Too close for comfort

Australia's health professions regulator and the watchdog supposed to supervise it both show the influence of the trans lobby

Photo by Rangi Siebert on Unsplash

Signs of capture

Officials in Australia have been dismissing complaints about gender-ideology bias while sending emails with “she/her” pronouns and a hyperlink to a radical trans website run by the lobby group ACON.

The Brisbane father of a trans-identified child who has mental health problems and autism wrote to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman (NHPO) to allege bias and harm in a regulator’s decision silencing psychiatrist Dr Andrew Amos, who is a prominent critic of the “gender-affirming” treatment model.

In March, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Medical Board imposed “immediate action” restrictions on Dr Amos’s registration, including a ban on his social media critiques of puberty blockers and hormones for minors.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the Brisbane father criticised not only AHPRA’s extraordinary intervention against Dr Amos, but a system-wide failure to enable proper oversight of paediatric gender medicine.

“I believe gender-affirming care in Australia has not been given the robust scrutiny that it deserves, or that other similar treatments receive within the medical and health professions,” the father wrote.

“The perception I get is that there is some sort of bias that has allowed, and continues to allow, gender treatments to continue without debate—and any concerns about these treatments are being suppressed by the very body [AHPRA] that is meant to protect the public.”

No investigation

On March 23, an NHPO official emailed the father to say she had decided not to investigate his complaint.

“While you have expressed broader concerns about impartiality and potential systemic issues, the information provided does not demonstrate a system-wide problem that would meet the threshold for an own-motion investigation by this office,” the Ombudsman’s official wrote.

Her email signature block included—

“She/her” pronouns, which signal the belief that humans may be unable to distinguish between male and female without knowing these pronouns;

A statement that the “NHPO celebrates, values and includes people of all backgrounds, genders, sexualities, cultures, bodies and abilities”;

A link to ACON’s TransHub website which, apart from encouraging pronoun use, promotes puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones without acknowledging the weak evidence base and serious risks to health.

---

---

Gutenberg dysphoria: Psychiatry professor Kris Kaliebe on old and new collisions of technology and society

Unreliable guide

Contrary to the law, ACON’s TransHub used to advise 16- and 17-year-olds that they could start hormones via the fast-track “informed consent” model “overriding any parental objections or misgivings”, according to evidence in the 2020 Family Court case re Imogen.

“This judgment confirms the existing law is that any treating medical practitioner seeing an adolescent under the age of 18 is not at liberty to initiate stage 1, 2 or 3 treatment [puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or trans surgery] without first ascertaining whether or not a child’s parents or legal guardians consent to the proposed treatment,” Justice Garry Watts said in his re Imogen ruling.

“If there is a dispute about consent or treatment, a doctor should not administer stage 1, 2 or 3 treatment without court authorisation.”

At the time, ACON indicated it was correcting the inaccurate legal advice in the light of the re Imogen case, but today the TransHub webpage devoted to “Under 18s’ rights” still encourages minors to bypass parents.

“It makes sense that you may want to see your doctor about medical affirmation without your carers, or guardians knowing,” TransHub says, implying that minors should shop around to find a doctor who will protect their “medical privacy”.

TransHub’s brochure “How do I start hormones”, which targets under-18s as well as adults, claims: “Hormonal affirmation is relatively simple, can create a lot of change from a small amount of input, and our communities have been doing it for a long time, so we have a good understanding that it’s effective and safe”.

In fact, the evidence base for hormonal treatment of minors with gender dysphoria is very weak and uncertain, according to multiple independently commissioned systematic reviews, which are the “gold standard” for assessing the quality of evidence said to justify a medical intervention.

Teen talk

Immediately after its claim that cross-sex hormones are “effective and safe”, the TransHub brochure says that general practitioners (GPs) in primary care “are able to initiate and continue gender-affirming hormonal therapy for people [of] age 16 and above”.

This misstatement of the law is qualified three pages later with a reference to the need for parental consent.

But the brochure’s “16 and above” claim still misrepresents the legal position, which requires a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria and a multi-disciplinary assessment before anyone under 18 can be prescribed hormones, according to emeritus professor of law Patrick Parkinson, who is an expert on the gender dysphoria cases decided by the Family Court.

