Devin is a 12-year-old boy living in Victoria, Australia. His parents are divorced, and he believes he is a girl. Devin’s mother has been taking him to a hospital for “gender affirmation” services so he can start taking puberty blockers. However, his father strongly disagrees with this.
Judge Andrew Strum, who handles children’s cases, ruled that Devin is too young to give informed consent for taking puberty blockers. He believes Devin doesn’t understand the long-term effects these blockers could have on his future as an adult.
The judge also rejected a diagnosis of gender dysphoria given to Devin by healthcare providers. Devin had been receiving care since he was 6, but the diagnosis was only made just before the legal proceedings began. Additionally, the hospital hadn’t conducted any tests that might have identified other issues, such as autism or post-traumatic stress disorder. Judge Strum criticized the approach that assumes the only solution for children expressing doubts about their gender is to prescribe hormones right away. He emphasized that at Devin’s age, many options should still be considered without risking his health and well-being.
Experts in the court stated that puberty blockers are not just a “pause button” that allows a child to decide whether they prefer a male or female puberty. Stopping natural puberty can have negative effects on both physical and mental health, and it doesn’t address the underlying reasons for the child’s distress. In many cases, children who take blockers still believe they are transgender and later undergo irreversible hormone treatments.
On the other side, Dr. Michelle Telfer, who supported Devin’s mother, tried to convince the judge that everyone has an inherent gender identity that is not influenced by outside factors. However, the judge found that the experts couldn’t provide solid evidence to back up their claims and only shared personal stories from transgender adults about their identities.
Ultimately, the judge gave custody of Devin to his father and prohibited any hormonal transition or changes to his legal gender status.
This decision seems to conflict with a law in Australia that bans “conversion therapy,” which aims to change a child’s gender identity. According to this law, if parents or professionals don’t push a child toward a gender transition, they could be seen as forcing the child to stick to their birth gender, which could result in severe penalties, including prison time.
This law is applicable in Victoria and also in New South Wales, Canberra, and Queensland. If a parent took their child to another state for exploratory therapy to find out why they feel uncomfortable with their gender, they could also face prison. However, the judge argued that prescribing therapies other than puberty blockers shouldn’t be considered “conversion therapy.”
Australia, like countries such as the UK and Brazil, is starting to question its laws on gender identity and the appropriateness of transitions for minors. Many experts, including Professor Patrick Parkinson, emphasize that the focus should always be on protecting children. They argue that it’s not in a child’s best interest to reinforce a transgender identity if it can lead to harmful outcomes, similar to how it’s not helpful to tell an anorexic girl that she is overweight.
Parents and therapists are often afraid of being accused of abuse or losing custody of children if they express any doubts about transitioning. Some parents have shared their fears about speaking up or finding professionals who will address mental health issues without simply affirming their child’s feelings about gender.
In Victoria, some psychologists and psychiatrists are warning that many parents feel lost and are seeking help since the law was passed. They highlight that therapists are scared to have honest conversations with their young patients due to the fear of legal repercussions.
As discussions about gender identity continue, it appears that rational approaches are gaining traction in Australia, putting the focus back on child protection.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “En Australie, un juge interdit la prise de bloqueurs de puberté à un enfant”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..