Table of Contents
Recently, it was put to me by a Twitter leftist that the idea of an imminent slew of lawsuits against those pushing so-called “gender-affirming care” on children, is just another “right wing nut job conspiracy theory”. “Where are all these lawsuits, then?” the Twitter lefty demanded to know.
Well, they’re here. And here. And here, here, and here.
And, far from a “RWNJ conspiracy theory”, top barristers are warning that a whole lot more is yet to come. In fact, Family Court judges have been warned that they’re risking the “worst medical scandal in 100 years”.
A legal paper, compiled by top Victorian family law barrister Belle Lane and delivered to judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia last month, argues fresh research into the effects of hormone treatments and puberty blockers on young Australians refutes older research touting a gender-affirming model of care.
In light of this, Ms Lane argues, the court must reassess how scientific advancements should apply to the family law system.
At heart is a landmark case known as Re Kelvin, which essentially ruled that there is no need for the Family Court to interrogate whether such dramatic treatments as puberty blockers are justified by evidence.
“The evidence base around what is called ‘gender-affirming treatment’ has moved rapidly and much more is known about the asserted benefits of the medical pathway and risks,” Ms Lane writes […]
The asserted positive results of the Dutch studies are questioned and have not been able to be repeated in subsequent studies, yet the gender-affirming treatment pathway remains. Over time, awareness of risks of harm of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery have increased and underlying assumptions such as puberty blockers acting as a pause have been discredited.”
“Gender-affirming care” is a double-tautology, of course. It neither affirms the gender of, nor does much to care for the children caught in its web. As recent data shows, children subjected to this nonce-sense wind up even more psychologically-scarred than ever.
When it comes to what may well in the future be regarded as on a par with Thalidomide, or the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, “not our problem” may not be a tenable position for the Family Court.
The paper argues the legal industry should reconsider treating the case of Re Kelvin (2017) as the authority in matters of gender dysphoria in children […] University of Queensland emeritus professor of law Patrick Parkinson, who is quoted in the paper, said the court presiding over Re Kelvin did not appropriately consider evidence of the implications of a legal framework supporting gender-affirming care.
“The whole basis on which the Family Court has said ‘we don’t need to be involved in this anymore’ is now falling like a stack of cards,” he said. “Furthermore, in Re Kelvin, which is the leading case, they never actually looked at the medical evidence.”
Mr Parkinson said courts should not be approving “this sort of treatment without hearing both sides of that medical argument.”
If courts are guilty of failing to apply due diligence with regard to the risks of such things as puberty blockers — to damn them with faint praise, they’ve simply accepted at face value the lies of activist medical practitioners.
He said the courts have long been told “things which aren’t actually true” in regards to puberty blockers and hormone treatments on young Australians.
“They‘ve been told there was no controversy about this stuff,” he said.
Courts have been told for years that puberty blockers are entirely reversible, and they aren’t. They are reversible in part … but they were never authorised for this purpose.
“Critically, we also do not know what effect this has on brain development at all, given that we know adolescence is a hugely important time for brain development.”
Cautioning against a “massive liability bill” if Australia continues on its current path, Mr Parkinson said the country could be on the brink of the “worst medical scandal in 100 years.”
“I really do (think so) and the and the liability risk is enormous,” he said.
The Australian
Frankly, everyone party to this Mengele-style House of Horrors deserves everything they get.
