Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

An Australian Family Court Justice has become the first to rule against the LGBTransitioning of a child.

Justice Andrew Strum delivered his verdict last Friday, condemning “gender-affirming” experts in a stunning 130-page ruling.

Justice Sturm’s dilemma in sum:

A 12-year-old boy’s mother – and her “experts” – believed he was a girl.

The boy’s father, with the help of common sense, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) refused to play along.

Each parent was seeking sole custody.

Justice Strum indicated that the case was more a battle over the child’s gender than a battle for the child.

“A central issue in the determination of the parents’ competing applications is whether the child is gender dysphoric/incongruent,” he outlined.

The mother believes her son should be placed on puberty blockers.

The father and ICL disagreed.

Emotional Manipulation

Addressing frustration with the case, Justice Strum criticised both sides for ignoring his warning about obscuring the child’s rights with transgender activism.

A warning that had “occasionally fallen on deaf ears”, he added.

Further clouding the case, experts for the mother had sought to lecture the court on “gender-affirming care”.

A task, he said, was the realm of “lawyers, not witnesses, neither lay nor expert.”

At one point, an associate professor advocating for the mother even tried to argue that the case was part of a “third wave of transgender oppression.”

The mother’s expert then equated the father with National Socialism (NAZISM), and LGBTQ+ oppression with the Jewish Holocaust.

Of importance, Justice Strum is Jewish.

Clearly, this was a ploy by the mother’s counsel designed to play to his emotions. Perhaps in an attempt to sway his final determination.

To his credit, though, Justice Strum saw through the manipulative move.

Obliterating the comparison, he said,

“The emotive suggestion has no place whatsoever in the independent evidence that should be expected of such an expert.

“It demonstrates ignorance of the true evils of Nazism and cheapens the sufferings of millions […] I consider there to be no comparison whatsoever.”

There’s more.

Another expert – a “senior clinical psychologist” – said she “found some of the expert opposing viewpoints filed by the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer hard to read.”

Evidently not amused, Justice Strum remarked that this “was hard to reconcile with her obligations as an expert.”

Such as to “give an objective and unbiased opinion that is independent and impartial.”

Legal Threat

Expert counsel for the mother’s side then went from bad to worse.

Her lawyers appeared to have tried to weaponise Victoria’s gay “conversion” laws.

They seemed to argue that the father and his legal counsel could face criminal charges for opposing his son’s LGBTransition.

Justice Strum slammed the attempt.

He implied that weaponising of the gay “conversion” law was probably why the father “had some difficulties obtaining both expert evidence for these proceedings and alternative treatment proposals for the child.”

Ruling the mother’s appeal to criminal law as contextually irrelevant,  Justice Strum stated,

“I remain mystified by the inclusion of those references, which I consider to be of no relevance whatsoever to these proceedings.”

“Ideology,” he added, “has no place in the application by courts of the law, certainly not in the Family Court’s evidence-based process of determining a child’s best interests.”

He sided with the father, saying he “did not accept” that the dad was abusing the child by not taking the matter seriously enough.

Contrary to the accusation, the Family Court Justice said the father’s concerns had merit.

Biological Facts

Justice Strum even agreed that at least one expert had “mislead, or omitted material” from key sources, such as the Cass Report, that “detracted from her opinion.”

This fed into other concerns he had about the mother and her experts excluding “other possible explanations for the child’s presentation” and the proposed sex intervention.

Additionally, the mother’s “social transitioning of the child” before diagnosis raised questions.

Social transitioning before diagnosis is perilous, Justice Sturm explained.

It can amount to coaching the child to believe they are gender dysphoric when they are not.

The danger here is that pre-diagnosis social transitioning is a faulty diagnostic tool, he argued.

Contesting hostile accusations from the mother that expert advice on the father’s side was “transphobic, or ideologically extreme,” the Justice said he found the opposite.

Biology is not bigotry.

“Save for rare chromosomal anomalies,” he asserted, “XX and XY binary sex is biological fact, and is immutable, irrespective of gender identity.”

Justice Strum concluded the case by awarding the father full custody.

Hinting at the mother’s fanaticism, he said that the evidence and arguments proved that the boy living with the father was in the boy’s best interest.

Turn the Tide

Responding to this Australian first, Family First director Lyle Shelton described the ruling as a “bombshell”.

This is a flat-out rejection of the “LGBTIQA+ political activist-informed medical interventions on children,” he declared.

“The era of weak and woke politicians ends with voting Family First.”

If elected, Family First would seek to defund gender clinics, push for a Royal Commission into gender medicine, and seek compensation for victims of LGBTransitioning.

Watch detransitioner, and activist against gender-affirming care for minors, Chloe Cole’s testimony here:

___

Images courtesy of Unsplash.