Woke Trans Rights and State-Sanctioned Child Abduction in Australia
"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." ~Thomas Paine
In a number of states in Australia, the state can now criminally prosecute parents and legally take prepubescent children away from them if they refuse to allow their children to take harmful puberty blockers, undergo hormone treatment and do anything other than encourage and facilitate the transition of any child who feels confused about their gender. So the next time you see someone saying "trans rights are human rights," just know one of those trans rights is now state-sanctioned child abduction, which is most certainly not a human right.
The Change of Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 was enacted in the Australian state of Victoria on the 17th of February, 2022. This Act makes it a criminal offense carrying a maximum fine of $10,000 and a maximum prison sentence for parents, pediatric specialists and therapists of up to 10 years for denying prepubescent children access to puberty blockers, hormone therapy and gender transition surgery (See: Part 2—Offences relating to change or suppression practices Division 1—Offences). It also outlaws the exploration of non-affirming therapy options for children and prevents counsellors and licenced professionals from administering talk therapy to young children who may or may not actually be suffering gender dysphoria. The Act defines criminal “suppression practices” in the following words:
‘(1) a practice includes, but is not limited to the following— (a) providing a psychiatry or psychotherapy consultation, treatment or therapy, or any other similar consultation, treatment or therapy; (b) carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism; (c) giving a person a referral for the purposes of a change or suppression practice being directed towards the person.’
As a foaming-at-the-mouth Hichens-esk Leftie atheist, I see no practical merit in prayer based “treatments,” but as an advocate for Human Rights, which I have always kept as my North Star, I see here an infringement upon religious people’s human right to freedom of religion. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and its offshoots such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are clear in this respect, and Australia is a formally ratified party to both of these international treaties. Section 18 of the UDHR holds:
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’
Article 18 of the ICCPR similarly holds:
(1). Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
(2). No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
(3). Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
(4). The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Advocates for this irresponsible piece of legislation may find brief reprieve in sub-section 3’s limitations, but such limitations are premised upon the very public policy considerations at risk under this legislation, therefore this limitation cannot be argued to apply to this situation. In fact, as ineffectual as I believe religious practices to be, they are, generally speaking, far less harmful than the current medical and surgical regiment required by the present gender ideology and its legally enforcing statute. And it must not be understated that this Act outlaws prayer based treatments, which is a central religious practice important to millions of Australians.
The Act also makes it a criminal offence to merely advertise alternative therapies other than gender transitional ones:
Offence of advertising a change or suppression practice (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person publishes or displays, or authorises the publication or display of, an advertisement or other notice; and (b) the advertisement or other notice indicates, or could reasonably be understood as indicating, that the person or any other person intends to engage in one or more change or suppression practices, other than Authorised by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel Part 2—Offences relating to change or suppression practices Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 No. 3 of 2021 14 for the purposes of warning of the harm caused by such practices. Penalty: In the case of a natural person, level 9 fine (60 penalty units maximum); In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units maximum.
Commenting on this dangerously dystopian Act, professor and former head of Queensland University Law School, Dr Patrick Parkinson, said:
“The law is highly damaging to the wellbeing of some children, particularly because it discourages clinicians from engaging with children suffering from gender dysphoria or gender incongruence and could deprive them of the help they most need,” he said. “It has no scientific basis because there is no evidence for harm for therapy which helps children become more comfortable with their natal sex.”
Take a guess at the fate of this former head of Queensland University Law School after having the courage to question and critique this harmful legal outgrowth of gender identity studies, which is a deeply flawed area of academia. Perhaps this headline will help you guess:
Law dean who was under fire for transgender comments steps down from role
Here we see a perfect example of the Woke transgender rights movement’s application of Wokeism’s doctrine of ‘censorship’ via cancel culture, which eradicates challenges to its ideology by cancelling and ultimately silencing dissenting voices.
These laws are now spreading across Australia. In an article for 7 News Australia, Ethan James writes:
Victoria, Queensland and the ACT have banned conversion practices, which aim to change, suppress or eradicate someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.
As an aside, it seems clear that these bills were clumsily constructed on the basis of political pressure from Woke LGBTQIAA2+ activists, as they all lump anti-gay conversion therapy with gender transition, which are two entirely separate issues. It is also a point of irony that these Acts outlaw conversion for gays but legally mandate it for (alleged) transgender people.
