The Netherlands and Belgium are now questioning the use of puberty blockers, following the Cass Review which exposed the shocking lack of evidence supporting puberty suppression in children. In recent weeks, this Review has instigated bans on puberty blockers in the UK and Ireland – while France, Finland and Sweden face pressure to follow suit.
The Netherlands, the pioneer of gender medicine and gender theory, is doing a ‘double take’ after its 1990s Dutch Protocol – the world’s first puberty-blocking intervention – and has called for fresh research into the impact of puberty blockers on adolescent physical and mental health.
Belgian paediatricians and psychiatrists are calling for a similar public response.
Wendy Franics, Director of Politics for the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), said “While the world moves away from the use of gender medicine now known to cause harm in children, Australia seems to be adamant that there’s nothing to see here.”
“Health Minister, Mark Butler, has tried to sidestep the Cass Review’s findings by claiming Australian gender clinics follow different treatment pathways to the UK”, Francis continued.
“Given the gravity of this issue, this fabrication is disgraceful. Australia’s model of care is based on (what was) the UK’s model, and promotes the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and other ‘affirmation’ measures as a first point of care for children.”
On 11 April, the British Medical Journal published a report acknowledging the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children is incompatible with medical ethics, and stating the evidence used to inform pro-gender-affirming guidelines was “inconclusive and unacceptable”.
“Australia must stop kowtowing to the likes of ACON which is, in effect, a government-funded activist body, and start paying attention to the evidence. Our delay is setting more children up for irreversible harm”, Francis said.
The ACL is advocating for a nationwide suspension on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, and for an urgent independent inquiry into the outcomes of ‘gender-affirming’ care.
