UPDATE - Australia’s Gender Healthcare Policy:
Mark Butler’s Sudden Shift or Political Manoeuvring?
(*sigh* It was not as it seemed, it seems…)
Mark Butler’s Change of Course on Gender Healthcare—or a Strategic Delay?
For years, Australian Health Minister Mark Butler resisted calls for an independent inquiry into gender healthcare, dismissing comparisons to international reviews such as the UK’s Cass Review. Despite growing concerns about the safety and efficacy of the gender-affirming model—which relies on guidelines from AusPATH and WPATH—Butler maintained that Australia’s approach was distinct from the controversial practices now being rejected by multiple European nations.
Yet, in an unexpected turn, Butler has now directed the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to conduct a comprehensive review of gender healthcare in Australia, aiming to create new national guidelines. However, deeper analysis suggests this move is not an objective, evidence-based reassessment, but rather a politically motivated effort to stall Queensland’s independent inquiry into gender healthcare, led by the state’s Liberal Health Minister Tim Nicholls.
Evidence Suggests a Political Play
A recent podcast by Assistant Health Minister Ged Kearney, which I have transcribed*, reveals that the NHMRC review was prompted by Transcend and AusPATH—two activist organizations deeply invested in the gender-affirming model. Kearney makes it clear that this review aligns with the government’s LGBTIQA+ Health Action Plan, contradicting the claim that it is an independent, objective inquiry.
* https://x.com/gedkearney/status/1885196970018418929
Rather than signalling a move away from WPATH and AusPATH’s controversial standards, Butler’s move appears to be a strategic attempt to undermine Queensland’s legitimate investigation by kicking the issue beyond the next election cycle, ensuring that any real reforms are indefinitely delayed.
The Problems with NHMRC and Its Ties to AusPATH
While Butler’s decision seemed to suggest a move away from AusPATH and WPATH and that was being framed as a victory for evidence-based care, serious concerns remain about the independence and rigor of this review:
NHMRC Funds Pro-Transition Advocates:
NHMRC has provided research funding to Dr. Ada Cheung, a well-known proponent of the gender-affirming model and an advocate for AusPATH’s positions. This raises concerns about whether the review will genuinely be independent or just a rebranding of the same gender-affirming policies.AusPATH’s Questionable Authority:
Despite branding itself as a medical association, AusPATH is primarily an activist organization, including members with no medical training. It has promoted low-quality research and played a significant role in influencing the now-discredited Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) guidelines, which received a dismal 19/100 for development rigor in the Cass Review.Activists Steering the Process:
Kearney stated that NHMRC will work “closely” with AusPATH, Transcend, and people with ‘lived experience’, raising alarms about activist-driven policy overriding objective evidence.
Why the Timing Matters
The Queensland Liberal government’s planned inquiry into puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery for minors poses a direct threat to the Labor federal government’s support for gender-affirming policies. If Queensland’s inquiry proceeds unimpeded, it could expose major flaws in the current model—just as the Cass Review did in the UK.
By launching this NHMRC review, Butler provides a convenient excuse for Labor-friendly institutions and activists to pressure Queensland into halting their inquiry, arguing that the issue should be left to the federal government. If successful, this strategy would allow Labor to push the issue past the next election and maintain the status quo.
What This Means for Australians
Regardless of intent, Australians should be highly skeptical of this NHMRC review. Any suggestion that this is a move away from WPATH and AusPATH guidelines and this move is a step toward evidence-based care, well, the details suggest otherwise:
Will NHMRC conduct a truly independent review, or will it merely serve as a vehicle for activists to repackage the same gender-affirming policies?
Will the review acknowledge the serious harms caused by puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries on minors—or will it continue the narrative that these treatments are ‘life-saving’?
Will Queensland be allowed to complete its independent inquiry, or will Labor pressure the state into abandoning it?
Will new guidelines be informed by rigorous systematic reviews like those in Sweden, Finland, and the UK—or will NHMRC favor biased research from AusPATH and pro-affirmation advocates?
The Road Ahead: Demand Transparency
This review represents a pivotal moment in Australia’s approach to gender medicine. It signals that the government is feeling the pressure from international scrutiny and growing public concern. However, the process itself must be scrutinized to ensure that it is not just a performative gesture, but a genuine effort to align Australian healthcare with global best practices.
Australians concerned about the long-term wellbeing of children and adolescents should demand full transparency. Any NHMRC recommendations must be based on robust, systematic reviews—not activist lobbying and ideological commitments.
If the government’s intent is genuine, it will allow Queensland’s independent inquiry to proceed without interference. If it pressures Queensland to step back, it will confirm that this review is a stalling tactic rather than a true effort to safeguard children’s health.
