Redirection from Child Welfare to Ideological Alignment

The amendments could change the primary focus of child welfare decisions from a child's best health interests to aligning with specific ideological views on gender identity and sexual characteristics. This means decisions could favour supporting gender transitioning more readily, which in most cases will not align with the child's overall welfare needs.

See:

• What is Gender Affirming Care?

• Pre-Teens

• Puberty Blockers are harmful 

• Hormones

• Medical Damages of Gender Affirming Care

• Gender Affirming Care myths, unproven assumptions and falsehoods

• Detransitioners provide a warning

• Should children be agreeing to puberty blockers?

• Cognitive Decline

• Suicide Myth

​

Increased Complexity in Decision-Making due to Ambiguous Terms

Introducing terms like "variations of sex characteristics" into the legislation introduces a level of ambiguity as these terms are not universally defined, that could make consistent decision-making challenging. Different child welfare agencies might interpret these terms differently, leading to varied outcomes for children. 

​

Potential Bias in Service Provision

There's a risk that child welfare agencies  might start prioritising children based on their 'gender identity 'or sex characteristics. This approach could marginalise children who require assistance based on other aspects specific to their circumstances.

​

Conflicts with Parental Rights and Medical Ethics

There is a profound ethical concern regarding the potential for this amendment to conflict with parental rights and medical ethics. It could lead agencies to side disproportionately with the opinion of one parent over another, based solely on the parent’s support for the child’s gender transitioning. This situation could lead to parental conflicts and might even result in decisions that are not supported by protracted and comprehensive medical, psychological, and social evaluations.

​

Potential for Misinterpretation and Misapplication

The vagueness of the new terms might not only complicate their application but also lead to legal challenges, diverting resources from direct child protection efforts.

 

Intrusiveness and Family Dynamics (Section 8(c))

The focus on specific characteristics like sex variations might lead to more invasive questioning or assumptions about a child's needs based on these characteristics alone, potentially intruding unnecessarily into family dynamics and personal decisions.

​

Procedural Fairness Concerns (Section 8(d))

Any bias introduced by the amendment could compromise the procedural fairness by predisposing decisions towards a particular outcome regarding gender identity issues, potentially leading to decisions that are not entirely balanced or fair from a legal or ethical standpoint.

​

Cultural and Family Connection (Section 8(e))

Focusing on gender and sexual characteristics could intrude into private family matters or overshadow important cultural ties, especially for indigenous children, where community and family connections are vital.

​

Stability and Security (Section 8(f))

The amendment could complicate the secure and stable environment promised, as organisational biases towards gender identity issues might skew resources or focus away from other critical aspects of care in out-of-home settings.

Recommendations:

• Prioritise biological realities and the child’s best interests over unverifiable, ideological considerations in child welfare decisions.
   

• Withdraw the proposed amendments.

​

Take Action Now

​