Landmark Case Rules Against Puberty Blockers: Mother Influenced Child’s Gender Identity Views
A gender expert was found to have cherry-picked evidence to support the argument that the child had gender dysphoria.
The Family Court of Australia has awarded sole parental care of a boy to his father after the mother attempted to initiate puberty blocking drugs, believing he was gender dysphoric.
The central issue of the case revolved around whether the child had a gender identity disorder.
The mother’s legal team heavily relied on expert testimony to argue in favor of this, while the father’s side advocated for the child to be allowed to be just that—a child—and suggested that any tendencies towards dysphoria were influenced by the mother.
In a significant decision, it was revealed that a prominent Australian gender medicine expert had misled the court.
The court also criticized a gender service provider for treating the boy from the age of six without formally diagnosing gender dysphoria.
Facts of the Case
According to court documents, the 12-year-old boy at the heart of the case was born to a couple who later separated, with the mother primarily caring for him and occasional visits to his father.
The mother believed her child was gender dysphoric, while the father considered him to be exploring his gender identity and should not be labeled prematurely.
Treatment for children exploring their gender usually involves counseling and carries fewer life-altering consequences than treatments for gender dysphoria.
In the US, the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association advocates for psychological counseling as the primary treatment, discouraging medical interventions for young individuals when possible.
Both parents sought full parental responsibility for their son.
The court documents state that the mother pressed for her son to be declared gender dysphoric and receive puberty blockers.
His father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer assigned to the case opposed the mother’s arguments.
The court emphasized that the child’s best interests should guide the decision, rather than advocacy for transgender causes.
Examination of Expert Witness and Ruling
The expert witness, identified as “Associate Professor L,” was found to have misled the court by selectively presenting information to support the mother’s case.
The court also noted Associate Professor L’s advocacy for the transgender movement and a failure to conduct a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria despite providing treatment from an early age.
The judge ultimately ruled in favor of the father having sole parental responsibility, and the boy being restricted from receiving puberty blockers.
