ABC Fabricates, Debunks and then Backflips on Transgender Claim Made by Binary Australia

The ABC and RMIT’s CheckMate fact check has exposed its bias by fabricating and then “debunking” a claim it attributed to Binary Australia in the lead-up to the Victorian election. Binary spokeswoman Kirralie Smith demanded a formal apology, and the ABC later backtracked.

In an embarrassing episode, the ABC’s fact-checking service, CheckMate, published in partnership with RMIT, has published the very kind of misinformation it ostensibly tries to combat. In the lead-up to the recent Victorian election, it debunked a claim that was, in fact, never made.

Under examination was Victorian premier Daniel Andrews’ school policy to allow children to transition without parental knowledge. Binary Australia’s flyer (see below) highlighted a section of the Victorian Department of Education’s website, which states:

“There may be circumstances in which students wish or need to undertake gender transition without the consent of their parent/s (or carer/s), and/or without consulting medical practitioners.

If no agreement can be reached between the student and the parent/s regarding the student’s gender identity, or if the parent/s will not consent to the contents of a student support plan, it will be necessary for the school to consider whether the student is a mature minor.

If a student is considered a mature minor, they can make decisions for themselves without parental consent and should be affirmed in their gender identity at school without a family representative/carer participating in formulating the school management plan.”

Binary RMIT FlyerBinary RMIT Flyer

A Fabricated Claim by the ABC

Of course, the ABC was quick to leap to the rescue, accusing Binary Australia of spreading misinformation about the government’s policy.

The earliest iteration of the ABC’s “fact check” aimed to debunk a “claim” that Dan Andrews was allowing children to “access gender-affirming medical treatment without their parents’ consent”. It said that the “anti-trans group” had raised a “false alarm” in its flyer.

“An anti-transgender activist group, Binary Australia, has incorrectly claimed that it is Victorian government policy to allow school children access to gender-affirming medical treatment without parental consent.

The claim appeared in a flyer produced and distributed by the group ahead of this month’s state election.”

The entire premise of the “fact check” should have been obviously false — at least to anyone who had seen the actual flyer. Not just misleading — blatantly fabricated.

Firstly, Binary Australia never “claimed” that the Victorian government’s policy permitted children to “access… gender-affirming medical treatment without parental consent” (emphasis added).

Their actual claim was that the government allowed children to gender transition without parental consent. This claim was established — word for word — by reference to the Victorian Department of Education’s own website — the link was included.

As can be clearly seen, there was literally no mention of medical transition anywhere on the flyer. This point was noted by Binary Australia in an article responding to the ABC’s CheckMate article.

As Kirralie Smith from Binary pointed out, the ABC then went on to demonstrate exactly what the Binary flyer had claimed in the first place — that gender transition without parental consent was permitted by the Victorian government. Quoting from the same Department of Education page that Binary linked to in its flyer, the ABC wrote the following (apparently oblivious to the fact that they were establishing Binary’s claim by quoting the document that Binary cited):

“The government website listed by Binary Australia outlines the process for a student ‘affirming their gender identity’ at school, not undergoing medical treatment. … in cases where ‘no agreement can be reached between the student and the parent/s regarding the student’s gender identity’, a school can consider whether the student is a ‘mature minor’ and thereby able to make decisions for themselves. Such students ‘should be affirmed in their gender at school’.” (emphasis added)

The same Department page states that, under certain circumstances, a child can undergo a “gender transition without the consent of their parent/s (or carer/s), and/or without consulting medical practitioners”.

Binary Hits Back — and the ABC Backpeddles

The original article was published on 11 November 2022. Three days later, the Binary Australia group responded to the fact check with an article entitled, “ABC and RMIT gaslight Victorians”.

A full week later, an ABC editor attached a note to the fact check, stating that the article had been “updated” 1) “to clearly define the difference between ‘social transition’ and ‘medical transition’” and 2) “to accurately reflect Binary Australia’s materials”.

ABC - Binary - correction

Translation: we misleadingly conflated gender transition (as per the Victorian Department of Education) with “access [to] gender-affirming medical treatment” (emphasis added). We also falsely claimed that Binary Australia was referring to medical treatment and lied about the contents of Binary Australia’s campaign materials.

