Armour for dissidents
Doctors in trouble for criticising the “gender-affirming” treatment model can invoke in their defence a landmark statement from Children’s Health Queensland (CHQ) recognising the legitimacy of debate about this model, according to lawyer John Steenhof.
Mr Steenhof represented Dr Jillian Spencer, a strong critic of the affirmative treatment approach whose settlement with her former employer last month included a CHQ statement acknowledging that her concerns were “grounded in her training and background as an experienced child and adolescent psychiatrist”.
CHQ, which runs a Brisbane-based gender clinic, also put on the public record that a child should not be directed down “a pre-determined treatment pathway” but be given comprehensive assessment and “a holistic clinical approach”.
Mr Steenhof, principal lawyer at the Human Rights Law Alliance, said the CHQ statement on July 17 was a “landmark” and could help doctors facing disciplinary action or complaints to regulators over comments about the shortcomings of the gender-affirming treatment model.
“It’s the first time a public health authority [in Australia] has stated publicly that treatment of vulnerable children needs to be done on a cautious basis,” Mr Steenhof told GCN.
“It needs to be done in a way that doesn’t direct the child down a predetermined treatment pathway, but needs to take a holistic approach and assess everything, including co-morbidities.”
No hate here
“The statement shows that you can have grave concerns about the [gender-affirming treatment model] that fast-tracks kids down a pathway of medical intervention, and this doesn’t constitute some sort of discrimination or hate,” Mr Steenhof said.
“It arises from training, background and experience in the field of medicine, and an understanding of general clinical practices that apply to all [other] childhood conditions, but which somehow are supposed not to apply when a child presents with gender confusion.”
Capture by ideology: Campaigner Helen Joyce says gender clinics in Australia and Canada are “much, much worse” than the London-based Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service, which was bad enough to be shut down in March 2024
Silence from the regulator
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has refused to answer questions from GCN on the potential significance of the July 17 statement for practitioners facing complaints over their public criticism of the gender-affirming treatment approach.
The CHQ statement accepts that the right response to youth gender distress involves “matters of legitimate professional and public debate, and that clinicians play an important role in raising concerns about patient safety and clinical practice”.
“Dr Spencer has been a strong advocate for change in Queensland in the model of care for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria.
“One of the features of the clinical approach that Dr Spencer has sought is the delay in medical interventions for such patients until adulthood, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, because they are serious decisions regarding their body and long-term health.”
In the statement, CHQ “acknowledges that health practitioners must take a clinical approach to the treatment of gender dysphoria that focuses on the best available research and the child’s best interests rather than directing a child down a pre-determined treatment pathway”.
“Health practitioners must employ a holistic clinical approach that comprehensively assesses all relevant factors—including any co-morbidities or other mental health conditions—and use information gathered from that process to determine the best available mode of treatment and care for the patient.”
Mr Steenhof said the CHQ statement is “something that doctors who are facing opposition by the transgender activist movement are able to point to, to rely upon, and to use to defend them against the assertions that they’re not allowed to speak up about what they see happening in gender-affirming care”.
“In any of the legal fora in which a doctor is going to be facing some sort of sanction or negative outcome for having spoken in criticism or scepticism about the medical-intervention model for kids, this statement is going to be useful.”
Mr Steenhof said the July 17 statement should send a message to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which used its “immediate action” powers to stop psychiatrist Dr Andrew Amos criticising the gender-affirming worldview on social media. None of the complaints against him came from patients; some were anonymous.
“There’s serious tensions between what’s said in the [CHQ] statement about what doctors should be free to talk about, and the approach that AHPRA has taken in shutting down public speech by doctors who are critical of gender affirmation,” Mr Steenhof said.
“We would be hopeful that those [complaints] would be resolved in favour of not censoring doctors who are expressing their genuine concerns about what is a contentious treatment for children.”
GCN asked AHPRA’s spokesman if the regulator and its various boards were aware of the CHQ statement and whether it would be relevant to the handling of complaints against health practitioners who publicly criticise the gender-affirming treatment model.
AHPRA refused to answer those policy questions, offering instead a formulaic response—“Under the National Law, we are limited in what we can say publicly about an individual practitioner or matter”—as if GCN were seeking disclosure of private details in an individual case.
Some guidance, please
Professor Philip Morris, president of the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, which advocates a cautious response to youth gender dysphoria, invoked the CHQ statement in a July 25 email to AHPRA and Dr Susan O’Dwyer, chair of the Medical Board of Australia.
He suggested that after the July 17 statement, doctors who question the medical affirmation of young people “should not be subject to censure from AHPRA or the Medical Board of Australia as long as their comments in public, in professional forums or on social media are respectful and temperate”.
“I would be grateful if the Medical Board of Australia notifies doctors and the public of this situation. This action by the Board should lead to a reduction in complaints made against doctors who are doing nothing more than what [CHQ] regards as ‘legitimate professional and public debate’.”
AHPRA’s August 25 response to Professor Morris runs to 1,270 words but avoids any mention of the CHQ statement. The reply does say that “AHPRA and the National Boards recognise the freedom of expression for practitioners and their right to communicate, including advocating for causes via social media, provided their activities do not involve the abuse or discrimination of others, or present a risk to the public.”
“[Guidance issued in February 2025] states that registered practitioners will not be investigated purely for holding or expressing their views.
“All regulatory decisions are made impartially, based on evidence, public safety, risk and in accordance with the Board’s codes and guidelines and the National Law.”
Jillian has helped us all
Thankful for Jillian and Jillian’s lawyers and all of their hard work in providing the “landmark” QCH hospital statement.
An important area of enquiry is one of the complaints relating to Dr Amos’s concerns about male lactation. When AHPRA decided no further action re Dr Spenser an individual Australian activist declared “for now” re Dr Spencer - what on earth could he be meaning by that?