After four hard years, Australian psychiatrist Jillian Spencer has been vindicated in her professional right to criticise the gender affirmation of minors
Dr Spencer joins a group of inspirational physicians who have dared to speak-out and make a stand against bad medicine, often at great personal cost.They include:
• Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey (1914–2015)
The Danger: Thalidomide, a sedative heavily marketed to pregnant women in the late 1950s for morning sickness resulting in the birth of over 10,000 infants to be born with severe limb deformities drugs to be proven safe and effective before they can be sold.
• Upton Sinclair (1878–1968)
The Danger: Unregulated, untested patent medicines (often containing high amounts of alcohol, morphine, and cocaine) and tainted food.
While famous for exposing the meatpacking industry, Sinclair also heavily targeted the "quack" medicine trade. Drugs Act, forcing companies to list ingredients on their labels.
• Dr. Alice Hamilton (1869–1970)
The Danger: Industrial toxins like lead and mercury poisoning workers.
In the early 20th century, factory owners claimed these materials were perfectly safe. Dr. Hamilton investigated these workplaces, proving that everyday factory chemicals were crippling and killing workers.
• Peter Gøtzsche (1949–present)
The Danger: Drug companies suppressing negative clinical trial results. His books, such as Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime, force the medical Immunity to be more transparent.
• Dr. Peter Buxtun (1938–present)
The Danger: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.
In 1966 he earned about a federally-funded study where hundreds of Black men with syphilis were deliberately left untreated so doctors could track the disease's deadly progression.
This is great news for Dr Spencer and everyone who has been involved in this fight or has supported it. Special mention for you, Bernard Lane!
Here is a public acknowledgment that it is justifiable for a senior health professional to publicly question the diagnosis and clinical management of juveniles expressing distress related to their sex or gender identity.
Stated in that acknowledgment is that "gender affirming care" is not the only way forward. A major step in the right direction. Onward and upward🤞🏼
Thank you once again for sharing the truth of what is happening in the real world, Bernard. Please keep up your good work of exposing it all to the light of day. Every bit of good news is so encouraging to us, the family members of mentally ill loved ones who have succumbed to the cult of "transgenderism". Congratulations, Dr. Spencer, and may God bless all truth tellers.
If there is a medic anywhere that I'd like to see in a senior role where she can make a difference to medical ethics it would be Jillian. She is a woman of immense courage and steadfastness. Shameful of Queensland health that it took 4 years to right a wrong. Of course New Zealand cllinicians are still constrained by a vicious band of blowhard vexatious serial complainers.
It's good that Dr Spencer reached a settlement, but I found CHQ's statement to be rather underwhelming. Perhaps because they only made the statement because the settlement forced them to and not because they genuinely wanted to, but they did not apologize to Dr Spencer or say they would change anything to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Regarding what they said about the current treatment model for gender dysphoria, they didn't critique the current model of care, call out its flaws or call for any changes and they didn't say they would support any bans or restrictions either. Just saying things like treatment should based on "the best available research and the child’s best interests" is very general. Supporters and critics of gender medical interventions alike describe their own approach as being based on "the best available research and the child’s best interests". Since CHQ HHS didn't clarify which specific research or treatment pathway they're referring to or give examples, it's hard to know what their exact position is.
I think it is significant that a hospital running a gender clinic made this statement, however unwillingly. I wonder if it will help doctors targeted by AHPRA complaints.
I believe that Dr. Spencer’s story overall could be significant, and could potentially help other doctors speak out.
But when it comes to this CHQ statement in particular, I honestly don’t see this statement as that significant, since it didn’t really say anything new or announce a change in policy etc. At least not in a way that could be helpful for others facing investigations. At most, it just shows that CHQ acknowledged Dr. Spencer’s concerns and advocacy, but it also avoided saying they agreed her. Coupled with all the concerns I mentioned in my original comment, I’m not sure how this could help others who are being targeted…
The CHQ appears to have adopted a “Two bob, each way” position, with each foot either side of the barbed wire fence. Every clinician who is participating in affirming medical intervention as integral to G.A.C. for minors, has made a conscious decision to prioritize gender identity ideology, over biological sex. While this may be understandable for those trained in Social Sciences, what ever are medically trained clinicians doing in this space , by providing the medical intervention components? Rigorous scientific training has proved no defense against opting narcissistic compassion at best or for social activism at worst. Little regard seems to be acknowledged for parents who are left to suffer in silence. The “ clients “ at these dedicated paediatric gender clinics seem to be restricted to the children, and we know how parents are persona non grata in schools’ policies for students with transgender ideation ,a more accurate term for gender dysphoria. Linguistic manipulation has been a powerful tool for so long, it should be employed back.