However, the article was more than just “updated”. A text comparison analysis shows that the updated article is almost a completely new piece, with sizeable portions deleted and numerous additions.

Instead of claiming that Binary raised a “false alarm”, the new article insisted that their material was missing “important context”. The original article asserts that the group “incorrectly claimed that it is Victorian government policy to allow school children access to gender-affirming medical treatment without parental consent” (emphasis added). The revised version has the following:

“Flyers distributed in Victoria ahead of the 2022 election by anti-trans lobby group Binary Australia claim Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’s policy allows ‘gender transition’ without parental consent.” (emphasis added)

In fact, the flyers do more than just “claim” it; they literally show the policy — word for word. It’s not a claim; it’s a fact.

Rather than asserting that the claim was false, the new ABC article declared that “the flyer contained little information about what the organisation means by ‘gender transition’”.

Presumably, they mean the same thing that the Victorian Department of Education means by “gender transition without the consent of their parent/s (or carer/s)”.

Whereas the original article confidently asserted that “RMIT FactLab found this week, such suggestions are false”, the new article vigorously backpedalled:

“The lack of detail on the flyer and the use of a medical professional detailing serious physical medical outcomes could lead readers to surmise the government could give permission to minors to access medical interventions.”* (emphasis added)

The exact same accusation could be made against the Victorian Department of Education’s page that permits “gender transition without” parental consent.

One factual error that has not been updated in the revised “fact check” is the caption to the article image, which still states, “Despite a claim by Binary Australia, the Victorian government cannot give permission for a student to access medical treatments for gender dysphoria.”

It should read, “Despite a claim that we made up and then accused Binary Australia of making…”


In the end, the RMIT ABC fact check cannot debunk any of Binary Australia’s actual claims. Instead, it surmises that people could possibly be misled by the potential of confusing gender transition with medical intervention.

This kind of bias is not unexpected, coming from an organisation that is a member of ACON and gets rewarded for promoting transgenderism and other LGBTQ agenda items. This is something that even the ABC’s own Media Watch has flagged as a potential conflict of interest.

In the meantime, Binary Australia continues to wait for the retraction and apology they demanded. I think they deserve it.


*The reference to a medical professional was on Binary Australia’s website — where a paraphrased quote from Australian paediatrician Dr Dylan Wilson is included — not on the flyer itself. The flyer included no reference to medical transition. Hence, the ABC’s argument that the flyer could be misleading itself lacks evidence.

Thank the Source

Now Jesus is Trans?

Now we have “churchmen” suggesting Jesus could have been transgender.

We have had it all before of course: Jesus the Marxist; Jesus the Muslim; Jesus the homosexual; Jesus the hippy; Jesus the Socialist; Jesus the Greenie. The list never ends. And it was only a matter of time before the unhinged secular left — and apostate clerics and academics — would assure us that Jesus could well have been trans.

Erotic Interpretations

In this case, it comes from within the Anglican Church in the UK. As I have often documented, there have been many problems with these folks over the years, so I guess we should not be surprised by this latest bit of outrageous theological moonbattery. One news report tells the story this way:

Jesus could have been transgender, according to a University of Cambridge dean. Dr Michael Banner, the dean of Trinity College, said such a view was “legitimate” after a row over a sermon by a Cambridge research student that claimed Christ had a “trans body”, The Telegraph can disclose.

The “truly shocking” address at last Sunday’s evensong at Trinity College chapel, saw Joshua Heath, a junior research fellow, display Renaissance and Medieval paintings of the crucifixion that depicted a side wound that the guest preacher likened to a vagina. Worshippers told The Telegraph they were left “in tears” and felt excluded from the church, with one shouting “heresy” at the Dean upon leaving.

The sermon displayed three paintings, including Jean Malouel’s 1400 work Pietà, with Mr Heath pointing out Jesus’s side wound and blood flowing to the groin. The order of service also showed French artist Henri Maccheroni’s 1990 work “Christs”.

Heath, whose PhD was supervised by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, also told worshippers that in the Prayer Book of Bonne of Luxembourg, from the 14th century, this side wound was isolated and “takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance”.

