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.

Because:

He's a moron.

On reflection.

The FCFOA is now a faith based court. In this case they have relied on the evidence of one of their priests, who has consulted their holy texts and recommended a suitably observant course of action, taking the opportunity to decry science which offers evidence in opposition to scripture, and to make passive aggressive suggestions about how the general public ought to be more observant of this faith. Knowing that their faith is challenged, they have secreted the identities of those enforcing the dogma.

It's f**king terrifying. But in its so overtly religious behaviour, there is an opportunity for a well managed appeal to dismantle this judgement and cause better regulation of the way this court goes out to the legislation for advice.

It's funny - for years we've had those fearing outgroups and foreign religions taking over the legislature screaming about sharia law for example, when the real threat is this new American religion.

I have heard it said (in Australia) that the CASS report was “political” and driven by conservatives a la Trump. Why do people make that claim? Is Dr Hillary Cass a Conservative Party member? Or is she religious? It puzzles me because the UK is not particularly conservative in the vein of the US and is way less religious, perhaps even more so than Australia too. I am wondering if there is some background that I have missed.

I am also personally quite taken aback that a pact with a ten year old was treated as if it had been made by adults. I assume it’s not binding and the younger child can change her mind at anytime? Still, it would be hard for her to do so, as the older sibling proceeded with the transition process on the understanding there would be access to the eggs.

Inane.

Would you rather the court didn't rely on evidence? Or just the evidence you prefer?

Don’t confuse two things. Baroness Cass conducted an independent review. The review itself was not subject to any political interference.

The review was commissioned by the government due to the toxicity of the debate both by politicians from all parties and people on both sides of the argument. The political debate continued throughout the period with politicians from all parties making statements depending on their point of view.

This politicised the dialog around the review, but to her credit Baroness Cass stayed silent and conducted the review with the utmost integrity to ensure it was independent.

WRT the pact - as I’ve said upthread, it was most likely evidence that Ash understood the cross sex hormones could leave them infertile - acknowledging there were downsides. No one in their right mind would think it could be binding.

Excuse my naivety, but if Ash wants to take cross sex hormones to be able to 'live as a man' what the hell is all this talk about harvesting eggs from her sister to enable a pregnancy?
Men don't get pregnant.
Surely that's an indication that this scenario is batshit crazy?

JessaWoo · Today 03:18

Inane.

There's no need to summarise your posts.

There's evidence (the Cass review) and then there's WPATH.

This article by Hannah Barnes gives a good summary of the problems of relying on WPATH for guidance.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs

Despite its grand title, WPATH is neither solely a professional body – a significant proportion of its membership are activists – nor does it represent the “world” view on how to care for this group of people. There is no global agreement on best practice. The leaked messages (and the odd recording) – dubbed the WPATH files – are disturbing. In one video, doctors acknowledge that patients are sometimes too young to fully understand the consequences of puberty blockers and hormones for their fertility. “It’s always a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-year-old, but I know I’m talking to a blank wall,” one Canadian endocrinologist says.

WPATH’s president, Dr Marci Bowers, comments on the impact of early blocking of puberty on sexual function in adulthood. “To date,” she writes, “I’m unaware of an individual claiming ability to orgasm when they were blocked at Tanner 2.” Tanner stage 2 is the beginning of puberty. It can be as young as nine in girls.

...Surgeons talk about procedures that result in bodies that don’t exist in nature: those with both sets of genitals – the “phallus-preserving vaginoplasty”; double mastectomies that don’t have nipples; “nullification” surgery, where there are no genitals at all, just smooth skin. And doctors discuss the possibility that 16-year-old patients have liver cancer as the result of taking hormones. The problem is not necessarily the discussions themselves, but that the organisation is not so open when speaking publicly.

...The most recent version [of WPATH’s standards of care] does away with all age limits from the beginning of puberty for hormones and surgical interventions, other than female to male genital surgery, and contains a chapter on eunuchs.

Several staff at England’s NHS adult gender clinics are not just members of WPATH (one is the former president), but authors of that current SOC. So too was Susie Green, the former boss of the young people’s charity Mermaids; a lack of medical expertise does not exclude either membership of WPATH or the power to influence policy.

This is important:
a lack of medical expertise does not exclude either membership of WPATH or the power to influence policy.

Do you really think WPATH’s "evidence" should be given equal weight to the Cass review?

Again, inane.

I see that you have no response to the info about WPATH.

