Barrister Belle Lane, who has acted for both parents who support the medical transition of their child and those who oppose it, said the science around puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgical interventions was “rapidly evolving” and leaving Australian courts behind.
Last year, Ms Lane penned a paper sent to Federal Circuit and Family Court judges arguing that fresh research into the effects of hormone treatments and puberty blockers on young Australians refutes older research touting a gender-affirming model of care.
International researchers commissioned by the UK Cass review earlier this year found Australia’s guidelines on gender-affirmative medicine lacked rigour and independence, and failed to recommend formal assessment processes that screened for body image problems, autism spectrum disorder, sexual orientation, or physical health conditions.
In a rare interview, Ms Lane said one key problem that arises in these cases is whether a child fully understands the consequences of their actions when consenting to medical treatment.
It comes as University of Queensland law professor Patrick Parkinson releases a paper saying that while judges “have been used to accepting doctors’ recommendations in this area without much scrutiny … that is no longer so”.
Source: Courts use ‘outdated’ precedent in child gender cases