Heath also drew on non-erotic depictions of Christ’s penis in historical art, which “urge a welcoming rather than hostile response towards the raised voices of trans people”. “In Christ’s simultaneously masculine and feminine body in these works, if the body of Christ as these works suggest the body of all bodies, then his body is also the trans body,” the sermon concluded.

A congregation member, who wished to remain anonymous, told Dr Banner in a complaint letter: “I left the service in tears. You offered to speak with me afterwards, but I was too distressed. I am contemptuous of the idea that by cutting a hole in a man, through which he can be penetrated, he can become a woman. I am especially contemptuous of such imagery when it is applied to our Lord, from the pulpit, at Evensong. I am contemptuous of the notion that we should be invited to contemplate the martyrdom of a ‘trans Christ’, a new heresy for our age.”

Before looking at this further, let me say that this is not in fact a first. Radicals have been making these sorts of blasphemous claims for years now. Back in 2017 for example, a homosexual “pastor” in Texas, in seeking to oppose a transgender bathroom bill said this:

“In the beginning, God created humankind in God’s image. … So God is transgender. We’re all created in the image of what is holy and divine and sacred, and we should all be treated that way.”

Of course, that is just as idiotic and sacrilegious as what Heath is trying to suggest. Indeed, the level of dishonesty here alone is enough to make you ill. Even taking the word “transgender” at its most basic, it of course can never be used to describe God. As an adjective, it has to do with those whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

Thus a girl no longer wants to identify as female or a guy does not want to identify as male. That is what the term actually means. So how in the world can we apply something like this to God? The Bible is crystal clear in informing us that God is a spirit, and is not a sexual being at all.

The Divine Nature

As I put it in an article about God and gender: “God is not gendered, nor a sexual being. God is a spirit, as we are told by Jesus Himself in John 4:24: ‘God is spirit, and His worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.’ Divine beings are not male nor female. But, God is also a personal being. God is not a human being, but is nonetheless personal.”

The fact that we are made in His image does not mean of course that we are spiritual, sexless beings. It means we share in his personal characteristics — we are people with mind, will and emotion. The fact that God made us of two different sexes — male and female — is the creational order and blueprint for how we are as sexual beings.

Nowhere in the creation account — or anywhere else in Scripture — are we told that the way God made mankind can involve choosing a different sex to the one we are born with. We are either male or female, end of story. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that our sex is a matter of indifference or of choice or of preference.

As to Heath’s woke nonsense, there of course is absolutely nothing in the entire Bible that could lead anyone to even remotely consider such a view. One would never get it from simply reading the Bible or doing sensible exegesis. It has to be imposed upon the biblical text as an artificial ideological construct.

There is no social construct to human sexuality, either in Scripture or in all of human experience. There is no biology or science that can back up the trans agenda. And there is no biblical data either. Our understanding of being made in the image of God must include God’s original intentions of creating us as male and female.

Enfleshed Souls

In his recent book on transgenderism, American Christian ethicist J. Alan Branch reminds us,

“Our sexual identity as male or female is integral to being made in God’s image. If we can learn anything from GRS [gender reassignment surgery], perhaps we should learn the degree to which our sexual identity is profoundly related to our bodies.”

God and the Transgender DebateAnother American ethicist, Andrew Walker, speaks about God’s majestic blueprint in creation. He reminds us that mankind is the high point in creation, since we are made in God’s image. And that means all of us, including our bodies:

“Every aspect of who we are carries and reflects that dignity — our minds, our hearts, and our bodies. All are created, and all therefore carry value and are designed to have dignity. This means matter matters. Our bodies matter. Your body is not arbitrary; it is intentional. While you are more than your body, you are not less.”

He continues,

“To misunderstand, blur, or reject the Creator’s categories for humanity doesn’t just put us in rebellion against the Creator and creation — it puts us at odds with how each of us was made. Since God made a ‘very good’ world, with no flaws, and since that world included humans created as men and humans created as women, to strive to become different than or even the opposite of how God made us can never result in happiness, flourishing, and joy, whatever it promises.”