The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission is the body charged with overseeing and administering this Act, and on their website they “clarify” and “address” some of the obvious concerns individuals may have about the Act’s apparent encroachments upon parental rights. On their website they state:
‘Parents, and others, will not be criminally prosecuted (will not be charged with an offence) for having general conversations with their children about their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Act does not include provisions for removing children from their parents…This law is not about stopping people from being a parent, or practising or enjoying their faith, it is about preventing harm – and these practices are harmful.’
Phew! That’s a relief. I have been misled by religious fanatics and fearmongers. I can finally go back to watching Falling Skies on Amazon Prime. By the way, fantastic Sci-Fi series! Hang on a minute. ‘Parents, and others, will not be criminally prosecuted (will not be charged with an offence) for having “general conversations” with their children about their sexual orientation or gender identity.’ Far out! Just when I thought I was off the hook and could chill with a cuppa tea and a piece of pavlova. The Commission’s website goes on to state:
A parent may only be criminally prosecuted if their conduct meets the definition of a change or suppression practice and the conduct:
*causes injury or serious injury;
*involves taking their child outside Victoria for a change or suppression practice that causes injury; or
*involves advertising a change or suppression practice.
“INJURY” AND “SERIOUS INJURY”
The examples of “injury” provided on their website deliberately avoid issues of gender identity suppression and only discuss examples of gay conversion practices. This omission on their website screams far louder than its expressions. Why only provide examples for injury concerning gay conversion when the Act clearly outlaws both conversion with respect to sexual orientation and “suppression” of gender identity? I think most rational adults can safely intuit the answer to this question, and it more than likely involves the explosive politics surrounding gender identity, particularly given the serious problems with the academia and science behind both gender identity and the drugs given to prepubescent children - drugs that were originally designed to chemically castrate violent sex offenders - drugs for which serious side effects are known to exist, and for which the long-term effects are still as yet unknown. But I will put a pin in these two issues for the moment.
Returning to the issue of what is deemed indictable and actionable under the Act, “general conversations” about gender identity between parents and children are permitted. How generous of the state! But if it is determined that a parent or counsellor believes that the child in question would benefit from a holistic therapeutic approach or any other “non-affirming,” “suppressive” type of treatment, which consider more than just putting a child on the potentially harmful path toward gender transition, and such parents or therapists persist in this manner, then the Act comes into force and it expressly prescribes fines and imprisonment. So, whilst the Commission’s website attempts to alleviate concerns surrounding parental rights by alleging that “The Act does not include provisions for removing children from their parents,” I’d imagine it might be slightly difficult to parent your child from prison, and left without a legal guardian - a circumstance which would impact the more vulnerable single-parent homes more than two-parent families, then the child would effectively be removed from their parent’s custody. Also, name a family court judge who would not be hesitant to grant custody to a parent who has been found guilty under the Crimes Act 1958 of “injuring” their child. I’ll wait. And before analysing the legal definition of “injury,” let’s briefly drill down on the concept of injury to a child, shall we? Article 19 (1) of the UN’s Convention on The Rights of The Child reads as follows:
‘States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.’
Surely when we examine the testimonies of adults who were coerced to undergo this harmful pseudoscientific experiment as children, and the lifelong harm this has inflicted, the drafters and advocates of this Act will surely be found to have seriously infringed upon the UN’s Convention on The Rights of The Child.
Given the Commission’s website doesn’t give any relevant examples of injury with respect to gender identity suppression, we are forced to examine the Act more closely to see if we can gain more insight into the definitions of “injury” and “serious injury.”
Section 4 (Definitions) of the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 defers to Section 15 of the Crimes Act 1958 to define “Injury” and “Serious Injury.” This section defines injury as either physical or mental in nature. It is somewhat ironic that the Section 15 of the Crimes Act 1958 also outlaws female genital mutilation(FGM), being a barbaric practice performed for the sake of ideological conformity, just like prepubescent gender transition practices. Perhaps when people have all calmed down and been given a chance to think clearly and rationally about this issue, we will also find unnecessary gender transition practices listed right next to FGM in the Crimes Act 1958. For now, however, the well-meaning and/or opportunistic drafters and political advocates of child mutilation in the name of Wokeism’s gender ideology sect see fit to enforce child mutilation for the sake of conformity and personal popularity. Anyway, I digress. Section 15 of the Crimes Act 1958:
