FEDERAL LIBERAL GOVERNMENT PUSHES FOR EASIER SEX CHANGES FOR KIDS

No, Senator Brandis, we do not accept your reckless approach to gender fluidity in marriage and gender fluidity in our schools.

The Coalition for Marriage is calling on the Federal Government to back down from its push to make it easier for kids to access controversial sex change procedures.

This follows a submission from Attorney-General George Brandis to the Family Court.

We know from multiple studies that around three quarters of children who think they are the wrong sex will change their mind once their body starts changing at puberty.i

“Professor Paul McHugh, a world authority on gender dysphoria, notes that 70-80% of children who reported transgender feelings spontaneously lose those feelings without medical or surgical treatment.ii

Why then, would any doctor or court consider giving dangerous hormones to children before the age of puberty, and why would the Attorney-General back such a change?

This is from the Attorney-General who is committed to changing the Marriage Act, regardless of the consequences.

We know that if the law on marriage changes, more and more kids will be exposed to this confusing, gender-bending ideology through radical programs like Safe Schools.

Given the rise of these gender-bending programs in schools and the political activism of the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society, it is a risky move to begin taking the courts out of the process and trusting an increasingly ideological medical profession to get this right.

Once the court’s role as protector of kids is removed, it is not long before it becomes the enforcer of gender ideology. With so much at stake, this is not a time to be removing safeguards.

Professor of Paediatrics at Western Sydney University, Professor John Whitehall also commented on the matter.

“A protective role for the Court remains paramount,” Professor Whitehall said. "Instead of calling for legislation to abandon their protective role, the courts should call for regulation of unproven, invasive, irreversible therapy on unwitting children."

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

17 Responses

  1. ian

    Thank you for getting onto this. I haven’t seen any MSM comment or reporting of this

  2. I think Mr Brandis has totally lost the plot. The sooner he retires or dismissed from the “Party” the better. He seems hell bent on turning the Liberal Govt into a regressive, sorry “progressive” one modeled on the Yanky democrats. With him and Turnbull at the helm the party has totally lost its way. Australian Conservatives here I come.

  3. It beats me how any NORMAL person who was against all this ballony changes his mind and advocates it unless its to get more votes whisg is oxymoron because there are more staight than bent

  4. I am just completing Co- writing a book with it’s author about child abuse. You have now given me a further chapter to add.!!! Where is it going to end?
    I just can’t believe a responsible politician would write legislation rubbish like this.
    THe sooner we get a responsible Government in power the better. I am ashamed of both the Liberals and the Labour parties, not to even mention the Greens.

    Shame… Shame… shame.!!

  5. Giving children hormones to supposedly change their sex is in my opinion child abuse. The effects these drugs have on children can be dangerous and the long term consequences are really not fully understood. George Brandis is typical of the elitist left which have infected the Liberal Party. He is following this radical ideology of gender fluidity blindly to the detriment of our children and our nation. He is an absolute disgrace.

  6. Today, The Guardian reported on a Italian woman who has won the right to care for her sick dog by taking personal family leave from her work as a dog can be considered a family member. The idea that animals can be treated legally the same as people will lead to “animal-human marriage.”

  7. Today, The Age highlighted the serious problem of child-on-child sexual abuse/assault/rape with 577 cases (11% increase) reported in WA 2016. A mother of a 9 year old boy who was raped by a 12 yr old boy highlighted that her son was suicidal and was struggling to attend school. The Australian government ignores this type of homosexual behaviour and claims homosexuality is natural.

  8. If gender is “fluid” meaning that it can move around, how can a person be sure of what gender they will be at any time in the future? Surely in the case of a child before puberty it is not ethical to interfere with their sexual development because “fluidity” in a year’s time or so, or later in life, might make them want to be their original gender?

    I read today of an interesting self-contradiction posed by the gay lobby teaching that gender is fluid. That directly contradicts their assertion that homosexuality is a fixed genetic condition and consequently is unchangeable, people are “born that way“; it is life-long and no “therapy” can alter it. Looking on the www this has caused quite a bit of consternation amongst the gay “community” so they are now saying that when it happens that a person feels themselves attracted to the same sex, that is not a free-will choice; it is immutable until whatever caused it switches them the other way, and in any case it is irrelevant to the “right” to marry the person whom you love. Well, how can you make a pledge to exclusive life-long allegiance to another person if you believe that gender fluidity might cause you to change your sexual orientation at any moment?