Biblical studies professor Denny Burk puts it this way:

“The creation norm described in Genesis involves biological complementarity for the purposes of procreation. Hence, God commands the couple, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). There is no spectrum here. There is a functioning biological dichotomy between male and female that enables procreation. In other words, what God calls “good” is binary sexual complementarity. This original situation does not present us with a spectrum. Rather, it presents us with sexual dimorphism.”

The American author and commentator Nancy Pearcey also highlights these truths:

“A biblical worldview leads to a positive view of the body. It says that the biological correspondence between male and female is part of the original creation. Sexual differentiation is part of what God pronounced ‘very good’ — morally good — which means it provides a reference point for morality. There is a purpose in the physical structures of our bodies that we are called to respect. A teleological morality creates harmony between biological identity and gender identity. The body/person is an integrated psychosexual unity. Matter does matter.”

Transgenderism is an absolute non-starter in biblical reality and in all other reality. Bruce Jenner the man is not and can never be a woman. The same with Jesus. He was born a male, lived a male, and died a male. Sure, as the God-man, He is unique.

But Jesus the man was fully male and could never be anything else. To even suggest otherwise is the height of heresy and anti-biblical bigotry. But such is the culture we live in today. It is certainly to be found throughout the world, but increasingly it is filtering into the churches.

If you ever find this happening in a Christian church near you, your best response is likely to head for the hills.


Originally published at CultureWatch. Photo by Alexander Grey.

Thank the Source

Farah Griffin: Balenciaga Campaign Is A ‘Bad Misstep’ Because Republicans Pounced

Farah Griffin: Balenciaga Campaign Is A ‘Bad Misstep’ Because Republicans Pounced

Former Trump White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah Griffin earned her seat on ABC’s “The View” because she proved more than willing to not just bend the knee to her leftist counterparts, but to aim her fire at the conservatives she allegedly represents. Farah Griffin did just that Monday morning when discussing luxury brand Balenciaga’s controversial, sexualized ad campaign featuring children holding teddy bears dressed in BDSM outfits.

Farah Griffin’s problem with Balenciaga’s disturbing images was not so much the exploitation and endangerment of toddlers, but, she said, that the brand’s campaign “played right into [the] hands” of the “far-right” and anyone opposed to pushing transgender ideology on minors.

You can watch the full segment here.

“I think it was a really bad misstep at a moment where it’s just kind of a dangerous time to even give credence to those kind of insane takes,” she said.

Those “insane takes,” which Farah Griffin also inaccurately referred to as “growing anti-LGBTQ sentiment” and “portraying, you know, trans people as groomers” are indeed given credence by the Balenciaga campaign.

Vocal parents from across the political spectrum have spent the last year pushing back on the sexualization and indoctrination of children and there is nothing “insane” or “far-right” about their efforts. Whether it’s calling out Disney’s blatant insertion of “queer” content in children’s entertainment or exposing the transgender ideology and gender identity lessons that public school teachers are openly pushing on students, conservative arguments are much more valid and articulate than Farah Griffin’s “trans people = groomers” bad faith translation.

If Farah Griffin wanted to reduce her take on the Balenciaga campaign to something so simple, why not try something like, “child exploitation = bad”? Well, because that’s not what ABC pays her to do, and it doesn’t matter if conservatives are right or not, or “given credence” or not. As the “conservative” co-host, Griffin will always make her own side the target of her hot take.

As I wrote when Farah Griffin clinched the permanent seat at the “Hot Topics” table this summer, she got the job precisely because she is willing to trash her own “previously held beliefs, convictions, and career’s work in exchange for seal claps, media attention, and the approval of Whoopi Goldberg.”

Even when the topic is so black and white — even when Balenciaga itself has admitted its own gross errors — Farah Griffin earns her paycheck by aiming her fire at conservatives and affirming The Narrative above all else. Sadly, the worst part is that it makes for really boring television.


Hutchinson: GOP Needs ‘Tone Down’ Transphobic Grooming Rhetoric

Hutchinson: GOP Needs ‘Tone Down’ Transphobic Grooming Rhetoric

Outgoing Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) said Friday on CNN’s “New Day” that Republicans needed to “tone down” their transphobic rhetoric talking about pedophilia and grooming.