Is there any evidence that the government commissioned the report due to 'the toxicity of the debate', as asserted by a PP?
I thought it was commissioned because various professionals raised concerns that the 'go to' treatment option didn't have evidence to support it efficacy and safety in use on children.

@OldCrone

Do you really think WPATH’s "evidence" should be given equal weight to the Cass review?

How does this question relate to the post you responded to - "Would you rather the court didn't rely on evidence? Or just the evidence you prefer?"

In Australia, the Cass review doesn't hold any legal weight. Interest, yes. But otherwise, any guidelines such as Cass and WPATH have little relevance. Particularly as the Cass review is relatively new and, as he noted, produced in a "vexed environment", the Justice could be reluctant to rely upon it. I'm not sure why this surprises you.

I'm not on MN constantly, Sinner.

Dragging the ten year old into all this is a safeguarding issue. Who is looking out for her wellbeing during this circus?

The judge thought that the WPATH guidelines should be given “great weight, because they are models of care arrived at by consensus of the relevant professional bodies”. So he seemed to be relying on WPATH as "evidence".

From the article in the OP:

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”.

This is from the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines:

the recommendations made in this document are based primarily on clinician consensus, along with previously published standards of care from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)

What makes you think that WPATH has little relevance to Australia, when they have based their own guidelines on WPATH?

So would you prefer that the court relied on evidence such as the Cass review, or on a document produced by a group of activists, many of whom don't have any medical training?

Yes, this is what I was thinking. Surely Ash is aware men can't get pregnant. So does that mean Ash will detransition to become pregnant? Does it also mean Ash sees this as a temporary status quo.
The manipulation of two children (Ash and Ash' sister) is absolutely diabolical.
Scientific fact #1 Humans can't change sex.
Can you imagine the outcry if a physiologically healthy 16 year old wanted to be sterilised because they decided they didn't want children, and a consultant went ahead?

@OldCrone

What makes you think that WPATH has little relevance to Australia, when they have based their own guidelines on WPATH?

So would you prefer that the court relied on evidence such as the Cass review, or on a document produced by a group of activists, many of whom don't have any medical training?

Do you want to reword this? I'm not sure what you mean.

Generally, I'd prefer the court relied on evidence based on Australian sources primarily, then if further sources are required, consensus-based, peer-reviewed evidence.

JessaWoo · Today 09:53

I'm not on MN constantly, Sinner.

But you're here now. What's your opinion on the organisation WPATH? What do you think of a group of activists, who reference their own and their friend's papers, to make it seen as though their biased output is highly regarded? And the Australian trans groups using their stuff as guidance?

Wouldn't you rather they relied on a highly detailed, four year review, by an expert who actually knows what she's talking about? A review which was double checked by two independent teams, by the way, rather than a circle jerk of manipulated data.

And just don't mention the eunuchs!

@SinnerBoy
It is irrelevant what any of us thinks as we are not the judge in this case.

The judge is not a medical expert and is only able to consider the evidence put before him.

Clearly the evidence provided by one side’s “expert” was more compelling than the Cass review.

What do you not understand?

The Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines are based on the WPATH Standards of Care

This part is quoted directly from the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines linked above:

the recommendations made in this document are based primarily on clinician consensus, along with previously published standards of care from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)

So the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines are based on WPATH. (I notice I've just repeated myself, but I hope that will just make this fact clearer.)

What this means is that the Australian source that you think is most relevant is actually based on WPATH, which as you will know if you've read the Hannah Barnes article I linked to earlier, is not a reputable source.

WPATH is about as far away as it is possible to get from a scientifically based, peer reviewed source. It's written by zealots and activists, many of whom have no medical or scientific training.

Is that clearer?

So he thinks a document written by activists (many without medical training) is more compelling than a serious review which took a team of experts about 4 years to complete?

You don't have to be a medical expert to understand that a senior paediatrician and a team of well-qualified researchers are more likely to produce a credible report than a bunch of activists and zealots, many without any medical training.

And that's before you start considering all the other WPATH stuff about phallus-preserving vaginoplasty, nullification and eunuchs.

@OldCrone if you live in Australia it is not unreasonable to assume the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines are the most relevant.

Don’t forget the NHS, a government institution, also uses/used the WPATH guidance. Prior to Cass, a judge in the UK presented with NHS guidance would take that as the gold standard.

@OldCrone to be clear I think WPATH is appalling.

But I can see why an Australian Judge might consider the Australian equivalent of the NHS to be more credible than a report from the UK.

If you look at the Post Office scandal the IT expert witness was believed over the post masters and mistresses. Why? Because he was an “expert”.