S. 15 def. of injury substituted by No. 6/2013 s. 3(a).
"injury" means—
(a) physical injury; or
whether temporary or permanent;
SCHOOLS, SECONDARY SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA
I’m not sure if you are a parent or not, but try confiscating your 13-year-old’s iPhone for a week and tell me you haven’t just caused temporary injury to their mental health. Trust me, if you know what I am talking about, you know what I am talking about. The tears, the pleadings, the falling to their knees as if you have just cut off their entire oxygen supply. It really is a spectacle to behold. But sometimes as parents we know that a measured amount of temporary emotional suffering is required in order to foster healthy development in our children and teenagers. Saying “No” to life-altering surgery which may not be the answer to our children’s current suffering, that is also a parent’s right and duty, especially given the insufficient data we have on this practice that permanently alters our children’s lives forever. Add to this the fact that many schools in Australia are being instructed to hide their students’ gender identity from parents. On this issue, Sky News reported:
‘ACU Senior Research Fellow Kevin Donnelly says it’s “shocking” teachers have been told not to tell parents their kids want to become transgender.
Mr Donnelly’s remarks come after a leaked email to teachers was obtained where they were told to keep pupils’ preferred names, pronouns and gender identity a secret from their parents.
“It’s got to a point now … where in Queensland parents are not to be told if their children want to transition or are talking about it at school,” Mr Donnelly told Sky News host Sharri Markson.
“It’s shocking, parents are their primary caregivers, their primary educators, so schools have no right to do that.”’
As well as studying law and political science at UTAS, I also graduated with a BA in sociology, in which I focused my courses predominantly on feminism and gender studies. In the language of sociology, school is where the ‘secondary socialization process’ occurs, the primary being within the family - so schools are deeply influential institutions for children, and as such, the peer pressures occasioned by trends and social contagions are acute with respect to their impact on the cognitions and desires of children within these institutions. Add to this the Woke social rewards packages on offer for being trans or gender non-conforming on platforms like Tik Tok, etc, which experience heavy usage amongst children, and it becomes clear that we have on our hands a multi-headed hydra pushing children via social media and secondary socializing institutions toward harmful and life-destroying gender transition surgery, which this legislation mandates as the only legal course of action for children subjected to such saturating influences.
COMMON LAW: TWO CASE LAW EXAMPLES
It has been over 20 years since my days at UTAS Law School, but one thing I clearly remember is that the words in legislation (Acts) require precise interpretation by Common Law (Case Law), and that Australian Common Law draws from compatible legal precedents imported from compatible legal jurisdictions to interpret Australian legislation. A judge will accept an interpretation of a word in a statute when it is drawn from case law as relevant and as close as possible to the subject being determined. This is to ensure an accurate rendering of the true spirit of the meaning of the word in question. A recent precedent in Texas, which is a compatible legal jurisdiction, has favoured the forced transition of a minor as the “least injurious” decision for the child. From the Federalist:
‘Judge Awards Custody Of Nine-Year-Old James Younger To Trans-Activist Mother Who Wants To Transition Him
Ajudge in Texas granted full custody of a nine-year-old boy to his mother, who for the past several years has sought to force the child to be transgender despite protests by the boy’s father.
Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician in Coppell, Texas, was granted full custody on Tuesday to James Younger, her son, by Democrat Judge Mary Brown. Georgulas will assume full responsibility for the boy’s medications, extracurricular activities, education, primary residence, and counseling. The ruling also permits the mother to withhold information regarding Younger’s ” …extracurricular activities, school functions, school enrollment, counseling, and medical care” from the father, Jeff Younger…“The prior orders that Ms. Georgulas must notify Mr. Younger of doctor’s, counseling, or mental health appointments, or extracurricular activities for the children are lifted,” the court document states. “In an effort to ensure the emotional well-being and physical safety of the children, the court orders that all of Mr. Younger’s possession periods shall be continuously supervised by Forensic Counseling Services. …at Mr. Younger’s sole cost and expense.”’
By the way, Mr Younger took this video footage of his son’s confessions concerning his non-biological mother’s coercive influence over his gender identity. It is also relevant to note that the boy’s mother is a Woke trans activist:
LANDMARK AUSTRALIAN CASE LAW: JAY LANGADINOS VS DR. PATRICK TOOHEY (NSW SUPREME COURT)
Jay Langadinos, who transitioned from a natural woman to a transgender man when she was 19, in accordance with the medical advice of her psychiatrist Dr. Patrick Toohey, is now suing him for professional negligence. From the Human Rights Law Alliance website:
‘The case just got better for repealing Australian laws which would criminalise medical professionals who act according to conscience and professional judgement when dealing with gender confusion.