    • David S

      People entering a civil registered marriage practice aren’t really making a pledge for an exclusive, lifelong union because the family court treats the wedding ceremony as a total fantasy. The no fault divorce made adultery irrelevant and no longer a lifelong contract, and the civil registered marriage is no longer based on sexual intercourse as there is no requirement of the marital act – consummation. The LGBTIAQ party activist believe a civil registered marriage should include all committed loving relationships so this means the “cuffing marriage” has to be accepted as these people have a committed, loving sexual relationship usually over the winter period and then they’re free to “uncuff.” The idea or opinion that people can’t control who they fall in love with nor the length of time they will love and the type of love they will experience. The LGBTIAQ party dictators state misleading and dishonest information all the time as they have an agenda to change marriage and family for themselves to reflect their own sexual behaviour.

    • David. S

      Reviewing the debate on the legalisation of “same-sex marriage” in England there was a lot of concern about removing “adultery” from civil registered marriage as the parliament couldn’t define the sexual relationship of “same-sex marriage.” There was a real concern that the understanding of marriage being “exclusive” would no longer be required as the married couple would decide for themselves. The idea that “committed loving relationships” could include “infidelity” was distressing to some MPs as so much harm this had caused to a husband / wife and children leading to marriage and family breakdown and divorce. The no fault divorce in Australia makes a mockery out of “exclusive” as “infidelity” means nothing.

      • Janine,
        Following your reply I looked at some UK marriage sites for different council areas in England and was quite taken aback by the light-hearted approach that was universal. The only official requirements in a marriage ceremony are to state that you are legally free to marry and to say the “contracting words” which are that you take the other person to be your lawful wife or husband. Then the couple can make vows. The vow however can be your own wording, including humorous vows such as I found on one site;

        “I vow to believe you when you compliment me and to only use sarcasm when necessary.”

        “I promise to fight beside you in the zombie apocalypse, and should you turn into one, to let you bite me so I can become one too.”

        No words like “to the exclusion of all others” I noticed. There is no such thing as the exclusivity vow any more.

        Only in a religious ceremony in one of the optional vows was there reference to children. Children are non-existent in the wedding as connected with marriage now. I cannot believe that young women must now get married with it being politically correct that there is officially no recognition of the real reason that they are doing so – to start a family. I can see that the idea that I put a couple of weeks ago that you liked, that marriage is the commitment by a young woman to sacrifice her body to pass on life, is like being a party pooper or kill joy to the modern “gay” concept of marriage.

        Yes, there was a lot of discussion in the press like you mention, but in the end the House of Lords voted 390 in favour of same-sex marriage to 148 against. Adultery is still defined as sexual intercourse between a man and woman outside of marriage for either same sex or male-female marriage but is not directly grounds for divorce; it is grounds for divorce only under the term “unreasonable behaviour” which covers anything that is meaningful to the couple that upsets one of them. As in Australia, there is no such thing now as “consummating” a marriage for male-female couples and of course not for same-sex couples. Sexual intercourse is entirely deleted from marriage now. What a topsy-turvy world.

        Thanks for your insight into the bind on honest reporting on death certificates that assisted suicide poses.

        • Michael

          David S, and Janine,
          Thanks for your comments on England’s “same-sex marriage” laws. What a contrast the comedy marriage vows are with the solemn vows in that other English document, the Book of Common Prayer, which many Australians recited at their wedding with all their heart. The man says:–

          I take thee to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish [the wife adds “and obey”], till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

          The only optional section of the wedding service occurs when two prayers for fruitfulness are to be omitted “if the woman is past child-bearing”. In giving the reasons God made marriage, the priest says:–

          First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy name.

          The Book of Common Prayer acknowledges sexual intercourse as the only consummation of marriage, as the man says:–

          With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldy goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

          Having put the ring on the woman’s finger, the man holds it there while he says the above. Putting the ring on his wife’s finger symbolises the act of consummation. The LGBTIQA+ dictators have absolutely no right to wear or covet the wedding rings, for this reason.

