This is the most important inquiry the SA Parliament can hold. It concerns the future and health of our kids, grandkids and other vulnerable people.
Here are some more extracts from Frank Pangallo’s speech:
“I wish to speak on the motion in my name. It deals with the issue of gender dysphoria and gender-affirming care. Gender dysphoria is defined as the distress that trans people can feel because of the incongruence of their gender identity and gender presumed at birth or sex characteristics.
This subject is perhaps one of the most complex and controversial medical issues confronting our society today, from the troubled children and adolescents being engulfed by it, to medical and mental health professionals grappling with the ethics and standards being applied to treat this condition, our educators, who are being confronted by young people uncertain about who they are as they map their learning future through a maze of other personality problems, and finally to the families being torn apart over the welfare of their own children through the phenomenon and sudden surge of gender transformation and ideology.
There is a striking division globally within the medical and mental health professions about the treatment of gender dysphoria. On one side, there is support for intervention and criticism for delays they say could be harmful. On the other side, there is the view that these interventions are unnecessary and harmful, calling for a more cautious approach to the medical affirmation model.
Many international jurisdictions are moving in this direction, including France, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, the US and Finland, which issued new guidelines that emphasise that psychotherapy be first considered before medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoric youth and no sex change surgery for minors.
Dr Georgie Swift, the psychiatrist involved in setting up the gender clinic at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in North Adelaide, told a psychiatry conference only last month that the evidence for gender affirming treatment was not robust. Here is what she told the conference:
I’m reasonably confident to say that no matter where you stand on gender-affirming health care for children and adolescents, that you agree that we need more evidence—our evidence isn’t robust, it isn’t good enough.
In other words, the evidence is weak. She went on to say there were many unknowns in gender medicine, and the impact of quality of life and mental health, and that professionals were still waiting for more evidence. So what is happening here? We have doctors who are conducting a live social experiment with young patients without the proper professional, ethical and efficacy protocols being undertaken for a clinical trial.”