I don't even think they have one foot on each side quite yet.
Considering they didn't give a clear and explicit statement opposing or criticizing GAC and considering they're still explicitly saying on their website that they follow WPATH, they still seem to be more on the "pro-trans" side than not.
The statement might be a slight hedge since it didn't take a strong position either way, but considering they only made the statement as part of a legal settlement and not because they actually wanted to, I'm not sure how much it can be trusted to reflect their true position.
It's also just one statement. Given how vague this statement was, I think we're gonna need to see more statements from them on the subject, particularly when a lawsuit isn't forcing them to release one, to know for sure whether or not their position is truly changing even if only slightly.
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I honestly don't think they will. I think it would take a *much* stronger statement to get them to pause, and even then I'm not sure a strong statement would do it either. If the doctors are primarily motivated by ideology then it's highly possible that they're going to keep doing it regardless of what any statement says because they don't care about evidence.
The fact that the statement was carefully worded, vague and could easily be interpreted by gender doctors as supporting the current GAC model and considering the clinic is still clearly stating on their website that they follow WPATH, I'd honestly be shocked if a gender clinician changed their approach because of this statement alone.
The rise has also been in male patients, just faster in females. The boys are mostly keeping up (look at the 2009 and 2016 gids boy numbers: ~34 and ~557 respectively). It is I think about 1 boy to 3 or 4 girls in many countries right now, very high numbers for both sexes....
Dr Spencer joins a group of inspirational physicians who have dared to speak-out and make a stand against bad medicine, often at great personal cost.They include:
• Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey (1914–2015)
The Danger: Thalidomide, a sedative heavily marketed to pregnant women in the late 1950s for morning sickness resulting in the birth of over 10,000 infants to be born with severe limb deformities drugs to be proven safe and effective before they can be sold.
• Upton Sinclair (1878–1968)
The Danger: Unregulated, untested patent medicines (often containing high amounts of alcohol, morphine, and cocaine) and tainted food.
While famous for exposing the meatpacking industry, Sinclair also heavily targeted the "quack" medicine trade. Drugs Act, forcing companies to list ingredients on their labels.
• Dr. Alice Hamilton (1869–1970)
The Danger: Industrial toxins like lead and mercury poisoning workers.
In the early 20th century, factory owners claimed these materials were perfectly safe. Dr. Hamilton investigated these workplaces, proving that everyday factory chemicals were crippling and killing workers.
• Peter Gøtzsche (1949–present)
The Danger: Drug companies suppressing negative clinical trial results. His books, such as Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime, force the medical Immunity to be more transparent.
• Dr. Peter Buxtun (1938–present)
The Danger: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.
In 1966 he earned about a federally-funded study where hundreds of Black men with syphilis were deliberately left untreated so doctors could track the disease's deadly progression.
Great article Bernard and great outcome for Jillian!
Wonderful news about Dr Spencer. Thank goodness.,
Thanks for your tenacity Jillian
This is great news for Dr Spencer and everyone who has been involved in this fight or has supported it. Special mention for you, Bernard Lane!
Here is a public acknowledgment that it is justifiable for a senior health professional to publicly question the diagnosis and clinical management of juveniles expressing distress related to their sex or gender identity.
Stated in that acknowledgment is that "gender affirming care" is not the only way forward. A major step in the right direction. Onward and upward🤞🏼
Thank you once again for sharing the truth of what is happening in the real world, Bernard. Please keep up your good work of exposing it all to the light of day. Every bit of good news is so encouraging to us, the family members of mentally ill loved ones who have succumbed to the cult of "transgenderism". Congratulations, Dr. Spencer, and may God bless all truth tellers.
