. I've posted lots on this on other threads. There is already a good definition in the draft schools' Gender Questioning Children guidance.

I guess I hope you're right, that Ash (and the many trans young people like Ash) is receiving good mental health care alongside other treatments. But I'm not confident.

I don't believe it's possible, given what we can already ascertain about the current "best practice" in Australia that is supporting Ash. The parent's struggle to be heard speaks volumes on this.

Oh @BonfireLady , I do admire your clear thinking in all these complexities, your ability to negotiate with schools and other authorities for your daughter's sake, and your determination that your daughter gets the best possible start in life!

I agree with Baroness Cass that affirmation is not a neutral act, but neither is not allowing children and adults to explore who they are. You don’t have to let go of reality, you don’t have to prescribe drugs or surgery but you do respect their right to have a different opinion

Everyone has to live within society. If 'exploring yourself' creates harms to others then such individualism is not ok.

For example, Bob likes free climbing. Bob risks his own life climbing buildings in London. This causes traffic chaos when the police have to close the street just in case he falls. Bob doesn't fall. This time. But what about next time? Or the next time?

Equally this type of ripple effect applies to changing facilities. When it comes to rights and identities, you look at who is affected, to what degree and how many.

One male using changing facilities can affect hundreds of not thousands of women over time. Not just through their actions directly but also because their actions enable other males, who may have more dubious intentions, to do the same.

This isn't about a 'difference of opinion'. Or expressions of personality. This is about social cohesion and ensuring the safety and well being of as many people as possible. That can't be based on the feelings of one group who have an opinion which isn't based in biological reality.

I'm sick of this being dressed up as how we should be nice to each other, but with this void of glaring willful brain farts which omit to acknowledge the actual impact of this on women and how it's not very nice for a lot of women and puts them more at risk than they otherwise would be.

That is not being nice. That's being deliberately blinkered to the fact that males in female spaces is a recipe for disaster, is emotionally distressing for women and is at direct odds with existing laws about voyeurism and indecent exposure.

You can dress how you like but ask people to use pronouns which erodes understanding and protections for women? You can dress how you like but ask women to put up with males in female only spaces? Na. That's harmful.

Our rights based law prioritises on this basis of prevention of harms first. It does not stop all discrimination. Indeed it deems discrimination appropriate in certain circumstances. As do other laws.

The problem is individualism is not possible in many circumstances for very bloody good reasons.

There are a whole bunch of people out there who have failed to learn the life lesson:

"I want, doesn't get".

a new child has joined my daughter's autism unit at school. This child is female but identifies as male. I mentioned to a senior member of staff in the unit (who has been great at supporting us, listening, critical thinking etc) that I was concerned about the impact that this child may have on others in the unit, as well as my daughter, particularly around their understanding of the differences between males and females. In amongst the response, paraphrased:
"Oh no, it's not like that at all. We're taking a very neutral position and he's very relaxed. He says that it doesn't matter if people slip up on his pronouns".

That member of staff seems to have really missed the point about the effect of this trans identifying child on the other children. The staff are pretending that this girl is a boy. They are colluding in the deception of the other children that this child has changed sex. You say this staff member has listened to you, but they don't seem to have understood how their behaviour regarding the trans identifying child affects the other children. Every time they refer to this girl as a boy in the presence of the other children they are lying to all the children about this child's sex.

It's not just about the other children being asked to lie, it's about actively deceiving all those other children.

It's astonishing that an experienced teacher doesn't seem to understand how lying to children about something as fundamental as sex can affect them.

And what do you suggest the teachers do? Say get out child, you will not get an education here!

Charlton School is a special school in the US for girls with MH problems which for a few years had a huge issue with girls declaring various trans identities after they arrived. The school was following the latest guidance on "trans kids" at the time and used an over-enthusiastic (pre-Cass, US, imagine...) affirmation approach. Girls were busily "exploring who they were", obsessing about gender and endlessly changing their minds and names and pronouns, to the point where staff were spending so much time worrying about gender and affirming each girl's latest gender identity that they were neglecting the girls' diagnosed MH issues. The school turned it around by not affirming children who hadn't come in with a gender problem. And by not feeding the fire - so no more preferred pronouns, no more asking for preferred names and pronouns at the start of lessons. It faded.