Guest host Brianna Keilar said, “I do want to ask you, in light of this shooting at the LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs, do you think that members of your party needed to tone down some of their transphobic language? We’ve heard officials talking about pedophilia, grooming, demonizing trans people?”

Hutchinson said, “Well, in all of our society, we need to tone down harsh rhetoric that causes others to hate. That’s not what our society should be about. And that is horrific, what happened in that nightclub. Our hearts go out there, as it should. And hopefully, it will cause us all to be more reflective about what we say, how we say it, and how we might stigmatize certain elements of our population, which is not good.”

Keilar said, “Can I ask you, governor, specifically, just about those kinds of comments that I was highlighting because we are talking specifically about a situation here with the suspect facing hate crime charges? Specifically, is there room in your belief for that kind of language in the Republican Party?”

Hutchinson asked, “You mean harsh language in reference to the trans community?”

Keilar said, “Yes.”

Hutchinson said, “I think that we need to show compassion for all elements. There is a debate we had this in Arkansas as to what you do with trans children that are struggling with gender identity and how you handle the medications and things like that. Those are fair points of discussion in the policy arena. But you don’t have to translate that into hate or harshness that again stigmatizes. So, again, it’s very important whether you are Republican or Democrat, I know you’re talking about Republicans, that we use rhetoric and words that try to bring people together and not divide us, and it’s true whether you’re talking about race or whether you’re talking about, you know, sexual identity, you don’t want to say things that’s going to cause others to hate more, and they might respond with violence. That is not what we need. We need to suppress that every chance we get.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


Weingarten: Republicans’ Transgender Rhetoric Is ‘Demonic’

Weingarten: Republicans’ Transgender Rhetoric Is ‘Demonic’

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Deadline” that Republicans’ transgender rhetoric was both “demonic” and “dangerous.”

In an interview with Semafor, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said “Ihe most dangerous person in the world” was Randi Weingarten.

“It’s not a close call,” he said. “If you ask, ‘Who’s the most likely to take this republic down?’ It would be the teacher’s unions and the filth that they’re teaching our kids.’”

Weingarten said, “It was both ridiculous and dangerous, but more than that, it was pathetic in that he is attacking teachers. The piece I found most dangerous and pathetic was when he called what we do filth. We know what code that’s about.”

She continued, “What’s happening in terms of teachers is that this fear campaign calling us groomers like DeSantis did, give me a break. Then saying we’re so, so important, and yet we’re trying to convince kids to change their sexes? Again, another smear.”

Weingarten added, “The real issue for teachers is that it’s making our jobs harder. It’s making it harder to lift kids up, to create empathy, to create a safe and welcoming environment. It’s scaring the bejesus out of people because, you know, when people go after me, they feel like what’s going to happen to them? And these are the folks who are at the core with parents of helping kids have a future to critically think to get their mojo back. So if I sound really angry, I am.”

She concluded, “They spent $50 million against trans kids in this last election. How dare they? And you wonder what just happened in the club in Colorado? So what’s dangerous is their rhetoric. What is demonic is their rhetoric. The fact they think this is going to get them the Republican nomination, I think Republicans are better than this.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


NBC’s Collins: Right ‘Targeting’ Transgender People to Blame for CO Shooting 

NBC’s Collins: Right ‘Targeting’ Transgender People to Blame for CO Shooting 

NBC reporter Ben Collins said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that “Republican politicians” and the “internet’s far-right machine” were targeting transgender people, which resulted in Saturday’s shooting at Club Q in Colorado Springs, CO.

Collins said, “I do want to say, though, am I doing something wrong here? Here are some headlines that I wrote the last six months. ‘Fueled by internet’s far-right machine, anti-LGBTQ+ threats shut down trans rights and drag events.’ Remember, there was a drag event happening in Colorado. ‘Anti-trans stalkers at Kiwi Farms,’ which was an anti-trans website that stalks people, ‘are chasing one victim around the world. Their list of targets is growing.’ That was a couple of months ago. ‘Doctors under threat from far-right activist for providing trans care.’ ‘Boston Children’s Hospital faces bomb threat after right-wing harassment campaign.’ There were three of those bomb threats. ‘FBI charges Massachusetts woman with Boston Children’s Hospital bomb threats.’ They found one of the people. ‘At least 20 Republican politicians have claimed that schools are making accommodations for students who identify as cats.’ That was before the midterms.”