The Problems with NHMRC and Its Ties to AusPATH
While Butler’s decision to move away from AusPATH and WPATH is being framed as a victory for evidence-based care, serious concerns remain about the independence and rigor of this review:
* NHMRC Funds Pro-Transition Advocates: NHMRC has provided research funding to Dr. Ada Cheung, a well-known proponent of the gender-affirming model and an advocate for AusPATH’s positions. This raises concerns about whether the review will genuinely be independent or just a rebranding of the same gender-affirming policies.
AusPATH’s Questionable Authority: Despite branding itself as a medical association, AusPATH is primarily an activist organization, including members with no medical training. It has promoted low-quality research and played a significant role in influencing the now-discredited Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) guidelines, which received a dismal 19/100 for development rigor in the Cass Review.
Activists Steering the Process: Kearney stated that NHMRC will work “closely” with AusPATH, Transcend, and people with ‘lived experience’, raising alarms about activist-driven policy overriding objective evidence.
Why the Timing Matters
The Queensland government’s planned inquiry into puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery for minors poses a direct threat to the Labor federal government’s support for gender-affirming policies. If Queensland’s inquiry proceeds unimpeded, it could expose major flaws in the current model—just as the Cass Review did in the UK.
By launching this NHMRC review, Butler provides a convenient excuse for Labor-friendly institutions and activists to pressure Queensland into halting their inquiry, arguing that the issue should be left to the federal government. If successful, this strategy would allow Labor to push the issue past the next election and maintain the status quo.
What This Means for Australians
Regardless of intent, Australians should be highly skeptical of this NHMRC review. The decision to move away from WPATH and AusPATH guidelines is being presented as a step toward evidence-based care, but the details suggest otherwise:
Will NHMRC conduct a truly independent review, or will it merely serve as a vehicle for activists to repackage the same gender-affirming policies?
Will the review acknowledge the serious harms caused by puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries on minors—or will it continue the narrative that these treatments are ‘life-saving’?
Will Queensland be allowed to complete its independent inquiry, or will Labor pressure the state into abandoning it?
Will new guidelines be informed by rigorous systematic reviews like those in Sweden, Finland, and the UK—or will NHMRC favor biased research from AusPATH and pro-affirmation advocates?
The Road Ahead: Demand Transparency
This review represents a pivotal moment in Australia’s approach to gender medicine. It signals that the government is feeling the pressure from international scrutiny and growing public concern. However, the process itself must be scrutinized to ensure that it is not just a performative gesture, but a genuine effort to align Australian healthcare with global best practices.
Australians concerned about the long-term wellbeing of children and adolescents should demand full transparency. Any NHMRC recommendations must be based on robust, systematic reviews—not activist lobbying and ideological commitments.
If the government’s intent is genuine, it will allow Queensland’s independent inquiry to proceed without interference. If it pressures Queensland to step back, it will confirm that this review is a stalling tactic rather than a true effort to safeguard children’s health.
by Catherine Karena
This is so disappointing I wish Dutton would say something
Ged Kearney - Federal Assistant Minister of Health's podcast - transcript:
"Hello everybody. Well, today the Labor Government made an announcement about the clinical care of trans and gender diverse children and adolescents.
Now, we already have excellent clinical guidelines 🤪that have been developed by experts; but, we've never had those guidelines nationally consistent.
Recently, AusPath, an organisation made up of clinicians who care for gender diverse and trans children and adolescents, and Transcend, a very important organisation that cares for the mental health of that community, wrote to the government and said these excellent🤥 clinical guidelines really do need to be updated.
Now we have agreed and we think they do need to be updated, so we have asked the National Health and Medical Research Council to undertake this updating of these guidelines.
The NHMRC is the perfect body to do this, and of course, they will consult very closely with the community, including organisations like AusPath and Transcend, people with lived experience, and clinicians, to make sure that the care a very vulnerable part of our community gets is up to date and in line with the most recent scientific evidence.
Now this is actually in line with the LGBTIQA+ action plan, the health action plan which we announced a couple of weeks ago. Or last year actually. This is one of the recommendations, a very important recommendation.
We think that our trans and gender diverse children and adolescents deserve the best health care, just like you, just like me, just like everybody in Australia deserves the best health care; and this is not a national inquiry.
This is an updating of the clinical care guidelines that the community 🤥 has asked for, which are overdue and that need to be nationalised. We expect all children to have continuity of care, to get the care when and where they need it, and updating the clinical guidelines; we hope will go a long way to ensuring that."