Jay Langadinos, a Sydney woman who formerly identified as transgender, has filed a lawsuit in the NSW Supreme Court against her psychiatrist, Dr Patrick Toohey, alleging professional negligence.
Recently passed conversion therapy laws in Queensland, ACT and Victoria only increase the likelihood that a flood of similar cases will be brought against doctors by patients who have suffered irreversible damage as a result of medical interventions for gender confusion.
Langadinos consulted with Toohey from 2010, when she was 19-years-old and identifying as male. Toohey confirmed a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and approved her referral to an endocrinologist for masculinising hormones and, later, to a surgeon for bilateral mastectomy and hysterectomy.
Now 31-years-old and no longer identifying as male, Langadinos argues that Toohey’s psychiatric diagnosis was wrong and his approval of medical interventions resulted in irreversible harm, including the fact that she cannot now have children.
As the Sydney Morning Herald reported:
The statement of claim alleges that, before recommending hormonal treatment and the surgeries, Toohey “knew or ought to have known” Langadinos required further psychiatric evaluation by him and by a psychiatrist with specialised expertise in diverse conditions. She alleges that he was negligent in not recommending she get an opinion from a second psychiatrist for her hysterectomy.
NSW Feminist Legal Clinic solicitor Anna Kerr, who has been supporting Langadinos’s case, believes this court action as “likely to be the tip of the iceberg … We can expect to see extensive litigation in future years related to gender-affirming cross-sex hormones and surgeries”.
Langadinos’ will be the first case to test important questions about the internationally controversial “gender affirming” model of care. At the moment, the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents sets children on the pathway to social transitioning, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and ultimately surgical interventions, without the need for individual psycho-social investigations into possible causes of their gender-related distress.
Trans advocates attempt to avoid any implication that a trans identity is, in itself, a mental pathology. Insistence on this point has meant that any investigation into the causes of a trans identity are considered highly objectionable – any questioning on this subject trespasses on territory now marked by gender ideologues as a public “no go zone”.
Unfortunately, this “no go zone” is now reflected in legislation (passed in Victoria, the ACT and Queensland and contemplated in other jurisdictions) to prevent so-called “conversion practices”. These laws attempt to criminalise challenges to the validity of a self-declared gender identity, which means that clinicians who dare to question risk being penalised with fines and even prison sentences.
These Australian conversion therapy laws conflict with fundamental human rights protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of privacy and autonomy (Article 17) freedoms of religion, thought speech and conscience (Article 18) freedom of opinion (Article 19), freedom of the family (Article 23) and the equality of all people before the law (Article 26).
These laws are likely to be completely inconsistent with Australia’s human rights commitments under the ICCPR and interfere with private relations, including the relationship between doctor and patient.
If successful, Langadinos’ case could have far-reaching consequences. It would require a return to treatment that begins with a rigorous psycho-social assessment of the individual patient as well as triggering the repeal of those laws that currently impede the ability of clinicians to fulfil their professional obligations to provide the best possible care to their patients.’
This case has the promising potential to bring down serious future legal consequences on misguided and opportunistic healthcare professionals, politicians and trans activists, who are all presently pushing a harmful one-way model for treating cases of alleged gender dysphoria, and the legislation this piece is addressing could well eventually bring down its drafters and supporters. In this way, the Woke trans rights movement may well do to political and professional careers the same thing it has done to Bud Light’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch.
The fact that this legislation is built on faulty scholarship, incomplete science, and a gender ideology which can be demonstrably shown to be easily exploitable will leave its supporters on the wrong side of history, as is the appropriate place for most ideologues. I have little doubt that advocates for this legislation will be reflected on in the same contemptable manner that we now look back on those who advocated forced lobotomies for people with mental health problems, or dangerous Catholic exorcisms for people with epilepsy and autism, a practice the Act also somewhat ironically forbids. The quick personal, social and political wins these advocates see in jumping on this dangerous ideology’s bandwagon will be short lived, and their legacies will be forever stained with the blood and bone of unnecessarily mutilated children.