He added, “Here are three more from my colleagues in the last three weeks. ‘As the election nears, some conservative groups have ramped up anti-trans campaign ads.’ ‘Far-right figures appear to be testing Twitter’s boundaries for anti-LGBTQ speech.’ ‘GOP senator targets TikTok influencer with anti-transgender taunt.’ And I’m just wondering, what could I have done different? Seriously, as reporters, what can we do different? Because there are five dead people in a strip mall because that was the only place they felt safe as gay or trans people in this town of Colorado Springs. And I’m trying to thread this needle here. I’m trying to say this is happening. This targeted stuff has real-life impacts. And I’m going to fail, by the way. I’m going to, you know, freak out because it’s happening because I wake up, and I see that there are five dead bodies. But I think we have to have a come-to-Jesus moment here as reporters. Are we more afraid of being on Breitbart for saying that trans people deserve to be alive, or are we more afraid of the dead people? Because I’m more afraid of the dead people. I don’t want to wake up on a Sunday and see that all of these headlines came to fruition.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


Most Children with Gender Dysphoria are Going Through a ‘Phase’

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) and the global news agency Reuters are among a growing number of voices around the world raising concerns about the affirmative care approach to treating children experiencing gender dysphoria.

England’s NHS recently warned doctors not to encourage children who believe they are transgender to change their names and pronouns — finding that most of them are only going through a “phase”, according to a report in The Telegraph.

“In line with this advice, the interim service specification sets out more clearly that the clinical approach in regard to pre-pubertal children will reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence.”

According to some studies, roughly 84 per cent of children grow out of gender dysphoria.

Social Contagion

The NHS also warned that “social transition” — in which a child wears the clothes of the opposite sex and takes on a new name — “should not be viewed as a neutral act”, as it could have “significant effects” on the child’s “psychological functioning”.

It comes amid an explosion in the number of young people identifying as transgender, with a disproportionate number of them being female.

The number of children referred for transitioning treatment in the UK increased by 1,000% among males and 4,400% among females, between 2009 and 2019, according to a report in the New York Post. In the United States, a Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report found the number of young people identifying as transgender had nearly doubled since 2017.

While the number of children identifying as transgender has been exploding, there has also been an increase in the number of “de-transitioners” — people who regret their “transition” and have returned to identifying with their biological sex.

Bioethical Concerns

The NHS has announced the UK’s Tavistock gender identity clinic will be shut down following an independent review by Dr Hilary Cass which found primary and secondary care staff felt “under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach.”

According to The Telegraph, the NHS “plans to restrict the treatment of young people under the age of 18 who are questioning their gender” following the finding that most of them are going through a “phase”.

“Those plans include a ban on prescribing young people puberty blockers outside of strictly-conducted clinical trials… and the plans emphasize that there is ‘scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making.’”

These findings are supported by a special report filed by Reuters on October 6, 2022, titled ‘As more transgender children seek medical care, families confront many unknowns.’

The report focuses on gender-affirming care in the United States and begins by observing that while “thousands of youths are lining up for gender-affirming care… when families decide to take the medical route, they must make decisions about life-altering treatments that have little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy.”

Danger Zone

United States President Joe Biden recently told a transgender activist he doesn’t think “any state, or anybody” should have the right to ban gender-affirmative care practices. However, his administration is currently spending $17 million on studies to “analyze the dangers and uncertainties” of puberty blockers and hormone therapy treatment drugs being used to treat gender dysphoria in children.

According to a Fox News report, one of the studies hypothesised that puberty blockers may “disrupt puberty-signaled neural maturation in ways that can undermine mental health gains over time and impact quality of life in other ways.”

