LGB Alliance Australia concerned over NHMRC Gender Guidelines Panel Selection
Young gay and lesbian children and youth are being harmed by a practice we want to stop. What many now call Gay Conversion 2.0, as outlined in our publication, is the medicalisation of young people who would, in most cases, grow up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. This is the practice we seek to end.
For a review of this area to be credible, the process must be impartial and grounded in evidence. That requires panel members who can evaluate all evidence independently and who are not shaped by prevailing ideological pressures. A review cannot claim impartiality if one treatment model is strongly represented without counterbalancing perspectives that prioritise caution, safeguarding and scientific diversity.
The announcement of the NHMRC panel members has therefore raised serious concerns. Several appointees are active proponents of the gender affirming model, which prioritises affirming a young person’s stated gender identity through social and medical interventions. Prominent clinicians who favour more cautious and evidence-based approaches have not been included. Inclusion of diverse clinical perspectives, including those advocating caution and safeguarding, is essential. Without this, the review risks being shaped by a single dominant perspective rather than the full range of scientific and clinical views that now inform international practice.
Other countries have already changed course. The recent decision by New Zealand to prioritise caution and evidence marks an important shift in our region. Across Europe, major health authorities have moved away from the gender affirming model because the evidence is weak and the risks to children are significant. The Cass Review (2024) in the United Kingdom established a clear benchmark for safeguarding, and Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark have taken similar steps following their own comprehensive reviews.
The length of time allocated for the Australian review is concerning. Final guidelines will not be published until 2028, which risks leaving vulnerable children without adequate safeguards for years. These are urgent safeguarding matters that require timely action.
Children who present with gender distress often have complex needs, including autism spectrum conditions, trauma histories, mental health vulnerabilities and same sex attraction. Most will desist as they mature. They deserve developmentally appropriate care that prioritises careful assessment, stability and time.
They do not deserve a treatment model insufficiently grounded in evidence and overly influenced by ideology, or one that risks pathologising and medicalising same sex attracted youth under a new name. Australia must not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Australia needs a guideline development process that is balanced, independent and aligned with the best available evidence. Voices urging caution must be represented, and the review must be protected from ideological capture if it is to carry public confidence and safeguard vulnerable young people.