In a case before the NSW Family Court, Justice Andrew Strum ruled against the madness that a 12 year old boy, his mother, and various “experts” thought that he was a girl who should be injected with puberty blockers.

Justice Strum ruled that the boy was not a girl, and must not be allowed to go to the local ‘gender clinic’.

One of the “experts” described the boy's father (opposing his son's “transition”) as a Nazi. That seems like a crude emotional appeal to Justice Strum's Jewishness. Thankfully, the ploy didn't work, and the judge advised that there was no place for ideology in his court.

When the mother's side brought up the old “transphobia” and “bigotry” waffle against her ex-husband, Justice Strum advised that ‘biology is not bigotry’.

Sanity at last

Trump is filtering through; is it possible?

Hi ttbn

I think the ruling was a bit more nuanced that that. The judge did not rule that the child was a boy (or a girl), he ruled that s/he should not be given puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The ruling was influenced by the Cass report in the UK which urged a more cautious and evidence-based approach to the treatment of gender dysphoria and incongruence in children and adolescents, especially when using methods that could permanently and irreversibly affected their health and bodies.

This is a wickedly complex problem but I think that Cass, and the Australian judgement, got the balance right. It is not about denying the existence of trans people or suppressing their identity, but working out what is in the best interests of a child in a complex and potentially distressing situation.

.

The biological process of producing a human being is extremely complex and infinitely delicate.

The sex of the newborn is not just a binary phenomenon, male or female. For about 2% of births, it is a multitude of phenomena—which some interpret as meaning that we humans are born male or female with a 2% margin of error.

The fact is, whatever the cause, a very small minority of humans are born with congenital conditions of atypical sex development. Something in their chromosomes, hormones, gonads, or genitals is different from what many people expect from a “boy” or a “girl”.

Science proves there are more than two human sexes.

While 2% might not sound like a lot, it nevertheless means there could be 164 million people or more who do not fall into the category of boy or girl. If all those people were in one country, it would be among the top ten most populous countries in the world.

To deny this would be to deny reality.

But, of course, there is an excuse for all those who simply ignore it, i.e., the large majority of humanity — in fact, almost everybody !

.

Yes, I had to look into this case because nothing about it sounded right to me.

For starters, anyone who says “biology is not bigotry” clearly understands neither. They also demonstrate that they don’t understand the difference between gender and sex - and a judge who made such category errors wouldn’t exactly be praised for legal nuance, to put it mildly.

But that’s not what happened here.

Justice Strum didn’t declare that the child “was not a girl.” He didn’t rule on identity at all. What he did say was that the assessments so far were inadequate - that the child hadn’t received a full psychological evaluation, and that important factors like autism hadn’t even been explored. He didn’t shut down the possibility of the child transitioning. In fact, he said quite plainly that the child might grow up to identify as a transgender girl - or might not.

The whole point of the ruling was to avoid rushing into something irreversible without enough evidence. That’s not ideology. That’s what courts should be doing - keeping the focus on the child’s best interests, not on settling culture war scores.

So yes, it was a sensible ruling - but not because it lined up with simplistic slogans like “biology is not bigotry.” It was sensible because it was careful, and because it took the child seriously.

Dear Banjo,

We must not forget that this was family court.
The issue of hormonal treatments was only brought before the court because it was disputed between the parents.
In this particular case, the judge ruled in favour of the father, who also received custody of the child.

Had that happened in a healthy consensual family, then the issue would never be brought before the courts and nothing would have stopped the child from getting these hormonal treatments.

In my view, a child should be able to ask the courts to completely renounce one (or even both) of their parents, in which case the court would need to decide whether their request was free and genuine - anyway, that did not happen here, no such request was made, and so the judge had to rule on the specific disputed points.

Another sensible ruling:

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the term 'woman' refers to a 'biological' woman only.

