An Australian judge has ruled against a mother who saught to put her 12-year-old son on puberty blockers to stunt his development so he could attempt to look more like a girl and has granted custody of the boy to his father.
One activist has called the decision a “stunning victory for sanity in Australia.”
Judge Andrew Strum did not rule out permitting the child to transition once they were older but said that they were too young to fully comprehend the implications of such a life-changing decision.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
In his ruling, Strum wrote, “This is a case about a child, and a relatively young one at that; not one about the cause of transgender people.
He added in the ruling: “As this child grows, develops and matures, and explores and experiences life, the child might, with the related benefits of the passage of time and the acquisition of balanced understanding, come to identify as a transgender female and might elect to undergo some form of medical treatment, to affirm and/or align with that [self-professed] identity. But, similarly, with those benefits, the child might not do so, and for a variety of reasons.
“At this stage in the child’s life, all options should be left open, without any unacceptable risk of harm to the child.”
the judge took particular exception to so-called evidence presented by “experts” speaking in support of the mother’s position that gender identity is a purely internal matter which is completely unaffected by external influence.
“Associated Professor L” an anonymous witness and allegedly one of Australia’s leading child gender experts, was described by the judge as giving statements that were “misleading or omitted findings/material that detracted from [their] opinion’ contrary to the obligations as an expert witness.”
Strum noted, “The mother, in cross-examination, rejected even the possibility that external factors or influence might have any role to play in the child’s gender identity.”
He said that neither of the experts who submitted evidence “were able to point to any empirical or substantive basis for their opinion but, rather, only to anecdotal reports from transigender [identified] adults about their experience of their gender identity.”
The judge’s decision was at least partially informed by the Cass Review, conducted in Britain, which is highly critical of an affirming approach to transitioning children and the use of drugs such as puberty blockers.
He also found that the mother had attempted to use the child’s apparent gender fluidity as a tool to damage the child’s relationship with their father. He further said that medical treatment should be determined by the best interests of the child, rather than be determined by ideological concerns.
The ruling was welcomed by Chris Elston, also known as “Billboard Chris,” whose activism has brought him into conflict with pro-trans activists and the Australian courts.
Writing on X, Elston said, “The gender clinic, an expert witness, the Australian Professional Association for Transgender Health, and a previous judge who tried to downplay the Cass Review have all been severely rebuked in a stunning victory for sanity in Australia.”
This article was originally published at Christian Today
An Australian judge has ruled against a mother who saught to put her 12-year-old son on puberty blockers to stunt his development so he could attempt to look more like a girl and has granted custody of the boy to his father.
One activist has called the decision a “stunning victory for sanity in Australia.”
Judge Andrew Strum did not rule out permitting the child to transition once they were older but said that they were too young to fully comprehend the implications of such a life-changing decision.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
In his ruling, Strum wrote, “This is a case about a child, and a relatively young one at that; not one about the cause of transgender people.
He added in the ruling: “As this child grows, develops and matures, and explores and experiences life, the child might, with the related benefits of the passage of time and the acquisition of balanced understanding, come to identify as a transgender female and might elect to undergo some form of medical treatment, to affirm and/or align with that [self-professed] identity. But, similarly, with those benefits, the child might not do so, and for a variety of reasons.
“At this stage in the child’s life, all options should be left open, without any unacceptable risk of harm to the child.”
the judge took particular exception to so-called evidence presented by “experts” speaking in support of the mother’s position that gender identity is a purely internal matter which is completely unaffected by external influence.
“Associated Professor L” an anonymous witness and allegedly one of Australia’s leading child gender experts, was described by the judge as giving statements that were “misleading or omitted findings/material that detracted from [their] opinion’ contrary to the obligations as an expert witness.”
Strum noted, “The mother, in cross-examination, rejected even the possibility that external factors or influence might have any role to play in the child’s gender identity.”
He said that neither of the experts who submitted evidence “were able to point to any empirical or substantive basis for their opinion but, rather, only to anecdotal reports from transigender [identified] adults about their experience of their gender identity.”
The judge’s decision was at least partially informed by the Cass Review, conducted in Britain, which is highly critical of an affirming approach to transitioning children and the use of drugs such as puberty blockers.
He also found that the mother had attempted to use the child’s apparent gender fluidity as a tool to damage the child’s relationship with their father. He further said that medical treatment should be determined by the best interests of the child, rather than be determined by ideological concerns.
The ruling was welcomed by Chris Elston, also known as “Billboard Chris,” whose activism has brought him into conflict with pro-trans activists and the Australian courts.
Writing on X, Elston said, “The gender clinic, an expert witness, the Australian Professional Association for Transgender Health, and a previous judge who tried to downplay the Cass Review have all been severely rebuked in a stunning victory for sanity in Australia.”
This article was originally published at Christian Today
