Australian dad gets custody of his 12-year-old son whose mom wanted him on an adolescent blocker

An Australian judge awarded custody of a 12-year-old boy to his father. The father tried to prevent his estranged wife from placing him on an adolescent blocker to “affirm” his belief that he is a woman.

On April 4, he rejected general “gender maintenance care” orthodoxism, and rejected Judge Andrew Stram of Australia's Federal Circuit, applying science and common sense to determine the best place for a boy.

As for science, Strum “except for rare chromosomal abnormalities, XX and XY binary sex are biological facts and unchanging regardless of gender identity.” He also pointed out the dangers of adolescent blockers and the possibility that the confusion of the juvenile gender could ultimately resolve itself.

As for common sense, Stram realized that children do not have the maturity to make life-changing decisions.

Stram's ruling was written by Australian Ellie Dudley. And it “supposes a big question about gender-based treatment of children.”

Dad digs the dress and eliminates drugs

The father of the incident did not attempt to suppress the exploration of his son's gender. He allowed the boy to wear girls' clothes even in custody, and he “was mad at his mother who allowed the child to grow long hair,” the judge said. However, he did not want his son to move down the irreversible path into pseudo-emotions.

STRUM agreed:

This is a case of children, and at the time they are relatively young. It's not about the causes of trans people. As this child grows, develops, matures, explores and experiences life, the child may begin to identify as a transgender woman, along with the associated benefits of acquiring a balanced understanding, with the passage of time and the associated benefits of gaining balanced understanding, choosing to receive some form of treatment and affirm and/or coordinate that identity. But likewise, along with these benefits, children may not.

Naturally, the mother was helped by two transactivist doctors, bet, opposed, and endured the doctrine that she should send a “transition” trail as soon as the child identifies as the opposite sex.

Diagnostic test

Stram wasn't sure.

For one thing, how did these “experts” know whether the boy had reached the conclusion that he was his girl or under the influence of others? He recalled:

Mothers even rejected the possibility that external factors and influences could have a role to play in the child's gender identity in cross-examination. However, neither of these experts could point out empirical or substantive grounds for their opinions, but rather only anecdotal reports from trans adults about experiences of gender identity.

Plus, how did they know that the boy suffers from gender discomfort? His mother had been socially transitioning him for a while before his diagnosis. According to Dudley, the gender clinic that he had seen for six years “didn't be able to perform an appropriate biopsychosocial assessment of the child” and “did not conduct an autism assessment despite known links between neuroproduction and gender inconsistency,” one motherly expert witness, known as Dr. N, testified that he only diagnosed the juvenile with gender discomfort just before the trial began.

Observed strum:

Without this diagnosis (or diagnosis), the mother could have seriously indicted her application in connection with puberty control, not to mention the prospect of success. It turns out that timing is more than just a coincidence.

Anti-activist judge

Strum found that because he had harsh language throughout the gender clinic, he did not offer treatments for gender discomfort except adolescent blockers, and “expresses parents and children that adolescent blockers are completely reversible and relatively risk-free.” Dr. N said “we were unable to identify a single case of a child referred to a pediatrician at a gender clinic, who had not been prescribed an adolescent blocker.”

Other expert witnesses from the mother claimed to be a self-proclaimed “trans rights advocate,” and claimed the case was part of a “third wave of transgender oppression.” He or she played Nazi cards and compared the denial of “gender-affirming care” to the Holocaust.

The Jewish Stram would not have had it. Such testimony “shows the ignorance of the true evil of Nazism and cheapens the suffering and mass murder of millions of its victims.

He also realised that his mother was trying to weaponize the state's anti-“conversion therapy” laws against his father by implying that he and his lawyer could face criminal charges to block the juvenile's gender transition. Strum suggested that this was probably why the father had difficulty obtaining both expert evidence in these cases and alternative treatment suggestions for the children.

Dudley reported:

Judge Stram ultimately refused to diagnose children as gender permeability in the hospital, and found that mothers attempted to use the child's gender fluidity to undermine their relationship with their father.

“Ideology,” declared Strum. “There is no base for court applications in court, and although it is in the child's best interests, it is not certain that a court's decision exercises jurisdiction under (family law).”