Commentary
There is ample anecdotal evidence that parents are afraid of the implementation of Victoria’s bill banning what is considered conversion therapy. Their fear stems from the fact that the legislation potentially penalises parents for directing and controlling their children’s behaviour.
In this context, a recent article notes that the law prohibits parents from acting in any way other than affirming a child’s preferred gender.
Specifically, parents cannot deny their child puberty blockers, hormone treatments or gender surgeries and are also barred from seeking “non-affirming counselling” anywhere in Australia.
The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission, which enforces the legislation explains on its website that:
“Practices that seek to change or hide someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity are harmful and unlawful” and that this law “bans these change or suppression practices and provides a range of options for preventing and responding to them.”
Proponents of the transgender movement claim that there is a human right to transition to a gender different from their biological one and that the view that people are born either male or female is an odious example of discrimination and homophobia.
Throughout the Western world, their claim is taken seriously by legislators, who seek to criminalise behaviour that frustrates children’s desire to transition to another gender.
However, according to law professor Patrick Parkinson, “the law is highly damaging to the wellbeing of some children, particularly because it discourages clinicians from engaging with children suffering from gender dysphoria or gender incongruence and could deprive them of the help they most need.”
Even the American Psychiatric Association, which considers gender identity conversion therapy to be unethical, admits that support for people “with gender dysphoria may include open-ended exploration of their feelings and experiences of gender identity and expression.”
Robbing Parental Rights
Of course, gender dysphoria is a serious affliction that needs to be treated.
But the question is whether transgender laws, like the Victorian legislation, exceed their legitimate purposes by stripping parents of their right to educate and guide their children.
The view that the prohibition of gender conversion therapy is itself harmful and frustrates efforts by parents to guide their children has recently led to calls for a Royal Commission into gender conversion for children.
Yet, proponents of the prohibition of gender conversion practices may rely on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—ratified by Australia on Dec. 17, 1990—to bolster their support for an “affirmative” approach to children’s gender dysphoria.
Although Article 5 of the Convention confirms that “states parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents,” it affords little protection to parents.
This is because it is followed by Articles 12 to 16, which override any inconsistent provisions, including Article 5.
Even if this view proves to be legally incorrect, the right of parents to direct and guide their children is constrained by the requirements that such parental direction and guidance be “appropriate” and in “a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.”
This phrasing suggests that, in order to decide the appropriateness of parents’ guidance, parental direction and guidance would inevitably become subject to external control and scrutiny.
How the Convention Can Support ‘Gender Conversion Therapy’ Bans
Article 12 gives children the right to express his or her views freely “in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
It further stipulates that children have the right to be heard in judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child.
Hence, Article 12 “not only has a clear potential to interfere with relationships between parents and child but also between teachers and children in the classroom, where it has the potential to undermine the authority of teachers who still believe in directive education.”
Article 13 proclaims that the child has the right to freedom of expression, including the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.”
This article could easily be interpreted to mean that children, defined as persons below the age of 18, have the right to hear and see pornographic materials.
Article 14 of the Convention stipulates that the child has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The child’s right is subject only to the parent’s right to provide direction and guidance.
However, the state is only required to “respect” the right of parents to provide direction to the child. Thus, a child would be free to reject parental guidance on gender transitioning.
According to Article 16, a child shall not be “subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence.”
The reference to “arbitrary” may enable children to resist parental intrusion into matters that children consider to be private, including medical treatments. The Article would protect a medical practitioner who offers contraceptives to a 14-year-old girl or puberty blockers to a teenager intent on gender transitioning.
The UN Enabled the ‘Affirmative’ Approach
I am drawn to the conclusion that the Convention facilitates the present Australian “affirmative” approach to gender transitioning, but it also adversely, even fatally, affects parents’ ability to guide their children in this confusing and challenging area.
As the Convention has facilitated a measurable decline in the authority of parents, it has contributed to, or even instigated, the present transgender agenda, now assiduously promoted by education departments and governments.
A considered judgement on the present transgender debate should involve a consideration of all contextual circumstances, including the evidence of potential harm for children wrought by gender transitioning practices.
In eroding the supervisory powers of parents over their children, this debate will likely compromise an objective and impartial discussion of this controversial topic.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
