Sooner or later there has to be a reckoning for the unhinged zealots of the Child Mutilation Industrial Complex, oops, ‘gender-affirming treatment’ model. It’s already beginning. There are lawsuits being lodged by ‘de-transitioners’ in the UK and US.
In Australia, a landmark verdict has dealt another blow to the child mutilators. Not just the unconscionable medicos who profit from these procedures, but the parents, almost always mothers, who seem to get a grotesque kick out of the social cachet of having a trophy ‘trans’ child.
One of Australia’s foremost child gender medicine experts has been ruled to have misled the Family Court when giving evidence to support a mother who wished to prescribe her child puberty blockers, in a judgment that calls into question the integrity of one of the nation’s peak gender clinics.
Justice Andrew Strum’s extraordinary judgment, which stripped the mother of custody and effectively prevented the child from accessing treatment, criticised the approach of hospitals to children questioning their gender, saying the decision to “affirm unreservedly” any child that raises concerns over their gender is “oddly binary”.
He also found the gender clinic that treated the 12-year-old failed to formally give a gender dysphoria diagnosis until the court proceedings had commenced, despite having treated the child since they were six.
The verdict is a victory for not just common sense, but for children who would otherwise grow up sterile and mutilated in mind and body. It’s also a devastating blow for the mini-Mengeles who’ve been allowed to run their grotesque ‘clinics’ without being held to account for far too long.
The case marks the first time a sitting judge has blown a hole in the country’s gender-affirming treatment of care guidelines. While Justice Strum does not comment generally on the gender-affirming care model adopted by the gender clinic at the child’s hospital, the judgment raises big questions regarding the treatment of gender-incongruent children.
If you’ve ever had the misfortune to witness such creepy freakshows as ‘drag queen story hour’, you surely won’t have missed something about the type of parent who drags their kids to be ogled and fondled by a sleazy man in a dress. The smug faces on these parents. It’s all about them: the children are just accessories.
These people love the attention, the adulation, of their ‘progressive’ peers. They’re getting off on it.
People who truly love their children don’t use them as such gross pawns in their attention-seeking antics.
The matter centred on the biologically male child whose mother believes is gender dysphoric and should be prescribed puberty blockers, but whose father wanted to hold off on treatment and “let the child be the child”.
In handing down his judgment, Justice Strum sided with the father who did not wish to “pigeonhole” his child, and decided “all options” in the child’s life should be open.
The judge had particularly harsh words for the so-called ‘child gender experts’. He essentially called the particular ‘expert’ who testified for the mother a liar.
He took issue with the “concerning” evidence given by one of the nation’s leading child gender experts – anonymised as Associate Professor L – in relation to the landmark UK Cass review.
According to the judgment, the professor “disagrees with much” of the Cass Review, which recommended limitations on medication for gender-dysphoric children.
“It is submitted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer ... and I agree, that Associate Professor L’s responses were ‘misleading or omitted findings/material that detracted from (their) opinion’ contrary to the obligations as an expert witness,” he wrote.
Make no mistake, this is a damning judgement on the entire ‘child gender’ industry.
The judgment takes aim at the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines, developed by the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne and which endorse a gender-affirming model of care […]
Justice Strum also found the hospital of Associate Professor L and Dr N had failed to conduct a proper biopsychosocial assessment of the child, despite regular appointments over a six-year period. It also had not conducted an autism assessment despite known links between neurodivergence and gender incongruence.
He found Dr N’s diagnosis of the child as gender-dysphoric was only made “as the pending trial dates approached” and found the timing of the diagnosis was “more than merely coincidental”.
Justice Strum seems to have sided with the adage that a ‘transgender child’ is like a vegan cat.
Justice Strum ultimately rejected the hospital’s diagnosis of the child as being gender-dysphoric, and found the mother had attempted to use the child’s gender fluidity to damage the relationship with the father.
He said the court was “not concerned ‘in what the community thinks’ or ideologies, but only what, on the evidence, is in the child’s best interests”.
Ultimately, this is not about ideology: it’s about children and the irreparable harm being done to them.
