Australian medical practitioners Alison Clayton, Andrew James Amos, Patrick Clarke and Jillian Spencer have called for a review of Australian gender clinic practices in light of the Cass Report.

In their discussion they use the umbrella term the “gender-affirming care treatment model” (GACTM) when referring to clinical practices. 

The paper calls out the lack of engagement by Australian services unwilling to take heed of the findings in the Cass Report. 

Some of the arguments used by gender clinic advocates have included that it is not relevant to our country or that the study wasn’t rigorous enough. The authors address each of these objections in turn and refute them outright.

The GACTM used to treat minors with GD/GI in Australia’s public youth gender services is similar to the one criticized by Cass. Furthermore, a systematic review, commissioned by Cass, evaluated 23 international and national guidelines/clinical guidance publications. This found that the Australian guidelines, 3 which define the GACTM for youth in Australia, lack methodological rigour and editorial independence, and they were not recommended for use in practice.

To date, Australian medical authorities have largely ignored the Cass report’s findings and recommendations. Claims have been made that the Cass Review’s methodology is flawed and that Australian practice already conforms to Cass’s recommended practice. Given Cass’s critique of the Australian guidelines and recommendation for the NHS to establish a PB (puberty blockers) clinical trial, whereas in Australia PB remain an integral part of the GACTM, this latter claim is implausible.

An urgent inquiry is required in Australia due to claims from an increasing number of victims who indicate that what the gender clinics spruik and what they actually do are two different things.

A further important issue to note is the difference between rhetoric versus practice. Just like Australian gender clinics, the Tavistock youth gender clinic also claimed to be undertaking holistic, individualised, and multidisciplinary assessments. It was only under review that it was found that practice was not living up to the rhetoric. In our professional practice, we are aware of parents and ex-patients who report unsatisfactory experiences of assessment at Australian gender clinics, including, for example, failure to identify and manage conditions such as trauma and autism. These reports suggest that practice in Australia’s gender services may share the problems reported at the Tavistock, including that the focus on gender-related issues may overshadow other issues negatively impacting on a young person’s well-being. An inquiry which includes an independent audit of gender clinic files may be the only way to determine if the same issues that beset the Tavistock clinic are occurring in Australia.

In our opinion, Australian health authorities should, as a matter of urgency, institute an independent investigation to review the practices in Australian youth gender clinics and consider stipulating that puberty blockers for GD/GI should only be prescribed under ethics committee-approved clinical trials.

You can sign Binary’s petition here to add your voice to the increasing number of concerned Australians calling for a review into harmful gender treatment practices.