A Child's Future Saved

In a seismic ruling that rips the veil off the dangerous ideology of so-called "gender-affirming care," Family Court Judge Andrew Strum has delivered a blistering rebuke of Australia’s leading gender medicine expert, Professor Michelle Telfer, and the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne.

This landmark case, detailed in The Australian, exposes the dishonesty, recklessness, and outright barbarity of pushing life-altering medical interventions on vulnerable children under the guise of compassion.

It’s a wake-up call for every parent, policymaker, and citizen who values truth over ideology.

The case centred on a mother’s push to subject her 12-year-old biologically male child to puberty blockers, a decision backed by Telfer, the lead author of Australia’s gender-affirming care guidelines.

But Judge Strum saw through the facade.

He stripped the mother of custody, blocked the treatment, and excoriated Telfer for misleading evidence that propped up this dangerous agenda.

His judgment lays bare the chilling reality: the system is failing our children by prioritising ideology over reason.

Telfer’s conduct was nothing short of disgraceful.

She likened a UK review urging caution on pediatric gender interventions to Nazi oppression, a grotesque comparison that cheapens the suffering of millions and reveals her as an ideologue, not an impartial expert.

Strum rightly called her out, describing her as “judge, jury, and executioner” of her own guidelines, which she touts as “best practice” despite their lack of government endorsement or robust evidence.

These guidelines, disturbingly, advocate for unreserved affirmation of a child’s self-declared gender identity, dismissing the obvious: a 12-year-old is not equipped to make irreversible medical decisions.

Why do we restrict children from driving, drinking, or consensual sex? Because we recognise their cognitive and emotional immaturity.

Yet, in the twisted world of gender-affirming care, we’re told a pre-teen can consent to puberty blockers—drugs with unknown long-term effects—or even genital mutilation, a euphemism for surgeries that permanently alter healthy bodies.

This is not care; it’s cruelty dressed up as kindness.

The Royal Children’s Hospital, complicit in this farce, failed to diagnose the child with gender dysphoria until court proceedings loomed, a move Strum deemed “more than coincidental.”

This reeks of manipulation, not medicine.

Strum’s ruling is a triumph of common sense. He sided with the child’s father, who refused to “pigeonhole” his child and wanted to keep “all options” open—a stance rooted in love and prudence.

The judge rejected the hospital’s belated diagnosis and emphasised that courts must prioritise evidence over ideology.

His decision to lift anonymity regarding Telfer and the hospital ensures public scrutiny, a vital step in protecting other children from this medical malpractice.

This case exposes the injustice of a system that fast-tracks children toward irreversible harm while silencing dissent.

Gender-affirming care is not about supporting kids; it’s about enforcing a radical agenda that disregards their well-being.

We must demand accountability, reject these unproven treatments, and protect our children from those who would exploit their confusion for ideological gain.

"There is an expiry date on blaming your parents for steering you in the wrong direction; the moment you are old enough to take the wheel, responsibility lies with you."
J. K. Rowling