The TransHub brochure makes a single, vague reference to “dysphoria” and frames the involvement of medical specialists as a personal choice.

ACON did not answer GCN’s questions about the accuracy of TransHub’s legal advice for minors and its unsupported claim that hormones are effective and safe.

In a statement, an ACON spokesman said TransHub was “a trusted online resource” offering “general information and resources” on health, while users of the website were “always encouraged to seek further professional advice pertaining to their circumstances”.

Dropping ACON

At some point since early May this year,¹ the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman (NHPO) asked its staff to cease using the TransHub/ACON weblink in their email signature blocks. Now, complainants curious about the Ombudsman’s pronoun use are directed to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

The NHPO did not answer GCN’s question whether the TransHub weblink had been abandoned because the Ombudsman recognised it created an apprehension of bias in the case of complaints in the domain of gender medicine.

However, after my June 1 news report in The Australian, the NHPO updated its website, which now says the pronoun weblink was changed “after hearing some concerns about how we describe why we use pronouns”.

“[W]e do not consider that the use of pronouns, or providing links to information about the use of pronouns, conflicts with our ability to handle complaints independently and impartially,” the Ombudsman’s webpage says.

The pronoun rationale of the Queensland Human Rights Commission also reflects gender ideology.

“Pronouns are connected to a person’s gender identity, which is often an invisible attribute—something you can’t always determine by appearance,” the commission says.

It offers the neo-pronouns “xe/xem/xyr”, “ze/hir/hirs”, and “ey/em/eir”. And the commission implies that “wrong” pronoun use may cause “harm”.

Who guards the guards?

Last week, the NHPO dismissed a prominent psychiatrist’s complaint about the gender-ideology capture of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). The Ombudsman, which is the watchdog over AHPRA, shut down the complaint without disclosing its own link to ACON.

Professor Philip Morris, president of the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, had argued that AHPRA’s association with ACON called into question the regulator’s impartiality in the fierce controversy over paediatric gender medicine.

On May 27, Professor Morris was sent a four-page letter explaining the NHPO’s decision not to investigate. The letter made no mention of the fact that, like AHPRA, the Ombudsman’s office also has a connection to ACON’s fee-for-service Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI).

The Ombudsman’s “Work with us” recruitment webpage boasts that Victoria’s Department of Health—which employs the staff of the independent Ombudsman’s office—“is recognised as a bronze [now silver] employer for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) workplace inclusion as part of Pride in Diversity’s Australian Workplace Equality Index”.

Under the AWEI, employers pay fees to ACON’s subsidiary, Pride in Diversity, and enact pro-trans workplace policy, such as “all-gender” bathrooms and annual leave for gender-affirming treatment.

Employers compete for platinum, gold, silver and bronze ratings on the AWEI, and then promote themselves as “inclusive” winners for “LGBTQ+ people”. In this way, employers such as Victoria’s Department of Health pay to implement a lobby’s wish list of policies.

The Ombudsman cites its independence from the Department, but does not dispute its promotion of ACON’s AWEI on its own website which, together with the ACON-linking emails, has created an apprehension of bias in the minds of complainants with concerns about gender medicine.

Last Friday, at the ICC Grand Ballroom in Sydney, ACON’s Pride in Diversity celebrated a sold-out event launching the 2026 Australian LGBTQ+ Inclusion Awards, with a 10-seat table for AWEI members priced at $4,399.

‘Safe regulator’

“I acknowledge your concern about AHPRA’s association with ACON,” an Ombudsman official wrote last week in reply to Professor Morris’s complaint.

“However, I am not satisfied that there is currently sufficient evidence that this association would undermine confidence in AHPRA and the [Medical] Board’s role of impartially regulating medical practitioners,” said the official, with “she/her/hers” pronouns in her signature block.

“AHPRA and National Boards [such as the Medical Board] are committed to being a safe regulator for LGBTIQA+ health practitioners along with contributing to health equity and access to safe healthcare for LGBTIQA+ people,” she said.

ACON not only promotes gender ideology and risky medicalisation through TransHub but also offers cross-sex hormone treatment to minors at its Kaleido Health Centre in Sydney.