THE DANGEROUS GENDER IDEOLOGY MILL
Universities across the world have fallen victim to a secular religiopolitical ideology some refer to as Wokeism. As a Master’s graduate in Studies in Religion, I have noted the solid comparisons between this new political religion and more traditional ones. But no one has done as much damage to this affected area of academia as the “scholars” who pump out ideologically driven nonsense and pseudoscience in the name of their chosen political axes to grind. Following this faulty scholarship, “journalists” at ABC News Australia thought it useful to give a soapbox to trans activist Georgie Stone, who made the false claim to the entire nation on the 4th of April, 2023, that “puberty blockers were completely reversible.” Over a month later, ABC were forced to print a correction to this dangerous disinformation. Scholars of serious note will know that academia’s purpose isn’t to start with a set of political beliefs and then just hunt for supporting conclusions, no. Academia and scholarship are about finding the truth, whatever that may be. So to start with immovable premises not rooted in science or academia, but in politics, is to start from a position of distorting bias, a starting position incapable of being trusted to reach the truth, or to provide safe and sound outcomes with respect to the formation of public policy.
To prove this, a number of scholars recently published some deliberately outlandish parody journal articles in Tier One academic journals in Gender Studies. In fact, they have a documentary coming out soon that I would highly recommend law makers and advocates of gender ideology watch:
In her article for the Times of Israel, Amanda Borschel-Dan writes:
‘The term “Femi-Nazi” became all too accurate when a trio of academic tricksters participating in an elaborate hoax submitted portions of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” rewritten through a feminist lens to a leading peer-reviewed feminist journal. The satirical paper was accepted this past academic year for publication by Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work.
The sting operation against academic journals became public this week.
In a truncated year-long project aimed at highlighting the alleged influence of extremist dogma and confirmation bias in academia, the trio wrote 20 farcical “scholarly” papers — three of which were based on rewrites of “Mein Kampf” — for leading cultural studies journals. All 20 of the papers were based on “something absurd or deeply unethical, or both,” the authors have said; seven were accepted for publication.’
Okay, so we have an extremely unreliable area of academia now directly informing legislation that impacts issues of child safety, children’s rights, parental rights, and human rights overall. How did we get here? I mean, how did we allow this insanity to manifest and take over academia and politics? Inch by inch is how. Once people in positions of power began to accept the Woke’s reformation, which includes the radical redefinition of words and terms like “inclusion,” “diversity,” “speech is violence,” “silence is violence,” “harm,” etc., none of which actually mean what their original meanings were intended to convey, it created a perceived justification for the madness and inhumanity we are now seeing unfold. Who wouldn’t want to outlaw violence? But what is violence? The Woke will have you believe that someone getting their feelings hurt is enough to establish “violence” and “harm,” but these notions fly directly in the face of established and protected human rights.
Why is all this criticism important? I mean, why is it important to point out the flawed nature of this area of academia and the impact Wokeism has had on it and society at large? It is crucial because this is the ideological gender mill from which completely unscientific and dangerous ideas are being disseminated as facts to the faithful and put into legislation that harms human beings. And should anyone dare to even gently speak out on behalf of children and women, death threats, actual violence, doxing, cancelling and silencing are this ideology’s punishments of choice. One need only look at the severe and violent reaction to LGBTQIA+ advocate J.K. Rowling’s comments defending women’s rights and science.
The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 makes it illegal to even advertise avenues of potential care and treatment that do not directly promote gender transition in accordance with the dictates of this area of academia that now officially includes Hitler’s Mein Kampf as part of its body of gender scholarship. What’s to stop platform-seeking politicians from stumbling across Peter Boghossian’s Mein Kampf addition to gender studies and enacting legislation along those lines? You may laugh, but the knowledge and interpretation chasm between academia and the mainstream is how these Woke policies are being uncritically accepted, propagated and enacted into law. It all rests on faith. Mainstream activists and opportunistic politicians have faith in this area of academia simply because it is an area of academia, a reputation once reasonably relied upon, but thanks to Wokeism - as has been convincingly demonstrated by Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay - is no longer a trustworthy source of unbiased human knowledge, particularly with respect to the construction of public policy directly impacting the health and safety of minors.