Love, Indio
We certainly need more truth telling, Indio!
If there is a medic anywhere that I'd like to see in a senior role where she can make a difference to medical ethics it would be Jillian. She is a woman of immense courage and steadfastness. Shameful of Queensland health that it took 4 years to right a wrong. Of course New Zealand cllinicians are still constrained by a vicious band of blowhard vexatious serial complainers.
It's good that Dr Spencer reached a settlement, but I found CHQ's statement to be rather underwhelming. Perhaps because they only made the statement because the settlement forced them to and not because they genuinely wanted to, but they did not apologize to Dr Spencer or say they would change anything to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Regarding what they said about the current treatment model for gender dysphoria, they didn't critique the current model of care, call out its flaws or call for any changes and they didn't say they would support any bans or restrictions either. Just saying things like treatment should based on "the best available research and the child’s best interests" is very general. Supporters and critics of gender medical interventions alike describe their own approach as being based on "the best available research and the child’s best interests". Since CHQ HHS didn't clarify which specific research or treatment pathway they're referring to or give examples, it's hard to know what their exact position is.
But they still say on their website that they still follow the AusPATH and WPATH guidelines, so... https://www.childrens.health.qld.gov.au/services/gender-service/gender-service-queensland-childrens-hospital
I think it is significant that a hospital running a gender clinic made this statement, however unwillingly. I wonder if it will help doctors targeted by AHPRA complaints.
I believe that Dr. Spencer’s story overall could be significant, and could potentially help other doctors speak out.
But when it comes to this CHQ statement in particular, I honestly don’t see this statement as that significant, since it didn’t really say anything new or announce a change in policy etc. At least not in a way that could be helpful for others facing investigations. At most, it just shows that CHQ acknowledged Dr. Spencer’s concerns and advocacy, but it also avoided saying they agreed her. Coupled with all the concerns I mentioned in my original comment, I’m not sure how this could help others who are being targeted…
The CHQ appears to have adopted a “Two bob, each way” position, with each foot either side of the barbed wire fence. Every clinician who is participating in affirming medical intervention as integral to G.A.C. for minors, has made a conscious decision to prioritize gender identity ideology, over biological sex. While this may be understandable for those trained in Social Sciences, what ever are medically trained clinicians doing in this space , by providing the medical intervention components? Rigorous scientific training has proved no defense against opting narcissistic compassion at best or for social activism at worst. Little regard seems to be acknowledged for parents who are left to suffer in silence. The “ clients “ at these dedicated paediatric gender clinics seem to be restricted to the children, and we know how parents are persona non grata in schools’ policies for students with transgender ideation ,a more accurate term for gender dysphoria. Linguistic manipulation has been a powerful tool for so long, it should be employed back.
I don't even think they have one foot on each side quite yet.
Considering they didn't give a clear and explicit statement opposing or criticizing GAC and considering they're still explicitly saying on their website that they follow WPATH, they still seem to be more on the "pro-trans" side than not.
The statement might be a slight hedge since it didn't take a strong position either way, but considering they only made the statement as part of a legal settlement and not because they actually wanted to, I'm not sure how much it can be trusted to reflect their true position.
It's also just one statement. Given how vague this statement was, I think we're gonna need to see more statements from them on the subject, particularly when a lawsuit isn't forcing them to release one, to know for sure whether or not their position is truly changing even if only slightly.
I wonder if the CHQ statement will give any gender clinician pause.
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I honestly don't think they will. I think it would take a *much* stronger statement to get them to pause, and even then I'm not sure a strong statement would do it either. If the doctors are primarily motivated by ideology then it's highly possible that they're going to keep doing it regardless of what any statement says because they don't care about evidence.
The fact that the statement was carefully worded, vague and could easily be interpreted by gender doctors as supporting the current GAC model and considering the clinic is still clearly stating on their website that they follow WPATH, I'd honestly be shocked if a gender clinician changed their approach because of this statement alone.
Thank you!
The rise has also been in male patients, just faster in females. The boys are mostly keeping up (look at the 2009 and 2016 gids boy numbers: ~34 and ~557 respectively). It is I think about 1 boy to 3 or 4 girls in many countries right now, very high numbers for both sexes....