Hi ttbn

Again, I think the UK court ruling is more nuanced than you portray. The ruling does not apply a universal definition of women in every circumstance, nor does it mandate that only biological females are women. It finds that, for the purposes of the Equality Act,“sex” is the sex recorded on a person’s original birth certificate, not the one recorded on a gender recognition certificate.

As I understand it, the finding will give legal protection to, for example, sports codes that do not allow trans women to compete as women, or DV shelters that exclude males. Trans people will still have many other legal protections against discrimination.

One of the judges said “we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another – it is not”. I hope that’s right, and that it will lead to a sensible balance of the rights of all people – in particular, that spaces and activities reserved for women on the basis of female biology and vulnerabilities remain protected, while under most circumstances most of the time trans people are treated as being of the gender they identify as.

Thanks again ttbn for the information.

The lure of power has allowed toxic feminism to destroy the very concept of families, sad that women haven't been smart enough to realise that the Marxist propagandist's were the enemy, not their men. The problem of many that seek power is not to realise it's limits- sadly something that many women don't appear to understand.

Socrates believed he was wisest, because at least he knew, "he didn't know". Whereas many said they knew, but didn't.

Socrates also said "those that seek power are generally not the ones that should have power".

Male animals usually serve as hunter warriors. Female animals usually serve as gatherer nurturers. There are distinct characteristics of sex both physically genetically and psychologically that influence in often unexpected ways. Some want to use doubt and FUD to drive a wedge into the structure of the community- why is that? Often they dress themselves up as "the good"- but are they really? What is "good"? What principles are "good"? Should we look to the stable communities of the past for the answers? All societies have incompatible differences with other societies. Societies have different answers to similar problems.

Fallen for the lie of Post Modern Deconstructivism that everything is conflict rather than cooperation. We don't admire Marie Curie because she was a women but because she was "good"- in spite of her, beside the point, womanly attributes- she recognised her limitations, and did something about them. The woman Ayn Rand considered being ascribed manly status as a compliment.

Men and Women are different and it has been proven by history that these different roles gives people identity and meaning and purpose. Everyone has an identity crisis at times of stress. Nihilist's, in their power dreams, want to break these roles to re-engineer society- because they don't trust the people to make their own. Nihilist's use people in crisis as a lever. They redefine totalitarianism as freedom and peace and equality.

Marxist's seem to advocate totalitarianism to destroy tyranny, but maybe the point is just to get total power, once they get it, you can't take it away.

Following this sensible ruling, sexual dysphoria should be treated like any other mental illness, and the psychiatrists aiding and abetting the lie of being able to choose what sex you want to be should be struck off.

ttbn,

It’s remarkable - after being patiently corrected multiple times - that you’re still pretending the ruling said what you wanted it to say, not what it actually said.

Your latest comment doesn't just misrepresent gender dysphoria - it shows a complete disregard for truth in favour of ideological point-scoring.

Gender dysphoria is not a "lie," nor is it some new invention of activists. It is a clinically recognised condition, documented in every major psychiatric manual for decades, including the DSM-5 - the core diagnostic guide used by psychiatrists worldwide. It's not about “choosing” anything. It’s the real psychological distress that happens when someone’s body and identity don’t line up - and it can wreck people’s lives if it’s ignored.

Every serious medical body - from the American Psychiatric Association to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists - recognises this. They don't treat it like some political fad. They treat it like what it is: a serious issue that demands real, careful help. This isn’t controversial among serious experts; it’s basic medical consensus.

Justice Strum’s ruling, like the recommendations of the Cass Review (UK, 2024), rightly emphasised the need for even more caution - precisely because these are complex, deeply personal issues. The point was to avoid irreversible decisions without thorough psychological evaluation, not to deny the reality of gender dysphoria, and certainly not to indulge the culture-war fantasies you’re pushing.

You’re not exposing a lie - you’re slandering people who spend their lives helping kids survive. Meanwhile, you sit here twisting reality into whatever shape fits your politics.