PUBERTY BLOCKERS AND MIND AND BODY BENDING “CARE”
There is a lie being repeated to prepubescent patients and their parents, and it is an evil and nefarious lie. It is a lie which has proven itself damaging to the quality of life of the patient - a lie which twists parents’ arms behind their backs and says, “Submit to the Woke gender ideological version of “care” or your child dies!” The lie is as follows: “If you don’t hurry up and start your child down a “gender affirming” path, they will kill themselves.” What loving yet uneducated parent could resist such severe emotional manipulation? And the problem is further exacerbated by unreliable studies being pumped out by gender studies adherents which make this erroneous claim. It’s a kind of circular logic. Gender studies “scholars” tell us to transition our children because gender studies “scholars” say our children will kill themselves if we don’t. And the fact is, there are a plethora of variables that impact the high suicide rates amongst trans-identifying youth, one of which is the correlation between transgender identity and other mental illnesses, like autism for example, which trans-identifying people are 6 times more likely to suffer from.
These coercive threats are being increasingly exposed as standard operating procedures by adults who have now de-transitioned, and like Jay Langadinos are suffering a lifetime of pain, discomfort, disenfranchisement, and mental anguish. At the end of this piece, I will post some video testimonials of those who were sold this pernicious lie.
Lupron is the industry leader when it comes to puberty blockers, and it has been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that it harms children. No question. We have enough data now to stop ignoring the dangers of this drug and its cohorts, which were originally designed to chemically castrate paedophiles. We can also look at Sweden as a potential future Australian case example, because Sweden have been ahead of the curve when it comes to transitioning minors, but now, all of a sudden, it is pulling back on these practices. I guess it is true what they say, hindsight is 20/20 vision. So we need to use Sweden’s hindsight to ensure the protection of our children here in Australia.
PROFIT AND PREDICTION - HOBART, TASMANIA GENDER CLINIC OPENING
As a related aside, the profit motive behind such legislation should not be ignored. This legislation has the function of cementing lifelong medical and financial commitments from patients who will require eternal medical treatment, intervention and therapeutic supervision as a result of the known side effects of gender transition treatments and surgeries. Just read Market Watch’s financial and market projections for Lupron in the face of the current transgender social contagion:
‘Lupron Market Size is projected to Reach Multimillion USD by 2029, In comparison to 2023, at unexpected CAGR during the forecast Period 2023-2029.’
I will, however, defer to those who have gone through this gruelling and painful process at the end of this piece to unpack that horrifying reality. But before moving on, allow me to make a prediction concerning where I live in Australia. Tasmania has only recently had this legislation put into force, so I predict the opening of LGBTQIA$ gender affirming clinics in Tasmania in the very near future, perhaps even by the end of this year. Mark this date of my prediction (14 May 2023). Once these clinics are up and running, we will have all the components of a capitalist cottage industry that butchers children for money. Those elements are:
The Gender Identity Cottage Industry Structure
Social media and secondary socializing institutions create demand via saturating influence over children
Legislation makes it illegal to “suppress” the transition of children who have been coerced via saturating and inescapable influences
Gender clinics and pharmaceutical companies generate and maintain revenue via supply of this coercively created demand for states and private interests
Returning to the harm caused by this sex-lobotomising drug, writing for Kaiser Health News, Christina Jewett reports:
‘“It just feels like I’m being punished for basically being experimented on when I was a child,” said Derricott, of Lawton, Okla. “I’d hate for a child to be put on Lupron, get to my age and go through the things I have been through.”
In the interviews with women who took Lupron to delay puberty or grow taller, most described depression and anxiety. Several recounted their struggles, or a daughter’s, with suicidal urges. One mother of a Lupron patient described seizures.
Such complaints have recently come under scrutiny at the FDA, which regulates drug safety.
“We are currently conducting a specific review of nervous system and psychiatric events in association with the use of GnRH agonists, [a class of drugs] including Lupron, in pediatric patients,” the FDA said in a statement in response to questions from Kaiser Health News and Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting.
The FDA is also reviewing deadly seizures stemming from the pediatric use of Lupron and other drugs in its class. While there are other drugs similar to Lupron, it is a market leader and thousands of women have joined Facebook groups or internet forums in recent years claiming that Lupron ruined their lives or left them crippled.’
Puberty blockers are an integral part of the gender affirming “care” package with respect to prepubescent minors, and the legislation in question doesn’t outlaw them for the proven risks they pose to minors, no, the legislation impliedly mandates their experimental use on children. Remember that any other form of treatment besides gender transition is legally deemed illegally “suppressive,” so if Lupron or one of its equally harmful cohorts are not prescribed to transition the potentially confused child, the pediatrician and/or parent could be criminally prosecuted, and the Act states that anyone at all can report these “crimes” to the Commission (See Orwell’s Ministries of Truth and Love). The Act is clear in this regard:
‘Division 2—Reporting change or suppression practices to Commission 24 Reporting change or suppression practices (1) A person affected by a change or suppression practice, or any other person, may make a report to the Commission in relation to an alleged change or suppression practice.’