The Reuters investigation noted that puberty blockers are not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to be used for children’s gender care:

“No clinical trials have established their safety for such off-label use. The drugs’ long-term effects on fertility and sexual function remain unclear. And in 2016, the FDA ordered makers of puberty blockers to add a warning about psychiatric problems to the drugs’ label after the agency received several reports of suicidal thoughts in children who were taking them.”

European Experience

These concerns have not just been raised in England and the United States. In February 2022, the French National Academy of Medicine warned that “a great medical caution must be taken in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability, particularly psychological, of this population and the many undesirable effects, and even serious complications, that some of the available therapies can cause.”

The February 25th press release stated “there is no test to distinguish a “structural” gender dysphoria from transient dysphoria in adolescence” and highlighted the negative side effects of puberty blockers and hormone therapy including; “impact on growth, bone fragility, risk of sterility, emotional and intellectual consequences and, for girls, symptoms reminiscent of menopause.”

The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare also updated its treatment recommendations in February after a review found “the evidence base for hormonal interventions for gender-dysphoric youth is of low quality, and…hormonal treatments may carry risks.” The Swedish review noted that a growing number of people are de-transitioning.

The movement away from “unquestioning affirmative care” is in stark contrast to recommendations of The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. WPATH’s Standards of Care Version 8 draft guidelines currently recommend there should be a “general assumption” to treat gender dysphoria in youth with hormones and surgeries, with the desire of the patient being the “ultimate eligibility criterion”.

However, under these affirmative care guidelines, thousands of children are being subjected to life-changing medical interventions to treat a condition that the majority of them would naturally grow out of, according to the evidence.

Against “Affirmation”

The President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Ryan T. Anderson, PhD, pointed out the Orwellian nature of “affirmative care”, in a newly released documentary Dysconnected:

“If you are a licensed medical professional and you have a girl who doesn’t feel comfortable being a girl, identifying as a girl, living as a girl and you help her feel comfortable being a girl, that’s considered “conversion”, but if you give that girl testosterone, if you perform a mastectomy on that girl, if you “convert her into a boy”, that’s considered “affirmation”, right? It’s totally Orwellian language.”

Back in May, American left-wing comedian and political commentator Bill Maher offered a common-sense critique of the idea that children should be able to decide their own “gender identity” in a segment of his Real Time With Bill Maher show entitled “New Rule: Along for the Pride”.

“Gender fluid — kids are fluid about everything. If kids knew what they wanted to be at age eight, the world would be filled with cowboys and princesses. I wanted to be a pirate. Thank God nobody took me seriously and scheduled me for eye removal and peg leg surgery.”

The countries which have updated their guidelines to restrict “affirmative care” practices will decrease the number of children undergoing the equivalent of “eye removal and peg leg surgery”.

It is undeniable there has been an explosion in the number of young people experiencing gender dysphoria. The serious question now facing those on all sides of the issue is: what is the best way to compassionately care for them? Around the world, a growing number of countries are realising the unquestioning affirmative care approach cannot be the answer.

We will follow up this article by examining some of the underlying causes behind the explosion in gender dysphoria and transgender identification around the world.


Originally published at Family Life International. Photo by Pavel Danilyuk.

Thank the Source

Five Years After Same-Sex Marriage Was Legalised

Politicians who had nothing to do with it celebrate like it was their achievement.

It’s five years since Australia voted to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Now we have 72 genders, the words mother and father are considered controversial, and drag queens are reading stories to children on the ABC.


Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk celebrated the five-year anniversary with a tweet so mindless that it could only have been written by her deputy Steven Miles.

Over a photograph of herself in a gay Pride “It’s Time” T-shirt, the Premier wrote:

Five years ago today, Queenslanders voted yes.

Because love is love.

Er, nobody ever said love wasn’t love, Premier. What the hell are you talking about?

Does the Premier really believe some people weren’t allowed to love each other before gay marriage was a thing?

Her insinuation, of course, is that anyone who voted ‘no’ to redefining marriage was voting against love.

I guess Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were against love when they failed to legislate in favour of gay marriage. Bigots.

Anyway, it’s not very loving to say that anyone who disagrees with you is not very loving. But I digress.

