(LifeSiteNews) — A judge in Australia has issued a “bombshell” decision dealing an unprecedented blow to the transgender industry’s “gender-affirming” model for children.
In his landmark ruling, Justice Andrew Strum awarded sole custody of a 12-year-old boy to his father in order to stop the boy’s mother’s relentless push – with the aid of a leading “gender clinic ” – to “transition” her son through the use of harmful puberty blockers.
The mother’s efforts had gone on for six years.
Strum said that the decision to “affirm unreservedly” any child that raises concerns over their gender is “oddly binary,” according to a report by The Australian’s Ellie Dudley, who broke the story.
“This is a case about a child, and a relatively young one at that; not one about the cause of transgender people,” wrote Strum in his 58,000 word decision. “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 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,” said Strum.
The judge expressed incredulity that medical experts siding with the boy’s mother expressed an unsubstantiated belief that so-called “gender identity” is “internal” and “not open to external influence.”
“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,” wrote Strum, who said that the experts testifying on the mother’s behalf “were unable to point to any empirical or substantive basis for their opinion but, rather, only to anecdotal reports from transgender adults about their experience of their gender identity.”
“Whilst in no way howsoever endorsing the practices referred to, and identified, as ‘conversion or reparative therapies,’ it is concerning that an oddly binary approach is adopted in relation to children, especially of the age of the child the subject of these proceedings; that is, to affirm unreservedly those who present with concerns regarding their gender, brooking no questioning thereof,” noted Strum.
Senate candidate for New South Wales, Lyle Shelton, said in a press release that Justice Strum’s decision appeared to contravene LGBT activist-inspired “anti-conversion therapy” laws which come with jail time in some states for anyone, even parents, who prevents a child going to a gender clinic.
Shelton was referring to legislation known as the “Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024,” which became law in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) on April 4.
Under the new law, anyone who offers counseling to or prays for “LGBTQA” individuals – even if they say their same-sex attraction or gender confusion is unwanted – could now face five years in prison and fines of up to $100,000 AUD ($62,430 USD).
Many deemed the enactment of the new law as a major step toward criminalizing Christianity and the fullness of the Gospel message in “the land down under.”
“The lack of action by Liberal and Labor politicians in the face of overwhelming local and international evidence of child harm from LGBTIQA+ gender clinics over many years is a scandal,” said Shelton.
“Ideology has no place in the application by courts of the law, and certainly not in the determination by courts exercising jurisdiction under the [Family Law Act] of what is in a child’s best interests,” proclaimed Strum.
The judge’s decision “is the best-yet judicial guide to the debate about youth gender clinics,” wrote Bernard Lane, a journalist who has covered the international debate over youth gender clinics, in an opinion piece for The Australian.
“It is devastating for the dominant gender-affirming model with its promotion of puberty blockers, hormones and surgery,” insisted Lane.
“This could signal a return to common sense and justice for child safeguarding in Australian courts,” noted Binary.org’s Kirralie Smith.
