Good video - thanks Frank.

Justice Andrew Strum’s extraordinary judgment, which stripped the mother of custody and effectively prevented the child from accessing treatment, criticised the approach of hospitals to children questioning their gender, saying the decision to “affirm ­unreservedly” any child that raises concerns over their gender is “oddly binary”.  He also found the gender clinic that treated the 12-year-old failed to formally give a gender dysphoria diagnosis until the court proceedings had commenced, despite having treated the child since they were six.

The case marks the first time a sitting judge has blown a hole in the country’s gender-affirming treatment of care guidelines. While Justice Strum does not comment generally on the gender-affirming care model adopted by the gender clinic at the child’s hospital, the judgment raises big questions regarding the treatment of gender-incongruent children.

The matter centred on the biologically male child whose mother believes is gender dysphoric and should be prescribed puberty blockers, but whose father wanted to hold off on treatment and “let the child be the child”.  In handing down his judgment, Justice Strum sided with the father who did not wish to “pigeonhole” his child, and decided “all options” in the child’s life should be open.

“This is a case about a child, and a relatively young one at that; not one about the cause of transgender people,” Justice Strum wrote. “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.”

In his decision, Justice Strum declared gender dysphoria was not “immutable” but could be influenced by external factors, placing him at odds with the Australian Standards of Care, which back a gender-affirming treatment model.  He took issue with the “concerning” evidence given by one of the nation’s leading child gender experts – anonymised as Associate Professor L – in relation to the landmark UK Cass review.

According to the judgment, the professor “disagrees with much” of the Cass Review, which recommended limitations on medication for gender-dysphoric ­children. “It is submitted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer ... and I agree, that Associate Professor L’s responses were ‘misleading or omitted findings/material that ­detracted from (their) opinion’ contrary to the obligations as an expert witness,” he wrote.  “Some of the many examples proffered are concerning.”

He found Associate Professor L and their colleague, Dr N, provided weak evidence to support the mother’s opinion that gender identity was “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,” Justice Strum wrote. “However, neither of those experts were able 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.”

The judgment takes aim at the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines, developed by the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne and which endorse a gender-affirming model of care. Justice Strum said that while they were lauded as the country’s primary standards for treating ­gender-dysphoric children, they “do not have the approval or imprimatur of the commonwealth or any state or territory government, including any such government minister for, or department of health”.

Justice Strum also found the hospital of Associate Professor L and Dr N had failed to conduct a proper biopsychosocial assessment of the child, despite regular appointments over a six-year period. It also had not conducted an autism assessment despite known links between neurodivergence and gender incongruence.

He found Dr N’s diagnosis of the child as gender-dysphoric was only made “as the pending trial dates approached” and found the timing of the diagnosis was “more than merely coincidental”.

“Dr N conceded in cross-examination that the time pressure of the court process was one factor in the decision to conduct a diagnostic tool when she did,” Justice Strum ruled. “However, the Independent Children’s Lawyer submits, and I agree that, albeit one factor, it was a major one.

“Without such a diagnosis (or diagnoses), it is nigh inconceivable that the mother could have seriously prosecuted her application in relation to puberty suppression, let alone had any prospect of success. I find that the timing was more than merely coincidental.”

Well - the RANZCPsychiatrists have laid down that any 'diagnosis' must be solely on factual data and not on subjective interpretation of input from others or even from the 'patient'.

The WARNING here is that at no time did Drs N and L consult a psychiatrist in forming a 'diagnosis' of gender dysphoria - but went ahead without reliable guidelines and clearly in accordance with their own ideological stance.

Saying that one or the other 'disagrees' with much of the Cass Review is utter nonsense - given that the Cass Review is a set of recommendations, and any stoppages on too early intrusive treatment via drugs and especially via surgery are from health bodies.- as is occurring across the Western 'world' as we speak - with a few notable exceptions such as the US, Spain and Australia - The Darkened Lands Under the Jackboot Of Modern Social Science.

Saying 'Cass is a bitch' will not resolve that dilemna for this kind of bleach-blinded 'doctor', and children should not be receiving HIT (Hormonal Invasive Treatments) - and especially MUST not be receiving surgery - at a time when their system is still in development.  I, for one, am tired of the zealots crowing that no minor under eighteen receives the gross intervention of surgery - and yet in EVERY case of a person altering back to their gender and launching court cases, the reports all say 'surgery at 14 or 15' and so forth.  I, for one, am sick of the lies and lies and lies.

In argument with zealots overseas, I said to some in one of the Darkened Lands - that they should themselves - following Trump's ascension and dictums and rather than arguing online like demented zealots with people holding zero power to alter things - better spend their time and energy developing their own presentations for the inevitable boards of review that will arise in their own countries - where I said that their clearly non-contradictable 'science' would surely win the day if it is so solid and reliable...... they ran like pigs from a gun..

Bobby. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2025 at 9:13pm:


Looks like a former linebacker for the Green Bay Packers.

Gnads wrote on Apr 14^th, 2025 at 11:13am:



Sure looks that way.... I'll bet she likes the top bunk...

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1828129254637340

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1032825362058961

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1025841282819393

British courts find that a woman is a biological entity - not a thing of the mind.

Frank wrote on Apr 18^th, 2025 at 10:29am:





For Women Scotland is part of Britain’s burgeoning movement of freethinking feminists who flat-out reject the idea a man can become a woman. They locked horns with the Scottish government.

They argued that the protections promised to women in the Equality Act are for biological women only. Or what we used to just call “women”, for thousands of years, before the unhinged, post-truth left decided any Tom, Dick or Harry could become a woman simply by declaring himself to be one.

And they won. The judges came down on their side, hugely. The ruling says that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, woman means woman. The End. No man, regardless of how he identifies, is entitled to women’s rights.

“The concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man,” it says. And this means that legal protections for women “necessarily exclude men”.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 18^th, 2025 at 10:51am:


TF are you on about this time?          

I'm still chortling over the Eld Gel's oldest son (the lost one) and his oldest daughter going to Uni together - she came out of it 'lesbian' - not going to be a house slave to some filthy gorilla who sticks a dick in her (eee-ew, boys! from the schoolyard enhanced by ratbag feminism at unis) and gives her kids to take over her life and ruin her brilliant career etc - and he came out of it deciding that wearing women's clothes was the way forward, and then - as a Disabled One - got a job with the NDIS among all the sheilas (LMFAO - but that supremacism and stranglehold has to be ended NOW!).

I know what that all shows me about universities and such these days.  At least THAT tide is beginning to turn one by one with Macca U backing down and a few others backing down on their Abo and other crap.... once upon a time the Sydney Uni Rugby side would be escorting Jewish students through that absurd 'tent city' - how is it that tent cities of the poor are ripped out while 'Palestine supporting' tent cities are ..................... kosher?

Fck the Poor and The Homeless!  Uphold the Idiots Non-Savant In Any Belief!