Family Court allows cross-sex hormones for teen despite ‘real risks’ | Weekend Australian

A teenager has been granted permission to access cross-sex hormones despite a Family Court judge conceding there are risks associated with the treatment, and that he cannot be certain the hormones will benefit the teenager in the long term.

Judge Peter Tree, in delivering judgment in the highly contentious legal case, afforded the teenager – known pseudonymously as Ash – the “dignity of risk” to take testosterone and continue transitioning from female to male.

In concluding his decision, Justice Tree said he expected Australian courts in the future to see “regret” cases in relation to cross-sex hormone administration to children. “Nonetheless, I have earnestly tried to ascertain what is best for Ash,” he said.

The case, which The Australian has extensively covered over the past year, was brought by one of Ash’s parents who wished to obtain sole parental responsibility to approve the administration of hormones.

The other parent opposed the treatment.

Justice Tree gave “great weight” to the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines, which were developed by the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne and endorse a gender-affirming model of care.

However, he said the UK Cass Review – a landmark report that recommended limitations on medication for gender-dysphoric children – may have been driven by an “overt political imperative” and he gave it “little weight” in reaching his decision.

Justice Tree in his judgment said the parent who opposed treatment “unduly emphasised” the risks in order to further their case, and said while Ash may become infertile it didn’t necessarily preclude him from having children.

“Even if he does become incapable of conceiving a child, if it transpires he forms a relationship with a natal female who is not transgender, or if is, is not infertile, having children is not precluded, although they may not have a genetic connection with Ash,” he wrote.

“It is likely that most Australians would now think the lack of direct genetic connection between a child and their parent is irrelevant. Likewise there remains the prospect of adoption and surrogacy.”