Basically, downplay gender and follow the usual school rules.

Thank you @AmaryllisNightAndDay ❤️ Firstly for your kind words and secondly, for that post about the US school. I don't think the autism unit quite realises the wild ride it's about to go on, as this has just been a theoretical concept for them until now. The children who have actually changed their pronouns are all in the wider school. Obviously my primary concern is for my daughter, but I'm also worried for the child in question and the others in the unit. The pressure to use preferred pronouns because it's "such a kind and simple thing to do" and its subsequent impact on a) a child going on an affirmation journey towards irreversible medical interventions and b) other children entering that journey from a standing start (ROGD) is not something I'm looking forward to seeing so close to home. I appreciate that this child is likely to leave the school before any hormones are taken (if things get that far), which means that the school might well continue handling gender identity in the way that they are.

@OldCrone every person I've come across so far online or IRL who is "GC" (not a term I use for myself, but it'll do) has been on a journey, compromising multiple layers. My role here is to protect my daughter from harm as far as I can. This staff member has directly helped me to further (albeit not fully mitigate) my daughter's protection against autism and gender identity conflation but I'm having to look at it from a net gain perspective, rather than "we have to agree on everything at all times". My daughter is still exposed to far more risk than I would like, but there's no simple way to address that.

That member of staff seems to have really missed the point about the effect of this trans identifying child on the other children.

Agreed. That is why I raised my concern about the impact that this child is likely to have. It's the start of a conversation about this.

The staff are pretending that this girl is a boy. They are colluding in the deception of the other children that this child has changed sex.

Yes. But they aren't seeing it that way. Part of the problem is that there are other sources of information and influence. I've written on previous threads that I had been having positive (but frustratingly slow) conversations with the school leadership about how they can navigate what's been happening nationally in relation to gender identity. I could see that the slow progress suggested a red flag and this came to a head a few months ago. It had got to a point where I needed to see whether they intended to change how they were managing gender identity at a whole school level.... the new KCSIE guidance provided the means for me to do this. Suffice to say their take on the KCSIE guidance was interesting and I've now completely changed how I approach this subject with the school. But in the meantime, I will continue the positive conversations that directly and indirectly impact my daughter. (And for anyone who might think "why don't you just change schools?" I invite you to have a go at navigating the world of EHCPs 😁).

You say this staff member has listened to you, but they don't seem to have understood how their behaviour regarding the trans identifying child affects the other children.

Agreed. But that doesn't stop me recognising that there are good people who are caught up in this who want to do their best. In my experience so far, when people remember what they already know (in a professional capacity), they will join the dots all by themselves. A significant amount of my IRL conversations are about tapping into this.

It's astonishing that an experienced teacher doesn't seem to understand how lying to children about something as fundamental as sex can affect them.

Agreed. But as far as they're concerned, they're not lying, they're "respecting a child's dignity" - it's only a "lie" to anyone who doesn't believe in gender identity... because of the successful conflation of sex and gender identity by TRAs. I used to believe that everyone has a gender identity. It took me ages to figure out my own thoughts on this, mostly through asking lots of questions on MN. I did so because I was invested in understanding it to support my daughter.

As anyone who's looked into this whole subject long enough will know, according to the TRAs, sex and gender identity are different things... until they're not. It's one of many sleights of hand. They know that this is confusing to people and that this confusion opens up the space to coerce people to Be Kind.

The reason I shared my experience was because I'm imagining just how completely unnavigable this must be for someone like Ash's parent.

Clever, experienced teachers and other professionals are struggling to navigate this in the UK, even where we have the Cass Report and there is statutory safeguarding guidance that references it. It's a massive battle of pushing treacle uphill unless a school and the wider support system has fully understood it. It sounds impossible in Australia.

Australia is captured.
https://www.couriermail.com.au/health/the-british-government-has-banned-puberty-blockers-but-they-remain-legal-in-australia/news-story/f82ac654ad12a033e7bedd4bab431380