Another great article, Bernard! It feels like people might be on the verge of waking up to the harms of the gender affirming model, which for so long we haven't been allowed to question.
I wish the politicians didn't rely so heavily on captured institutions, especially those who stand to benefit financially, for policy advice.
It is most doubtful that our Minister and Deputy Minister of Health would be qualified to interpret evidence:
Our Federal Health Ministry is the responsibility of a Minister Mark Butler and his deputy Ed Kearney. This pair’s experience prior to entering Parliament as summarised in the Parliamentary website is as follows:
The Minister, Mark Butler’s only pre parliamentary work experience was:
Union Official from 1992 – 2007, fifteen years .
I assumed that his deputy would have a more convincing experience in health related issues.
Deputy Health Minister Ged Kearney:
Union Official 2002 – 2018, sixteen years.
It seems incomprehensible that Australia’s Federal Health Ministry is the responsibility of a pair with a total work experience of 31 Years as Union Officials.
. . . . Would it not be appropriate to select a Minister who had some qualifications relating to his Ministry?
Here is my take on puberty blockers. For boys, stunting their puberty may lead to a micro-penis. If they opt for medical conversion down the track, insufficient flesh may lead to the use of colon tissue to create a fake vagina. If they don't, they may be stuck with a micro penis for life. Because it makes surgical conversion more difficult, the two are incompatible. What is its purpose?
Firstly, it is big business in itself. Secondly, from the figures I have seen, nearly all children on puberty blockers go on to surgical conversion. So it feeds the hormones for life and the surgical conversion industries. Neither of these is a valid reason in itself. The pause to think argument makes no sense, as way fewer children go on to surgical conversion who are left alone.
Under-18-year-olds cannot consent, and the loophole of claiming there are mature minors is an oxymoron. In any case, children opting for this are likely to be the least mature.
I wonder whether Mark Butler shared his acknowledgment of the need to find out more to his deputy health minister, Ged Carney who has previously expressed her own unqualified support for current medical intervention as part of G.A.C. In minors in Australia’s children’s hospitals gender clinic. If Butler is still the minister after tomorrow, and wants to emulate the U.K. position post Cass report, he will have to convince not only his deputy, but also be challenging his party’s policy of obligatory “ affirmative care” of minors
Another great article, Bernard! It feels like people might be on the verge of waking up to the harms of the gender affirming model, which for so long we haven't been allowed to question.
I wish the politicians didn't rely so heavily on captured institutions, especially those who stand to benefit financially, for policy advice.
I’d hope that in technical areas not deranged by identity politics our officials would be up to date & on the ball.
If they would only take the time to meet with or listen to a few detransitioners...
Perhaps, in the near future our paediatric hospitals might have to cast aside this unethical woke nonsense and get back to treating sick children?
It is most doubtful that our Minister and Deputy Minister of Health would be qualified to interpret evidence:
Our Federal Health Ministry is the responsibility of a Minister Mark Butler and his deputy Ed Kearney. This pair’s experience prior to entering Parliament as summarised in the Parliamentary website is as follows:
The Minister, Mark Butler’s only pre parliamentary work experience was:
Union Official from 1992 – 2007, fifteen years .
I assumed that his deputy would have a more convincing experience in health related issues.
Deputy Health Minister Ged Kearney:
Union Official 2002 – 2018, sixteen years.
It seems incomprehensible that Australia’s Federal Health Ministry is the responsibility of a pair with a total work experience of 31 Years as Union Officials.
. . . . Would it not be appropriate to select a Minister who had some qualifications relating to his Ministry?
Here is my take on puberty blockers. For boys, stunting their puberty may lead to a micro-penis. If they opt for medical conversion down the track, insufficient flesh may lead to the use of colon tissue to create a fake vagina. If they don't, they may be stuck with a micro penis for life. Because it makes surgical conversion more difficult, the two are incompatible. What is its purpose?
Firstly, it is big business in itself. Secondly, from the figures I have seen, nearly all children on puberty blockers go on to surgical conversion. So it feeds the hormones for life and the surgical conversion industries. Neither of these is a valid reason in itself. The pause to think argument makes no sense, as way fewer children go on to surgical conversion who are left alone.
Under-18-year-olds cannot consent, and the loophole of claiming there are mature minors is an oxymoron. In any case, children opting for this are likely to be the least mature.
I wonder whether Mark Butler shared his acknowledgment of the need to find out more to his deputy health minister, Ged Carney who has previously expressed her own unqualified support for current medical intervention as part of G.A.C. In minors in Australia’s children’s hospitals gender clinic. If Butler is still the minister after tomorrow, and wants to emulate the U.K. position post Cass report, he will have to convince not only his deputy, but also be challenging his party’s policy of obligatory “ affirmative care” of minors
She is generally copied in on his briefs.
It sounds like bad advice and trying to keep Butler in the dark.