How will this ever-looming legal threat impact a pediatric specialist’s assessment of required treatment of a child allegedly suffering gender dysphoria? Think about the potential harm this irresponsible and ideologically-driven legislation will cause. It’s drafters and advocates’ myopic vision of the problem they are trying to remedy has caused them to create a self-defeating piece of law that will forcefully convert people to someone they are not. What does the data show regarding the effect of puberty on children with apparent gender dysphoria? It shows that puberty naturally resolves this dissonance, and in over 80% of cases the child grows up to be gay. Therefore, instead of “praying the gay away,” this legislation is dangerously medicating the gay away, and in the process of erasing the L and the G from the LGBTQIAA+2ETC “community,” this piece of law is creating an avoidable pandemic of people who will suffer a sub-par life for the sake of an ideology’s narratives. Because that is all this boils down to. Protection of narrative over the welfare of children, which is exactly why female genital mutilation has been outlawed by the Crimes Act 1958.
KEY TAKE AWAYS
Australian jurisdictions are now legally mandating harmful, and in some case, unnecessary transition practices.
The Act makes it illegal to do anything other than transition a potentially confused and/or gay child'.
The Act carries a 5-year prison sentence for parents, pediatric specialists and any person perceived to have caused “injury,” which can be defined as temporary mental discomfort. “Serious injury” carries a fine of $10,000 and 10 years in prison.
Legal experts who object to this dangerous legislation are cancelled and silenced.
The legislation is drafted upon faulty scholarship prone to exploitation (Gender Identity Studies).
The data on puberty blockers points to harm more than health.
Mainstream media networks (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) have been publishing disinformation concerning the effects of puberty blockers on children.
In over 80% of cases, puberty blockers just essentially medicate the gay away by unnecessarily converting gay people into hetero-normative-appearing gay people. This alone undermines the intended spirit of the legislation.
The legislation infringes upon parental rights, children’s rights (Article 19 (1) of the UN’s Convention on The Rights of The Child), and human rights overall (It prevents freedom of thought and expression where such thought and expression contravene the flawed gender ideology which sits at the foundation of this Act - See: Act’s ban on advertising anything other than transition -See Human Rights Law: UDHR Section 18 and ICCPR Section 18-19).
Key politicians and activists have found a quick platform win in supporting this harmful Act.
Drafters and advocates have failed to take into account the real and coercive influences of secondary socializing institutions (schools) and social and mainstream media platforms, which now offer social and financial rewards for gender non-conformity.
Future legal, financial and reputational consequences will probably flow to the drafters and advocates of this Act (See: Langadinos v Toohey (NSW))
There is a serious potential for harmful financial exploitation by corporate and political interests. The lifelong medical costs to force a body to fight itself at a DNA and chromosomal level are exorbitant and serve as a dangerous financial incentive for financially interested parties.
Drafters and advocates have failed to take into account the real potential for a future strain on our medical services as a result of widespread inappropriate medical and surgical procedures caused by the current social contagion of gender non-conformity and the Act’s cooperative measures to legally and medically mandate such harmful social contagions.
The drafters, enactors and advocates of this disastrous legislation have failed to take into account serious public policy considerations, such as the financial, psychological and social costs of the inevitable widespread public health issues this Act will generate; not to mention the disproportionate and potentially acute pressure placed on single-parent homes who come within the scope of this legislation. These supporters and advocates should have their names and titles collated and stored for potential future class actions and other justified legal and reputational consequences.
The kickback from this harmful legislation will possibly follow the pendulum theory and potentially outlaw gender transition across the board, which would negatively impact adults who legitimately suffer from gender dysphoria.
Prediction: As Tasmania has just recently brought this harmful legislation into effect, I predict the opening of profitable gender transition mills here in Hobart and throughout the state. Today’s date: 14 May, 2023.
*If I have erred with respect to interpretation, logic, or in any aspect within this piece, I would be thrilled to be corrected.
DE-TRANSITION (DESISTANCE) STORIES BEING KEPT QUIET
Scott Newgent - Press Conference
Affirmation Generation (Full Documentary)