A judge will allow a medical expert who believes “social contagion” has caused a spike in gender dysphoria and does not support endorsing a child’s chosen gender identity to give expert evidence in a Family Court matter, but says the evidence could be “confronting” and “difficult” for the child at the centre of the case.
A volunteer group that promotes “women’s gender-based rights” and is concerned about “medical interventions aimed at the “gender reassignment” of children by the use of puberty blockers and hormones” has been blocked from giving evidence at the court hearing.
The case regards two Australian parents who are divided over the gender transition of their eldest child, and are split over whether a variety of medical perspectives should be presented at trial.
The case comes as the Family Court of Australia continues to grapple with the complexities of gender identity, especially in the context of children, medication and surgery.
The Australian revealed last year that a Family Court judge determined a father’s refusal to conform with traditional gender norms left his three children “confused” and encouraged them to “question their gender identity” after they all began identifying as non-binary, ruling the two youngest children will not be permitted to see their father for an extended period.
On another occasion, the mother of a 13-year-old with gender dysphoria abruptly withdrew an application seeking a Family Court order to allow the child to take puberty blockers, after trying to have the independent children’s lawyer assigned to the matter thrown off the case. In May last year, Family Court judges were presented with a legal paper from a top barrister arguing the court must reassess how scientific advancements should apply to the family law system.
On another occasion, the mother of a 13-year-old with gender dysphoria abruptly withdrew an application seeking a Family Court order to allow the child to take puberty blockers, after trying to have the independent children’s lawyer assigned to the matter thrown off the case. In May last year, Family Court judges were presented with a legal paper from a top barrister arguing the court must reassess how scientific advancements should apply to the family law system.
Justice Christie determined that the group’s intervention would not be “necessary or appropriate”, emphasising the “important role” of an Independent Children’s Lawyer in making an assessment as to what the best interest of the child is.
The matter is listed for hearing at the end of March.
Source: ‘Confronting’ expert to give evidence in Family Court puberty blocker case | The Australian