‘Not transparent’

Professor Morris told GCN he was “very concerned” to learn that the Ombudsman had a link to ACON and had not been “transparent” about it.

“So, that raises with me the question of whether [at the Ombudsman’s office] they have a potential conflict of interest, in the same way that I’m concerned about the potential bias of AHPRA and the Medical Board,” he said.

“We would want anybody who goes before the Medical Board, or who makes a complaint to the Ombudsman, to feel confident that they will be treated fairly,” he said.

Professor Morris’s National Association of Practising Psychiatrists advises a cautious, psychology-first treatment approach to youth gender dysphoria, rather than the medicalised immediate-affirmation model.

In a statement to GCN, the Ombudsman said it did not comment on individual complaints but stressed that it took “allegations of bias or conflicts of interest in decision-making seriously”.

The Ombudsman said it was “not a member of, or otherwise affiliated with, ACON or its Pride [in] Diversity AWEI program”, despite that program being promoted on its own recruitment webpage as a benefit of working for the Ombudsman’s office.

Under the heading “We are courageous”, the Ombudsman’s service charter states: “We will not compromise our independence or impartiality. We will not let challenging subject matter prevent us from listening to and considering all perspectives.”

On a webpage devoted to “Our values”, the NHPO says: “Our commitment to respect was recently demonstrated when we sought to ensure everyone who visited our new office space felt welcome.”

“We now proudly display the rainbow pride flag representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ+) community, along with the Australian and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags.”

The Ombudsman told GCN that it encouraged staff to display pronouns in their emails because this “helps avoid the misgendering of our staff”; “fosters an inclusive, safe and supportive workplace”; and signals “that we will respect an individual’s pronouns”.

Asked whether pronoun use showed adherence to gender identity ideology, the NHPO said this practice “does not influence, compromise or otherwise impact our ability to manage complaints in accordance with our office’s policies and our values of being fair and independent”.

Dissent and debate

In March, AHPRA and the Medical Board ordered psychiatrist Dr Andrew Amos to cease his social media critiques of gender-affirming treatment for minors. The Australian newspaper has cited documents reportedly showing AHPRA to be “hopelessly compromised” by its ACON affiliation.

In a 750-word joint statement, AHPRA and the Medical Board claimed The Australian’s coverage had “the potential to undermine trust in the role we as regulators play”.

The statement, which made no mention of AHPRA’s links to ACON, said the right to free speech was “constrained if a practitioner comments, or supports comments, that can cause harm to groups or individuals. Typically, the harm pertains to racism and discrimination.”

AHPRA is investigating another psychiatrist, Dr Jillian Spencer, who has spoken out against puberty blockers. It is the Ombudsman’s office that would hear any complaints against AHPRA by these medical practitioners.

Not-so-free speech

In his April 29 complaint to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman (NHPO), Professor Morris also raised concerns that AHPRA “had imposed limitations on the freedom of speech and clinical practice of a well-known psychiatrist [Dr Amos] for no other stated reason than that he had engaged in public communications about the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors of which the decision-makers disapproved”.

“The complaints process under AHPRA has been weaponised against other health professionals in a similar way.”

The Ombudsman’s official, who said she had “carefully assessed” Professor Morris’s complaint before deciding not to investigate, said she was “not satisfied that there is evidence that the [Medical] Board is limiting practitioners expressing professional and respectful views in relation to this issue”.

She claimed the Board took action over social media posts only “when it believes that a practitioner has stepped beyond engaging in fair and reasonable public debate and using or endorsing harmful language”. Trans activists frame criticism of gender medicine as harmful because it makes them “feel unsafe”.

The NHPO official said she had “decided not to investigate [the Morris] complaint having regard to all the circumstances”. If a complaint is not finalised early after an assessment, the investigation stage can take 6-12 months.

The Ombudsman’s service charter claims it “champions fairness by taking every complaint seriously and shining a light on systemic issues to effect positive change”.

Professor Morris emphasised in his complaint that the treatment of gender-distressed minors was an “area of clinical practice [that] remains the subject of active, good-faith professional debate”.

