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.

@borntobequiet I certainly didn’t mean to imply that.

I don’t see why anyone should need Botox, fillers, cosmetic surgery if they are healthy.

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.

It might show that Ash understands she will probably become sterile, but in having the conversation with a 10 year old sister in the first place it also shows that Ash is either not mature enough to understand the difference between herself at 16 and her sister at 10, or understands but is happy to exploit her sister's lack of understanding. Either way, not a good look Ash.

Judges should only look at the evidence presented.

@SinnerBoy I meant to add this case is about cross sex hormones but a lot of posters are conveniently forgetting that Cass has said PB may in some cases be appropriate. The review also recommends a clinical trial of PB.

So even if the judge preferred the Cass review he could still have reached the same conclusion in this case.

I am hoping that post Cass we will get far better data collection and analysis to provide irrefutable evidence PB should be banned and a minimum age for cross sex hormones. There is a ? in relation to precocious puberty.

What evidence about the Cass review was presented?

This is what he said about it:

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.

“Particularly the then UK prime minister is on record of having publicly said on 5 October 2023 – whilst the Cass Review was being finalised: ‘And we shouldn’t be bullied into believing that people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t. A man is a man and a woman is a woman’.”

That last paragraph is worrying. Does this judge think that people can change sex?

This case isn't about puberty blockers. It's about giving testosterone to a 16-year-old girl who wants to be a boy.

Why would the Cass review recommending a clinical trial of puberty blockers cause him to reach the same conclusion about cross sex hormones? Did the Cass review also recommend giving testosterone to 16-year-old girls if they asked for it?

Extract from Cass review - regarding cross sex hormones.

“Although young people often express a sense of urgency in their wish to access medical
treatments, based on personal experience some young adults have suggested that taking time
to explore options is preferable. Although young people often express a sense of urgency in their wish to access medical
treatments, based on personal experience some young adults have suggested that taking time
to explore options is preferable. The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones
from the age of 16 is available, but the Review would recommend an extremely cautious clinical approach and a strong clinical rationale for providing hormones before the age of 18.
This would keep options open during this important developmental window, allowing time
for management of any co-occurring conditions,
building of resilience, and fertility preservation This would keep options open during this important developmental window, allowing time for management of any co-occurring conditions,building of resilience, and fertility preservation if required.

An extremely cautious approach not a never prescribe, is in line with a judge making a decision based on all the evidence.

It is very rare people agree 100%. It is possible to agree with a lot of the Cass review but have an absolutist position on PB and cross sex hormones.

For example a lot of people disagree with the clinical trial. I am more pragmatic and think if you can find a way of obtaining informed consent (not sure how) then high quality data could be collated to hopefully end the debate once and for all.

@Sasskitty

The taliban ref was tasteless and not worth referring to, specifically.

The way trans activists behave, and the way Australia cow tows to them is horrendous. Australia in fact made it law (following TvG) that women don’t exist in their own right. After all if any man can call himself a woman legally, there’s no difference is there. Talk about a misogynistic and sexist society. I hope they Do get their own version of the Cass report, then some of this grot might be reversed.

I made that comment on the basis of one of yours that characterised the women of as downtrodden, unseen and unheard, more or less. As a woman in Australia - and one who works in a quite blokey environment and always have - that isn't quite true.

That isn't to say, though, that the health standards don't need an overhaul. They do, and perhaps the Cass report would be a good start.

the Review would recommend an extremely cautious clinical approach and a strong clinical rationale for providing hormones before the age of 18.

Isn't this a decision that would have to be made by a doctor rather than a judge?

@Shortshriftandlethal

It is a sort of retrograde 'anti colonialist' thing - and certainly if he's from a certain strand on the political spectrum.

I highly doubt it. I don't think a respected judge in Australia would be thinking "let's stick it to the Tories" in a judgement. Again, bizarre take.

This case is wider than a clinical opinion so I would expect clinical evidence to have been provided. I have said before I haven’t seen the evidence.

A good example is the sad cases where clinicians have decided the right thing to do is turn off life support and parents object. It a judge that decides not the clinicians.

I can't see how a child can give informed consent about things that they don't have the maturity to understand. A child can't make a decision about being an infertile adult whose sexual function has been impaired becaue they only have a child's understanding of these things. Only an adult who has gone through puberty can understand these things. A child can't give informed consent to not go through puberty, since going through puberty is the only way they can gain the maturity to understand what it would mean to not go through puberty.

I agree but cleverer people than me may find a way. I do think informed consent maybe why the clinical trials don’t happen.

Find a way to do what?

@OldCrone sorry I updated to clarify I meant find a way to get informed consent.

I don't think it is. There is a lot I've seen in Australian culture which is knee jerk down on Britain.

Is he really that respected - given his political comments about the Cass review and the party that commissioned it? Doesn't seem very neutral or professional to me.

@Shortshriftandlethal

I don't think it is. There is a lot I've seen in Australian culture which is knee jerk down on Britain.

Is he really that respected - given his political comments about the Cass review and the party that commissioned it? Doesn't seem very neutral or professional to me.

I hadn't even heard of him before this case.

It's a Justice's job to be neutral and professional, isn't it? It would be a problem if not.

Considering what has been said by a judge here in the UK who has now turned activist, I don’t think it is all that easy to reject that judges can have activist biases. And if they have previously made a similar decision, are they building precedent to support their previous decisions? Or could it also be argued that they could be protecting their previous decisions from being heavily scrutinised ?

Well, this one clearly isn't - given his comments.

As Justme points out, this judge was involved in a case in 2017.

A 16 year old having this discussion with a 10 year old is hugely concerning and it really does reflect that this is not a person who fully understands the ramifications of their actions.

And we have seen a judge use the same platitudes now that we have seen from activists. It is a judge effectively saying if you want children in the future, you can always source one exploiting another human. It takes on an entirely different meaning when this is said to a female person though. And there is no way that the sister's 'offer' should have been even mentioned in court.

From the article about the 2017 case:

In his decision Tree wrote: “As if the general turmoil and challenges which being a teenager in our modern world generates are not enough, the additional burden of requiring an already vulnerable and highly marginalised group to individually litigate to vindicate their identity seems inhumane."

“No other group of adolescents is required to do so. Having already traversed a far more difficult path than many of their peers, it can only serve to further increase their burden.”

He's a genderist zealot. He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near these cases.

It could be said so oldcrone.

I suspect that families are too traumatised to appeal as well.