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.

As the thread title says, this is about a Family Court. Is it too much to expect that the judge should at least be pretty well-versed in the topic? A bit more so than, say, the average tabloid reader?

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.

This is no longer the case since the Cass review was published. Why do you think it's irrelevant for Australian children? Do you think they are fundamentally different from British children? Or other Europeans (some other European countries have also stopped the use of puberty blockers for children)? It's even caught the attention of some Americans.

What do you think makes Australian children different from children in the rest of the world?

@OldCrone
The real issue is why did both the NHS, the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines and multiple other heath organisations all decide the WPATH guidance was correct and based on their guidance on it?

Maybe he is. He might be a gender zealot himself. In which case, as I said earlier, he should have recused himself from this case on the grounds that he couldn't be impartial because of his quasi-religious beliefs.

@OldCrone I have never said it is irrelevant. I am a huge supporter of Baroness Cass.

What I have said is in an Australian court a judge has to make a decision based on the evidence presented. Sadly the “expert” was believed.

That's a good question. I assume it's because the activists managed to get their claws in before any of us realised what was going on.

But now we have the Cass review, and WPATH has been exposed for the activist-led quack organisation it is, you'd expect any reasonable health professionals to back away from any association with WPATH and its quackery.

The fact that the Australians haven't is concerning. Why are they clinging to WPATH quackery when it's been exposed by journalists who've uncovered the stuff they didn't want us all to know, and they have sensible guidelines they could use instead since the publication of the Cass review?

The only explanation is that they all lost their senses in the grip of collective delusion.

@OldCrone forgive me I can’t remember who said this but there is an issue that parents and health care professionals who have overseen and supported the medicalisation and surgery of children have a vested interest in being right.

Otherwise they have to face up to what they have done. Sterilising and mutilating children for a discredited theory is a hard thing to live with. Particularly if it’s your child.

Letting go of that in big organisations can take a long time. It’s all incredibly sad.

Harassedevictee · Today 13:13

What I have said is in an Australian court a judge has to make a decision based on the evidence presented. Sadly the “expert” was believed.

I get you and I find it very disturbing, have the other side had a proper opportunity to present evidence regarding WPATH? Or is it the case that the judge has had a short brief and made a decision that way?

He certainly seems biased, based on his comment that Cass is a politically motivated publication.

Yes, people like Susie Green. But I suppose people like Polly Carmichael and the rest of the discredited Tavistock team are in a similar position. They clung to the lunacy until they were closed down.

It doesn't explain why the judge is taking that position though.

@OldCrone because the judge has to make a decision based on the evidence.

As quoted in the article “He (the judge) said the Cass Review, a landmark probe that recommended “extreme caution” be taken when prescribing hormones to children …”
So even Cass doesn’t say never.

Remember Cass also recommended a clinical trial.

Essentially the judge is doing what we would want in each case and in the case of assisted dying. An individuals case is being reviewed by an independent judge. Evidence is provided and the judge decides if it is right to give cross sex hormones to this one 16 year old.

This case is not a wider debate about the issues it’s about the life of one 16 year old and what is right for them. Even Baroness Cass accepts for some this might be the right course of action.

Bloody hell. Most likely sterile with weak pelvic floor, prolapses and incontinence by 26. How is this ok? ((

Cass says extreme caution, which is a lot more catuion than the judge has shown. The judge accepted that this might well be the wrong course of action for Ash but that's OK because a 16 year old has the right to make mistakes. Which given how devastating those mistakes could be, seems an odd decision to make.

I would be interested to learn more about any follow up paper and what it was seeking to refute.

As I said, I agree that there is no particular time of brain maturity and that is not necessarily the same thing as maturity as we understand it in society (I think my post conflated the two meanings). I also think that is is very dangerous to be basing things like sentencing guidelines on this particular research as if it were a fact that 25 is some kind of cut off for maturity. I think this only useful as something interesting and potential useful for lay people trying to understand young adults.

I found this article helpful, but perhaps it predates the paper you mention?

www.iflscience.com/does-the-brain-really-mature-at-the-age-of-25-68979

Australia has gone insane. They’ve always been sexist and racist. But their latest escapades ref trans people, are the nail in the coffin of their civility. Poor women and children there.

It's been mentioned a few times on this thread (and sometimes on others too) that the Cass Report was commissioned by the Tories. It wasn't, it was commissioned by the NHS. The quote below is from the second paragraph on this link:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

"The Review was commissioned by NHS England to make recommendations on how to improve NHS gender identity services"

The relevance of this is that the report isn't political in origin. This has been misrepresented/misinterpreted by the Australian judge when considering the weighting that he is giving to all the evidence he has seen.

Um. Australia isn't occupied by the Taliban. You need to stop believing everything you read on the internet.

Just reiterating my request for bodies to donate to in Australia working against this insidious religion - I'm well versed in the UK battleground thanks to this site but not so much here.

Will also write to my local members asking them some succinct question about all this.

At this point, the Australian standards of care are the ones the Justice would be guided by. It is too early for the Cass report to filter down into such standards, if it ever does. Australia may produce its own informed by Baroness Cass' report, perhaps.

*And yes, I'm aware that the Australian standards are currently informed by WPATH - WPATH is somewhat more established, though.

If you mean, 'established' in the sense of an infestation, then I'd agree.

Well said.

This article on WPATH and "citation cartels" looks at how established it is too:

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/gender-medicines-citation-cartel

It's certainly worked well for them so far, as this case so bitterly shows.

I appreciate this is technical but the Department for Health & Social Care is the overarching department for NHS England. Whilst NHS England commissioned the review the Minister responsible for DHSC would have been involved and approved the review.

This is confirmed by Hansard “^That is why in 2020, with the support of my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), NHS England commissioned Dr Hilary Cass to examine the state of services for children questioning their gender. ” https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-04-15/debates/AFE3A39A-3333-4790-AE30-776A474188C4/CassReview^

Sajid Javid as Minister for Dept Health & Social Care was highly supportive of the review. He even introduced a SI to assist Baroness Cass to get the data.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/23080/documents/169060/default/

This is why the review itself was not subject to political interference but was supported by parliament and therefore seen as political. I appreciate it is nuanced.

I'm struggling to get my head around this.
Infertile men don't need sisters to donate them eggs. They need brothers to donate sperm.
So Ash is having medical treatment to go through male puberty. But Ash's infertility, if it results from said treatment, will be of the type requiring large gamete and site of gestation?
I know I'm not saying anything posters here haven't been saying for years, but this isn't wacky blue haired youth saying this stuff, this is a judge in a court of law.
Ruling on whether the risk of harm from treatment is warranted given treatment outcomes.

But noone is pretending those treatment outcomes are actual, successful male puberty. At the same time as saying, treatment is to enable this trans boy to go through male puberty.
I think it's so hard to combat because it's bullshit. In the technical sense. Total bullshit.

If men can be the kind of people who contribute eggs to reproduction, and carry pregnancy to term, what is un-male about Ash's endogenous hormones?
What exactly is treatment about?