“Many clinicians support a more cautious, psychosocially focused approach. Notably, more restrictive or cautious policies have been adopted by authorities in the United Kingdom, parts of Scandinavia, several United States jurisdictions, and by governments in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

“In this context, practitioners who publicly advocate for a cautious approach, and who are subsequently referred to AHPRA or the Medical Board for investigation, may reasonably question whether their views and conduct will be assessed with full impartiality while the regulator maintains a formal relationship with an organisation [namely, ACON] that actively promotes the opposite clinical position.”

Guidance vacuum

In her May 27 letter to Professor Morris, the Ombudsman’s official argued that ACON’s involvement with AHPRA and the Medical Board would not undermine confidence in the regulator “because the Board has not published specific guidance about gender-affirming care”.

She noted that the National Health and Medical Research Council was developing new national treatment guidelines for “trans and gender-diverse children and adolescents”, a project to be completed by 2028.

However, ACON and other trans rights lobbies have successfully campaigned for punitive laws in Australian jurisdictions prohibiting so-called “LGBTQ conversion practices”.

The effect of these bans is to discourage any non-invasive therapeutic alternatives to the gender-affirming model, with the result that young people are denied help with open exploration of the causes of their distress and risk becoming lifelong patients on hormone drugs and their side effects.

ACON’s TransHub website claims it is an unethical “conversion practice” for practitioners to use the cautious approach of “watchful waiting” rather than immediately affirming a child’s self-declared gender identity.

Skin in the game

Although ACON says Sydney’s Kaleido Health gender clinic is a separate entity, the new clinic’s interim chief executive officer Michael Woodhouse is also ACON’s CEO. A 2024 media statement by Kaleido said the clinic would “be established by ACON”, with $4.2 million in taxpayer funding.

The clinic, with most of its budget paid for by the centre-left Labor government in the state of New South Wales, “provides no information on the website about parental consent requirements, minor-specific assessment protocols or age-differentiated risks”, The Australian reported on May 29.

A Kaleido website audit, run by AWW executive director Catherine Anderson-Karena of the advocacy group Active Watchful Waiting Inc, suggests the clinic may have breached Australian Consumer Law and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law by prominently advertising gender medicine without disclosing known material risks.

A Kaleido spokesperson said its clinicians “discuss all risks with patients prior to getting consent. [I]nformation on the Kaleido website does not, and should not, form part of the consent process. The place for discussions about risks, benefits and alternative treatment options is the consulting room, not a website.”

---

LGB Alliance: ‘Trans ideology is convincing young gay people that they shouldn’t be in their biologically sexed bodies’

Last year’s model

ACON’s Australian Workplace Equality Index was based on the UK Diversity Champions Programme of Stonewall. Like Stonewall, ACON is a former gay rights body turned trans rights campaigner.

Since 2019, LGB Alliance groups have been established in many countries, reflecting the view that the Trans/Queer program—self-declared “gender identity”, medicalisation of minors, and “no debate” with dissenters—is reckless and damaging to the interests of same-sex-attracted people.

Past data and current anecdote suggest that some proportion of teenagers would outgrow their gender dysphoria in a world without puberty blockers, and emerge as young adult gays or lesbians in healthy bodies.

From this LGB perspective, gender clinics may be guilty of a form of conversion therapy when they use medical and surgical interventions to turn gender non-conforming young people into trans heterosexuals.

England’s National Health Service and other agencies withdrew from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme during the 2020-24 UK Cass Review, which found “remarkably weak” evidence for the hormonal treatment of gender-distressed teenagers promoted by LGBTQ lobbies.

The BBC left in 2021, citing “questions about whether it could be impartial on issues that [Stonewall] was campaigning about”.

Last month, the ABC was forced to exit the AWEI after reporting by The Australian newspaper showed the broadcaster tailoring its “queer” journalism to attain platinum status within ACON’s trans-inclusivity league.

A short version of this article appeared in The Australian on Monday. GCN does not dispute that gender-affirming clinicians believe their treatments benefit vulnerable young people.

1. On May 5, the Ombudsman’s staff were still using email signature blocks with a link to ACON’s TransHub website.