  9. David S,

    Thanks for your comments as the word “marriage” has been hollowed out and has become a meaningless marital status in many western countries. In New Zealand. 2 men claimed they were both “heterosexual” and got married in order to win a radio competition. Therefore, legalising “same-sex marriage” in New Zealand made a mockery of marriage as it created more “sham marriages.” Many Healthcare practitioners are concerned about the falsification of legal documents including a death certificate and patients’ medical history. Healthcare practitioners have recorded in patient’s medical history the patient’s biological sex which has been based on the binary genders male and female that can be scientifically measured and tested worldwide. A patient’s gender has never been based on a patient’s feeling, desire, lust and passion as they could change their mind or a patient could be unconscious making it impossible to communicate their self-determined gender. Also, the idea that a patient can choose their gender is only an opinion and makes an unconscious patient only a genderless person. Plus, hospital care and treatment plans have been based on the binary genders of male and female. Medical doctors and registered nurses have been accurately recording patient’s biological sex in patient’s medical history for centuries and these legal documents must be accurate as these legal documents are presented in courts all around the world. However, millions of healthcare practitioners will be faced with perjury if courts no longer recognise the scientific evidence of biological sex based on the binary genders of male and female. There is no professional indemnity insurance available anywhere in Australia for the falsification of any legal document including a death certificate and medical and nursing reports in patient’s medical history. Australian healthcare and welfare authorities must not mislead the Australian public as dishonest reporting on any legal document will make insurance void which will harm everyone and every healthcare service in Australia. There is no doubt that the confusion of the English language will lead to the falsification of legal documents and this will void professional indemnity insurance. All healthcare services and healthcare practitioners must have insurance which underwrites the practice of care and treatment in Australia as this protects the Australian public from harmful behaviours and practices.

    • Michael

      Janine,
      Thanks always for your comments and insight. You recently wrote of the coming requirement for patients to be called “health consumers”. Australia’s health system itself is the biggest health consumer, as it simply consumes. The unholy trinity of abortion, euthanasia and “same-sex marriage” damages Australians’ access to healthcare, where promoting life and providing death must be equally resourced.

      * Abortion eliminates discrimination between womb and tomb.
      * Euthanasia eliminates discrimination between compassion and coffin.
      * Sodomy eliminates discrimination between vagina, anus and mouth.

      Everyone trusts their GP to discriminate between health and disease, and healthy or unhealthy behavioural choices. The LGBTIQA+ party and its supporters who push all the above, are already undermining public confidence in the health system by limiting doctors’ etc ability to tell the truth.

      Of course there are still lots of good and trustworthy healthcare professionals like you, but we on the outside can’t tell who they are. People just won’t bother going to the doctor if they can’t trust them to tell the truth — even more so if doctors have the legal power to kill their “health consumers”. If doctors can’t be trusted to tell the truth, they might find themselves getting their taxpayer-funded income from Centrelink instead of Medicare.

      • Michael,

        Thanks for your words of wisdom. I am warning MPs about the serious problems that there is no professional indemnity insurance available in Australia for the falsification of any legal document within patient’s medical history, and the birth, marriage and death certificates, and medical doctors and registered nurses will be charged with perjury in any court in Australia if they have falsified any legal document and or not tell the truth by providing misleading or dishonest information. What is the truth about sexuality and gender, and can Australians trust in these theories? The Australian government authorities are finding it hard to discriminate the truth from a lie which means they confuse the English language with psychology/psychiatry words and this misleads Australians to believe in ideas and opinions which are false and dishonest. Falsehood and dishonesty will eventually destroy people’s moral conscience as well as deregulate the legal practices of marriage, education, healthcare and welfare services because lying is deceitful and this practice will hurt people and practices which allow for deceit behaviour will harm society. Healthcare practitioners such as myself who have worked in critical care for more than 24 years, we understand how legal practices were originally established to register qualified people and regulate (control) natural human behavioural practice in order to protect the public from harm.

