While commendable in principle, the Government’s proposed Bill intended to ban conversion practices that attempt to change or eradicate the sexual orientation or gender identity of another person, fails to address critical inconsistencies with existing laws regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.
In principle, we support laws that prevent conversion practices for sexual orientation, however there are important considerations to be made when drafting new laws when Government have failed to examine serious and adverse health implications of existing laws regarding gender identity and sexual orientation.
Sections of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Act 2001 (TAS) and subsequent amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 have had serious health consequences for those wanting protection under law for their sexual orientation or those struggling with gender dysphoria, especially children. The adverse health implications of these laws go beyond individuals to families and the broader community.
World Health Organisation (W.H.O) 2024 Statement and the Tasmanian Gender Service
In January 2024 The World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) released a statement:
concerning policy on transgender and gender diverse guidelines and stated that the scope of their transgender health guideline:
“will cover adults only and not address the needs of children and adolescents, because on review, the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents,”.
The adverse health effects of these medical interventions are not limited to complications for: cardiovascular, endocrine, fertility, bone health, cognitive development, biomedical risk and uncertainties and sexual function.
The Tasmanian Gender Service currently uses the affirmative model of care for treatment of children with gender dysphoria, a model of care that is the subject of increasing controversy in global health and legal professions. The affirmative model of care is now frequently being described, especially by detransitioner groups, as ‘converting the gay away’.
The Tasmanian Gender Service model of care is clearly at odds with the statement released by the World Health Organisation. Significantly, the lack of any transparency regarding monitoring of health outcomes for people struggling with gender dysphoria who attend the Tasmanian Gender Service or attend private practices in Tasmania has not come under any Government scrutiny. Health and legal experts internationally are now actively engaged in numerous litigation cases with de-transitioners or others claiming to be harmed by unethical health care provided by the proliferating and unregulated gender clinics globally, including in Australia.
Questions need to be addressed as to whether the Tasmanian Gender Service strict adherence to the affirmative care approach of itself constitutes a conversion practice.
We consider that the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Act 2001 (TAS) has resulted in a belief system not based on science or fact becoming entrenched in our education system. Consequently, we have grave concerns that autistic or children who likely would become LGB are being placed under unacceptable pressure and influence from the education system, some teachers as well as political lobby groups. This ideological indoctrination within our education system is causing an in increase in mental health distress for children and their families and educators. Many children who are gender non-conforming are being socially transitioned at schools before they are old enough to know whether they have any particular sexual orientation or indeed need a gender identity at all. The social contagion of gender ideology through schools and social media among vulnerable children is now well recognised as a very real phenomenon. Of great concern is that the social transitioning of children in schools is now considered to be medical transitioning. Again, questions need to be asked as to whether these are yet another form of conversion practices.
While we recognise that the Bill does have exclusions to protect freedom of speech/opinion/belief and that these exclusions are essential to protect civil liberties and political expression, this does not address the core problems of the serious inconsistencies with what we call existing conversion laws. The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Act 2001 (TAS) is having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and political expression for anyone wishing to contest these laws and the harms that have resulted for those with issues concerning sexual orientation, gender identity and the conflict over sex based rights. Alarmingly, the Anti-Discrimination Act no longer provides for protections for lesbians who are same sex attracted, or gay men for that matter.
We urge the Government, that rather than pushing through anti conversion legislation as a response to unrelenting coercion from political lobby groups, that the Government establish a Parliamentary Committee to:
- Review the health and human rights impacts on the Tasmanian community from the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Act 2001 (TAS).
- Hear testimonies at both public and in camera hearings from children, parents, teachers, health professionals, law experts, the LGB and TQ+ communities.
- Investigate: international developments in models of care for those struggling with gender dysphoria; whether the Tasmanian Gender Service is providing the best model of care; implementation of monitoring and reporting guidelines for the Tasmanian Gender Service to enable publicly available data consistent with Privacy Laws.
Lynne Robertson
for Safeguarding Children in Schools Australia
Cassandra Colefax
for Women Speak Tasmania