Gender dysphoria is real. The suffering it causes is real. And pretending otherwise - in the face of decades of clinical evidence - is not just ignorant. It’s a betrayal of the very children you claim to care about.

You are not defending children. You are using them as pawns in a political crusade.

Piss off, windbag. I have no interest in you or your warbling.

Looks like I’m right on the money. That’s probably the best validation I’ll ever get from you, ttbn - I’ll take it. Thanks.

Interpretations and misinterpretations of the court ruling are irrelevant to the biological and scientific fact that there are only two sexes, and that the sex you were born with cannot be changed. The court ruling simply saved one child from being physically ruined when he was suffering from a mental illness. There is much psychiatric evidence available proving that sexual dysphoria is a mental illness which is curable, but which often disappears naturally with maturity.

Now, there is no point in presenting evidence to a couple of divisive ideological warriors, who will continue to carry on with their purely political claptrap no matter what is increasingly obvious to most people, so I will not waste my time citing sources and individuals.

I respect the right of these misanthropes and natural contrarians to hold whatever opinions they wish in a democracy, but I do not respect those opinions, which are the products of ignorance and unfortunate personality traits.

Believing in and supporting transgenderism is sheer lunacy among adults. I don't care about them. But, when it involves under-age children, it should be declared a crime and dealt with like all crimes against children.

ttbn,

You keep confusing sex and gender. Nobody’s denying biology. Gender dysphoria is about the psychological distress experienced by people whose internal identity doesn't match their body - and it’s been recognised in psychiatry for decades.

You can shout “there are only two sexes” all you like. That was never in dispute. But it doesn’t address the actual issue - and it certainly doesn’t erase the existence of trans people or the clinical reality of gender dysphoria, which has been recognised in the DSM for over 40 years.

You hint that there’s “psychiatric evidence” supporting your view, then conveniently decline to provide any. Meanwhile, every major medical body - from the American Psychiatric Association to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists - affirms that gender dysphoria is real and requires careful, evidence-based treatment. That includes the Cass Review, which called for better assessment - not blanket rejection.

You’re not following the science - you're using slogans to avoid it. And calling gender-affirming care “criminal” doesn’t make you a defender of children. It makes you a threat to them - and to the people actually trying to help them.

Yes. Gender dysphoria is real, and it is a mental condition. Men dressed as women and claiming to be women are pathetic. The best thing that can be said about them is ‘sad’; but I feel contempt for them and the nonsense people like you try to peddle. Surveys in the UK and the US show that 80%-82% of people feel the same way, but they are too cowed by a minority bunch of thugs like you and others to say so publicly. I am disgusted by transgenderism and people pretending it is OK. I have nothing more to say to you. You are a nasty person.

"You keep confusing sex and gender. Nobody’s denying biology. Gender dysphoria is about the psychological distress experienced by people whose internal identity doesn't match their body - and it’s been recognised in psychiatry for decades."
- Those vulnerable people have their psychological distress amplified by people confusing them even more.

I completely understand where you're coming from, ttbn. And feeling discomfort doesn’t make you a bigot.

I think most people born before this century would at least remember what it was like to scrunch their nose up or even laugh when a trans person walked past. Research, awareness, and compassion around this issue are still relatively new - and for a long time, society didn’t give us the tools to think about it clearly.

For a while, it seemed self-evident to me that being transgender was a mental disorder. And I’ll admit, I still sometimes wince when I see a trans woman who doesn’t “pass” in the way my brain was conditioned to expect.

The difference now is that I understand that reaction for what it is: a reflex - shaped by rigid, non-rational cultural conditioning that breaks down under scrutiny and isn’t supported by evidence.

I appreciate how candid and free of pretence your last reply was. But your position appears to be built on a foundation of instinctive discomfort, backfilled with a series of logical fallacies to rationalise it - the Argument from Disgust, the Appeal to Numbers, and Begging the Question, to name just a few.

And when the well-being of others is at stake, we need a lot more than that.

Kudos ttbn, Armchair Critic.