Summarised by Centrist
Yvonne van Dongen questions whether the Human Rights Commission is fit for purpose after endorsing puberty blockers for children despite global safety concerns.
She asks: Can an organisation that promotes unscientific ideology still be trusted?
Van Dongen describes the submission as a “model of obeisance to trans ideology”, aligning with gender-affirming organisations like the Professional Association of Transgender Health Aotearoa, the Endocrine Society, and the American Psychiatric Association.
It claims puberty blockers are “safe and reversible”, despite the HRC’s admission that there is “limited quality evidence” supporting their use.
While several countries—including the UK, Sweden, and Finland—have moved to restrict puberty blockers due to the risks of sterility and long-term harm, the HRC submission insists on their necessity. The HRC argues that “the risks of not providing gender-affirming care can be significant with life-long consequences.”
The submission also repeats the widely debunked claim that withholding gender-affirming care leads to higher suicide rates.
However, Van Dongen cites recent research showing individuals who underwent gender-affirming surgery were over 12 times more likely to attempt suicide than those who did not.
Van Dongen is “astonished” that the HRC endorses their continued use without requiring further research, despite weak evidence.
Although newly appointed Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow faced backlash from trans activists, Van Dongen argues he now leads an organisation fully aligned with gender ideology, asking whether he will “explain why he leads an organisation that supports these dangerous cultish views.”
