The implementation of Victoria’s bill banning conversion therapy has caused concern among parents, as they fear potential penalties for directing and controlling their children’s behavior. According to a recent article, the law prohibits parents from acting in any way that does not affirm their child’s preferred gender. This includes denying them puberty blockers, hormone treatments, or gender surgeries, as well as seeking “non-affirming counseling” anywhere in Australia.
The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission, which enforces the legislation, explains on its website that practices aimed at changing or hiding someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity are harmful and unlawful. The law aims to ban these practices and provide options for preventing and responding to them.
Proponents of the transgender movement argue that individuals have a human right to transition to a gender different from their biological one. They view the belief that people are born either male or female as discriminatory and homophobic.
Throughout the Western world, legislators are taking these claims seriously, seeking to criminalize behavior that hinders children’s desire to transition. However, according to law professor Patrick Parkinson, the law’s impact on clinicians discourages them from engaging with children suffering from gender dysphoria or gender incongruence, potentially depriving them of the help they need.
Even the American Psychiatric Association, which considers gender identity conversion therapy unethical, acknowledges that support for individuals with gender dysphoria may involve open-ended exploration of their feelings and experiences of gender identity and expression.
The question arises as to whether transgender laws, like the Victorian legislation, go beyond their legitimate purpose by infringing on parents’ rights to educate and guide their children. This concern has led to calls for a Royal Commission into gender conversion therapy for children.
Proponents of the prohibition of gender conversion practices may rely on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Australia in 1990, to support an “affirmative” approach to children’s gender dysphoria. While the convention acknowledges the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents, subsequent articles override any inconsistent provisions, including those regarding parental rights. There is also a requirement for parental direction and guidance to be appropriate and consistent with the child’s evolving capacities. This suggests that parental guidance may become subject to external control and scrutiny.
The convention grants children the rights to express their views freely, be heard in proceedings affecting them, and seek, receive, and impart information and ideas. These articles could potentially undermine the authority of parents and teachers in guiding children’s education.
Considering all contextual circumstances, including the potential harm to children caused by gender transitioning practices, is essential in the ongoing transgender debate. The erosion of parental supervisory powers over their children may compromise objective and impartial discussions on this controversial topic.
In conclusion, parents in Victoria are fearful of potential prosecution under the new transgender law, as it restricts their ability to guide and direct their children. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child may be invoked to support an “affirmative” approach to children’s gender dysphoria but could undermine parental authority. The ongoing debate on transgender issues should consider all relevant factors to ensure an objective and impartial discussion.
Source link