        Public Health authorities had warned healthcare professionals such as myself not to oppose “marriage equality” because they feared we would tell the truth about LGBTIAQ identities which is treated differently to gender dysphoria and homosexual behaviour. The LGBTIAQ identity is only good or committed, loving sexual behaviour as the homosexual behaviour such as the recent case of a 9yr old boy who was raped by a 12 yr old boy in WA isn’t identified as “gay” and is totally reject by the LGBTIAQ party dictators. LGBTIAQ sexual behaviours are naturally non-procreative sexual activities which aren’t the same as “marriage” which is the public commitment to a lifelong, faithful “one flesh” union between husband and wife as they can naturally procreate, nurture and raise new-life (natural human reproduction). Also, Public Health were concerned that we would expose the truth about the death culture such as abortion, suicide, and the proposed legal assisted dying practice which would allow healthcare practitioners to falsify a legal document (death certificate) with the patient’s terminal illness rather than the truth accurately recorded in the patient’s medical history which is the lethal drug. Government authorities aren’t encouraging a “one flesh” marriage which makes it impossible to experience fornication/prostitution and contract a STD/ HPV leading to infertility, anal and cervical cancer nor experience an out of wedlock birth, and less likely to experience a adultery leading to marriage/family breakdown causing a divorce. Therefore, they’re providing misleading information about sex and relationship education, cancer, infertility, abortion, STDs, prostitution, pornography, robotic sex dolls/toys, pretend sex organs, masturbation, infertility. chem-sex, and homosexuality. The gay identity has rejected pedophilia but the priest can be labelled a “pedophile.” Australians need to understand that the idea “marriage between any 2 people” will only ever be an opinion which is separated from the natural human behavioural practice of “one flesh” marriage which is supported by a religious belief system, history, science, social science and nature. We can never stop proclaiming the truth as this is the only thing which keeps people being honest in a fallen world.

        • Michael

          Janine,
          It’s not only healthcare professionals who are forbidden from exposing the death culture; it’s ordinary citizens too. I have written several times to my local paper quoting the provisions of Tasmania’s Reproductive Health Act 2013, modelled on similar Victorian legislation. These include legal abortion of healthy babies until the moment of birth, and access zones in which peaceful protest can be punished with a maximum of 12 months in prison and a fine of $11,550 Despite all laws passed by Parliament being public information, they won’t print any letter on this subject. But having a letter refused is nothing compared to the $5000 fine Victorian mother of 13 Kathy Clubb received for trying to give a voice to the voiceless.

          Tasmania has “access zones” of 150 metres radius (therefore 300 metres wide) around abortion clinics. Despite these being lawfully established zones, the police will not say where they are. Inspector Glen Woolley of Tasmania Police Hobart Division writes:–

          I am not in a position to provide you with this information.

          How do they police the zones if the won’t say where they are? The Inspector referred me to the Health Department, but Health official Anita Morgan replied:–

          It is not the Department’s intention at this time to produce a map of Access Zones.

          They know perfectly well it’s not the removal of unwanted body part, as there no “access zones” around dental clinics. On a related note, it’s crazy that ‘they’ won’t let a baby boy be circumcised to help him become a man, but wait a while, and they’ll happily lop off the lot to help him ‘become’ a girl.

          You’re so right about the government not wanting to tell the truth about marriage and sexual behaviour. Each state and territory as well as the federal government need to take a wholistic approach to personal and societal health, as so much unhappiness, disease, domestic violence, and ensuing economic, workplace and social problems, come from unstable and unhealthy sexual lifestyles (or deathstyles). This all means higher taxes for everyone.

          It’s not just the government, as the church hasn’t taught young people the difference between dating and courtship, so they can’t tell the difference between a proposition and a proposal. Recent articles on creepy Hugh Hefner’s death included his proud boast of “decontaminating the idea of pre-marital sex”. With 80% of couples living together before marriage (which is only measured as civil marriage anyway), Australian society has already normalised fornication, eliminating the biggest difference (discrimination) between being single and being married, a sexual relationship.

          People aren’t born ‘gay’ or ‘straight’; they are born male or female. Also, everyone is born single, and a virgin. Australia needs to teach young people that sexual intercourse is best left for a life-long faithful marriage to the man or woman of their dreams, as only natural sex can fulfil the natural human desire for sexual fulfilment and fruitfulness, free from fear, guilt and disease. Plus, it doesn’t cost taxpayers a singe cent.

          • Michael,

            Thanks for your comments including “it doesn’t cost the taxpayer a single cent,” but our government wants to charge us lots of taxes because they’re big brother and think they know what is best for us. The Australian parliament’s idea that civil registered marriage has nothing to do with sexual intercourse, faithfulness nor the natural procreation of new-life has created a paper marriage and paper family for the no fault divorce.

Leave a comment