Politicians Profaning Psychiatry

Among countless stories published about gender ideology, there is one which must not go unnoticed by anyone who genuinely cares about the health of society, and in particular the well-being of minors.

The article is entitled Is Gender Affirming Care the Latest Example of the Politicisation of Psychiatry? Its author is Queensland child psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer, who was recently sacked after warning that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones pose serious risks to children. Multiple legal challenges about her whistleblower status still remain unresolved.

Spencer exposes that gender affirming care (GAC)—the controversial way of treating young people who feel distressed about their gender—looks more like a political movement than the medical treatment it is espoused to be.

She points to several reasons why the answer to the article’s question about the politicisation of psychiatry is a resounding “Yes”.

She explains how GAC (or GAS—Gender Annihilating Scars—as one of my detransitioner friends refers to the ‘treatment’ he received having been gaslit for years by clinicians and politicians and left without his genitalia) is being offered today based not on strong scientific evidence from enlightened clinicians but on government decisions formed by activist groups who play a major role in shaping how GAC is used in healthcare.

The author joins a growing number of critics noting how many Western societies are paralleling history when psychiatry was used to support political goals and suppress political dissent. She compares GAC to past abuses of psychiatry in regimes like the USSR, Nazi Germany, and Communist Romania under the Ceausescu government.

She argues that doctors in Australia are feeling pressured to follow GAC guidelines which now demand a visual and linguistic allegiance that includes the use of pride flags, pronoun badges, mandated language and

terms such as “sex assigned at birth”, “gender identity”, “cisgender” and “nonbinary”. The terms are repeatedly defined in various documents, journal articles and education programs for clinicians.

She sees the use of certain symbols and language in clinical settings as evidence of ideological enforcement, with workplaces expecting staff to show unquestionable support for GAC.

She goes on to say that

the terms incorporate an unproven theoretical concept which is politically momentous: that people should be dealt with according to a claimed gender identity and not biological sex. Changes in language appear to be an attempt to embed this political concept in clinicians’ minds. The use of the prescribed language signals a clinician’s allegiance to the political ideas in the workplace and places other clinicians under social pressure to conform. Preferred pronouns differ from being a mere courtesy because they are an essential element of the affirming treatment approach. Preferred pronouns only became mandated as part of the imposition of the GAC treatment approach upon clinicians. In addition, preferred pronouns are clinically impactful, especially for children.

Spencer cites two Australian Family Court cases—Re: Ash and Re: Devin. Both reveal clearly how GAC is upheld through legal mechanisms, even when one parent disagrees or when clinical standards are questioned.

These cases should serve as a stark warning and a vibrant wake-up call to all parents and caregivers raising minors, especially in the state of Victoria where the ‘LGBTIQA+ Student Support’ section on the Department of Education website 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. (my highlights)

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.

Regarding the published 2024 Family Court judgment Re: Ash, Spencer writes that

Justice Tree unwittingly exposed the means by which the GAC political agenda was enforced on psychiatry in Australia; namely: the use of propaganda, the substitution of new ethical principles, the lauding of clinicians implementing the mandated model, and the denigration of dissidents.

This particular Family Court judgment shows that gender clinician activists continue to promulgate disproven or unproven information to exert influence.

Spencer states that by presenting GAC as a psychiatric necessity, and not just as one of many possible options, governments can push a political agenda without seeming authoritarian. This makes it harder for the public to question GAC, since it appears to be backed by medical experts. It also suppresses the wisdom that arises from ongoing debate.

All clinicians who disagree with GAC now expect to face social backlash and worry about losing their jobs or medical licenses as has happened unjustly and unnecessarily to Spencer. The message to doctors is clear: conform and never question, or face professional risks.

She focusses on the role that political activist organisations like AusPATH (Australian Professional Association for Trans Health) have played through their masquerade as health organisations. This blending of lived experience with medical authority, Spencer correctly suggests, has undermined scientific rigour and embedded political activism in healthcare policy.

With this in mind, society is now presented with major ethical concerns.

Spencer argues that classic medical ethics—beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, justice—are being replaced by politicised principles like “dignity of risk,” which she accurately claims are misapplied to children and adolescents making long-term elective medical decisions with the potential of serious and profound long-term health implications such as infertility or reduced fertility, reduced or absent sexual functioning, physical health complications and the risk of regret.

Spencer courageously, and at great personal cost, has spoken out on behalf of many clinicians who feel professionally muzzled. There are fewer voices in Australia’s gender debate that need to be listened to as seriously as hers.

Truly, the lunatics are now running the asylum. And who are the victims being sacrificed on the altar of this politicised pantomime? Our most vulnerable children and adolescents, of course.

James Parker is a former gay activist and abuse survivor who supports people and their loved ones around sexuality, gender and identity. Today, he facilitates True Identity, an informal national network creating peer support for those struggling with porn and sex addiction, and with issues relating to sexuality, gender and identity.