The Australian judiciary’s decision to award custody to a father in the case of a 12-year-old boy potentially facing puberty blockers has sparked significant discussion and controversy.
At a Glance
- An Australian judge awarded custody of a 12-year-old boy to his father to prevent the mother from putting the boy on puberty blockers.
- Justice Andrew Strum rejected the “gender-affirming care” approach, emphasizing the importance of science and common sense.
- Strum stated that XX and XY binary sex is a biological fact and immutable, a stance that challenges current gender-affirming treatment guidelines.
- The father supported the child’s exploration of gender identity but opposed irreversible medical treatments.
- The court’s decision raises questions about the treatment of gender-incongruent children and underlines the best interests of the child.
Judiciary Rejects Gender-Affirming Approach
Justice Andrew Strum of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia made a landmark decision by granting custody to the father amidst concerns over immediate gender affirmation methods. The judge emphasized that scientific evidence and common sense should prevail, rejecting the mother’s pursuit of puberty blockers for her son.
The court highlighted a biological stance: “Save for rare chromosomal anomalies, XX and XY binary sex is biological fact, and is immutable, irrespective of gender identity.” This reflects a commitment to prioritizing biological realities in legal decisions over perceived identities.
The father’s approach favored allowing his son to naturally explore his gender identity without immediate medical interventions.
The court criticized the gender clinic involved for not conducting a proper biopsychosocial assessment, including failure to assess for autism. Justice Strum scrutinized the lack of empirical evidence provided by experts and dismissed the hospital’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
🚩 Federal Health Minister @Mark_Butler_MP has not bothered to read, let alone act, following the release of a shocking Family Court judgment detailing a horrific case of child abuse where an Australian gender clinic spent 6 years supporting a mother ‘transing’ her son,… pic.twitter.com/bd8RpsEMZz
— Stephanie Bastiaan (@stephbastiaan) April 10, 2025
Impact on Gender Treatment Guidelines
The ruling questions existing gender-affirming treatment guidelines, suggesting that in many youth cases, gender confusion may resolve naturally over time. Justice Strum expressed concern about the long-term effects of puberty blockers, which some clinics misrepresent as reversible and risk-free.
“This is a case about a child, and a relatively young one at that; not one about the cause of transgender people.” – Justice Andrew Strum
Strum’s ruling underscores the tendency for ideology to influence legal proceedings, thus emphasizing legal commitment to a child’s welfare. This decision could set a precedent in Australia, influencing future court cases connected to gender incongruence treatments.
Wonderful decision by Family Court Judge Andrew Strum giving sole custody to a father whose ex was pushing their child into puberty blockers. He slams the appalling treatment being offered by Australian gender clinics. https://t.co/ljy7ioG3Vl
— #MenToo (@TheRealMenToo) April 9, 2025
Contentious Reactions Spark Debate
The case has triggered reactions from various groups. The mother, backed by trans-activist doctors, pushed for immediate transitioning, facing opposition from those worried about potential misdiagnosis and the validity of expert opinions.
