Time is no object in the Review of Australia’s gender transition guidelines being conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The NHMRC has been given more than three years to produce its recommendations and has already fallen behind schedule. Its interim advice on the use of puberty blockers was scheduled for ‘mid-2026’, but in an email response to me last week, a representative suggested that ‘mid-2026’ might mean late August. This is a seven-week delay during which another 200 or more young Australians will be started on blockers, all whilst their parents continue to await a pronouncement on whether the treatments are safe.
I sometimes indulge a thought, one that is seldom voiced these days, that the length of time is needed because the question being decided is one that addresses the relationship between God and humankind. This is a thought that previous generations would have had no hesitation in expressing. The artificial suppression of puberty, they would have said, is an interference in Nature and God’s plan. Today, however, our elites insist that biological sex is ‘assigned’ at birth, with the inference that it can be medically reassigned, and anyone who invokes an argument associated with notions of Divinity is looked upon as a person in need of special care.
But, even allowing ‘assigned’ to be a suitable word, assigned by whom? In the matter of biological sex, who or what is the assignor? If I am wrong in thinking it is Nature, Providence, or an Omnipotent Being, all of which are synonymous with God, I am open to explanations as to how.
Needless to say, however, the time being taken for the Review has less to do with Divinity than Anthony Albanese’s strategy of deferring difficult decisions for as long as he can. Unlike countries that have taken decisive action, either in favour or against gender transition treatments, the Albanese government chose a middle road of commissioning the NHMRC to undertake a three-year Review whilst allowing the practice to continue. Step one for the NHMRC, for which six months was allocated, was to form committees. It established a Gender Guidelines Governance Committee (GGGC), comprising four experts. In turn, the GGGC created a Gender Guidelines Development Committee (GGDC), made up of fourteen experts and four people with lived experience of gender transition. To ensure ‘a diversity of perspectives’, a Gender Guidelines Referral Panel (GGRP) was also established, with participants recruited, as I was told, ‘through nominations from health services and support groups following targeted consultations’. According to the NHMRC website, subsequent steps include seven months for stakeholder engagement; twelve months for evidence review; six months for development of interim advice; twelve months for drafting further recommendations; two months for public consultations; four months for review of the public consultations; and one month for extended consideration of the public consultations. Subsequently, after considering the reports of the GGGC and the GGDC, along with the input from the GGRP, the NHMRC must deliver its final recommendations in April 2028. By then, all going well for Albanese, it will be too late for a decision, and he will be preparing for a quiet life with Jodie in their Copacabana residence.
The NHMRC has had the grace to acknowledge that the Review process is a ‘lengthy’ one, and has promised to send regular updates to all who subscribe to their email list. So far, eighteen months in, the NHMRC has not found time to send an update, but this may be attributable to the slow progress made by the experts on the committees. Their online profiles all suggest that they are employed full-time in medicine or academia, with many also serving on one or more boards. Research for the NMHRC Review, for which they are remunerated by the federal government, could only be undertaken through a sacrifice of personal hours.
In the course of my own enquiries, I surveyed a range of people on the question of the possible outcome of the Review. The number of respondents who thought that the Review would recommend the banning of puberty blockers pending further definitive research, following the lead of countries including the UK and New Zealand, came to nil. Instead, respondents predicted that the Review would please the government of the day, either by declaring gender transitions treatments to be safe or by making a non-decision.
I myself do not share that pessimism. Call me old-fashioned but I don’t see myself as equal or superior to God, and I have faith that the experts on the committees see themselves the same way. I am encouraged by the fact that, in their profiles, none of them state their preferred pronouns, which I take as an indication that they are uninfected by ideology and disposed to common sense. I hazard a bet, too, that most of them grew up in church-going families and attended Catholic or Anglican schools that taught an acceptance of fate.
With a remembrance of their personal histories, I ask each of them to examine their conscience and to consider the true nature of the question before them. Given that across the western world, countries alternate one to the next on the issue of the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers, is it a medical question or a political one? As there is only one honest answer to that question, it follows that there is only one responsible course of action to take. It is to follow the lead of the UK, New Zealand, other countries and many US states by recommending a ban on puberty blockers. Not only will this ensure safety by allowing for further research and a regulated clinical trial of the treatment. It will give all Australians time to pause and reflect.
Of the 1.6 million animal species that inhabit earth, all of a biological male-female binary, only humankind has been blessed with intellect and a capacity to reason. Our duty is to be grateful for that gift and to exercise it wisely. Praise be to God.
~~~
Home 
Leave a comment