Two recent free speech and transgender cases came to significant milestones this month with spectacularly different results. But it should be said that neither of the two women involved came out unscathed. Both have been dragged through lengthy proceedings that surely felt like punishments. But the outcomes, as they stand at present, are very different.
Case Number one: Child and adolescent psychiatrist Jillian Spencer has won a victory after a three-year case that followed her raising concerns about the treatment of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones at the Queensland Children’s Hospital’s gender service.
A statement posted by Children’s Health Queensland on their website as part of a settlement states “The CHQ HHS acknowledges that these are matters of legitimate professional and public debate, and that clinicians play an important role in raising concerns about patient safety and clinical practice.”
“Dr Spencer has been a strong advocate for change in Queensland in the model of care for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria.”
“CHQ HHS accepts that Dr Spencer’s concerns were grounded in her training and background as an experienced child and adolescent psychiatrist.”
The Human Rights Law Association that supported Spencer observed, “What those three years cost – in income, professional standing, and the silence of colleagues who watched and said nothing – does not appear in the settlement statement.
“This is the chilling effect in operation. It runs before any hearing, before any finding, and long before any vindication. Every clinician who saw Spencer’s suspension and chose not to speak publicly paid a cost that will never be counted.”
But as Spencer observed, ““It’s a victory that makes it very clear I never did anything wrong by speaking out and trying to protect children from harmful interventions,” she was reported saying in the sydney Morning Herald. “I am relieved the hospital has acknowledged that my concerns were grounded in my training and background as an experienced child and adolescent psychiatrist and that clinicians play an important role in raising concerns about patient safety and clinical practice.
“What this says is doctors and the public should not be silenced and should not be punished for raising concerns about medical intervention, the use of puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones.”
The Children’s Health Queensland statement acknowledges the genuine contribution of Spencer to the wider debate”
“CHQ HHS acknowledges that health practitioners must take a clinical approach to the treatment of gender dysphoria that focuses on the best available research and the child’s best interests rather than directing a child down a pre-determined treatment pathway. Health practitioners must employ a holistic clinical approach that comprehensively assesses all relevant factors – including any comorbidities or other mental health conditions – and use information gathered from that process to determine the best available mode of treatment and care for the patient.”
“CHQ HHS also acknowledges Dr Spencer’s service and her contributions to child and adolescent psychiatry during her tenure.”
If the CHS statement is sincere. Jillian Spencer has taken her part in shifting the terms of the transgender debate.
Case Number two: the outcome, pending any appeal, of the cases brought by two footballers against Kirralie Smith and the Binary organisation she heads can not be described as a victory. Instead, Smith and Binary have been required to publish a statement describing the findings of vilification of the two footballers.
The statement includes: “Following proceedings in the Local Court of NSW (2024/78280) the Local Court of NSW has declared that Kirralie Smith and Binary Australia contravened section 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 (NSW) by making and publishing various social media posts between 19 January 2023 and 27 March 2023 and a newsletter dated 19 January 2023 that incited hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a soccer player on the ground that she is a transgender person.”
This is an instance of compelled speech, which certainly raises concerns about free speech, and also involves fines of $95,000, which raises issues about the severity of the punishment. But the core finding is that in seeking to publicise two transgender individuals taking part in community women’s teams, Smith overstepped the boundary of vilification.
The difference: Spencer did not resort to personalising the topic of transgender in making public examples of individuals. Her training as a medical professional would have made this a most unlikely thing for her to do.
Smith’s difficulty arose from focusing attention on the two footballers. If she had run her campaign without identifying them, for example by using their pictures, she would have had a much better chance of influencing public debate. Instead, she has drawn public and legal attention to her tactic rather than the substance of her case.
Readers are invited to decide which of Jillian Spencer and Kirralie Smith has done more to contribute positively to the public debate on the issue of transgender.
Image: Trangender flag. Image Credit: Socialist Alternative
Correction: removed description of both as Christian, Smith is, Spencer is not.