What I don’t understand is why Premier Palaszczuk is still limiting marriage to only two people. Love is love, right? So why not allow three people to love each other, or four people? Why shouldn’t a Muslim man love six women? Why is the Palaszczuk government against love?

If love is love then there is surely no limit to how far one can take this. “Love is love” is an expression used by paedophiles. They’re evil, but they’re not stupid.

Will the Queensland Premier be passing legislation outlawing the word paedophile and replacing it with the term Minor Attracted Person? Love is love. Or is love only love when politicians say so?

Anyway, there wasn’t much love from the Premier for unvaccinated people during the Covid panic.

Hate is hate.

And lies are lies.

The funniest thing about the Labor Premier’s gay celebratory tweet is that same-sex marriage was organised by the Federal Liberal Government. It had nothing to do with Labor, who are now trying to claim it as their historic achievement.

Love may be love, but revisionist history is not history.

Here is senior Labor MP Tanya Plibersek:

Australia didn’t say say “yes”. The survey returned 7.8 million “Yes” votes from 12.7 million votes that were cast, or 61 per cent. Labor MPs were never much good with numbers.

Victorian Tolerance

Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews can’t remember how decisions leading to the death of 800 people in hotel quarantine were made, but he will always remember where he was and what he was doing when gay marriage became a thing.


Oh, but he had more to say:

When Daniel Andrews talks about “the relief, the joy and the pride”, I’m pretty sure he is referring to anti-lockdown protesters being shot in the back with rubber bullets.

One thing is for sure, when Daniel Andrews — of all people — talks about the country becoming “a fairer place”, you know you’re in the Twilight Zone.

Here is a picture of Andrew Thorburn, who lost his $850,000-a-year job as Essendon Football CEO because he attends an Anglican Church that believes in traditional marriage.

Andrew Thorburn

Andrew, now unemployed, can tell you all about how Victoria is “a fairer place” since gay marriage was legalised.

As for the Victorian Premier’s claim that “there’s been no slippery slope” since the introduction of gay marriage…


(stop to catch my breath)


(pause to wipe tears from my eyes)


(pick myself up off the floor)

Daniel “there’s been no slippery slope” Andrews has literally banned people from praying for someone who is gender-confused — even if the prayer is requested — under threat of 10 years’ jail!

Gender Benders

Here is Drag Queen Courtney Love reading a story to kids on Play School about a girl who wants to dress as a boy in order to demonstrate that “five years on there’s been no slippery slope”.

drag-queen-ABC-Play-School - after same-sex marriage legalisation

And here is Department of Health secretary Brendon Murphy telling a Senate Estimates Hearing that he cannot say for sure what a woman is without first getting advice from his department, also to demonstrate that absolutely nothing has changed since gay marriage was legalised apart from the fact that no one knows up from down anymore.

Brendan Murphy

Funny that Daniel Andrews insists “there is no slippery slope”, because Greens leader Adam Bandt insists that there is a direct link between the legalising of gay marriage and the fight for transgender rights.

Celebrating the fifth anniversary of gay marriage yesterday, Bandt wrote:

We saw the impacts of people having to justify their rights. Now trans people are in the same fight.

Bandt literally says that gay marriage leads to trans rights. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a freeway!

Bandt is a divisive fool. He went on to say,

“Love won, but LGBTIQ people had to fight through a hate campaign to get there.”

Bandt’s enduring memory of love winning is the “hate”. Whatever.

Was openly gay Foreign Minister Penny Wong waging a hate campaign against the LGBTIQ community when she backed the Labor Party’s opposition to same-sex marriage in 2010?

She said at the time:

“On the issue of marriage, I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect.” 

Was Penny Wong engaged in a hate campaign against herself?

As for Bandt’s assertion that trans people “should not have to prove that they exist”… HUH?

Who has to prove they exist?

I don’t believe Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, but I do believe Caitlyn Jenner exists.

Does it ever concern people like Adam Bandt that they are irresponsibly telling people untruths that will harm their well-being?

Rather than worrying about trans people having to prove their existence, Mr Bandt should worry about women being erased.

Anyway, happy five years of gay marriage. It’s been fabulous.


Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.

Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Photo by Ivan Samkov.

Thank the Source


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)