EU Austria’s Left Pushes for Jail Time For Those Opposing Trans Surgeries For Minors - Doctors, psychologists, and parents could face serious penalties for warning about the risks of irreversible interventions.

Article Archive

1750178535526.webp

Austria has been shaken by a legislative proposal that, if confirmed, would represent a true authoritarian shift: parents who refuse to allow their underage children to undergo genital modification surgeries (commonly known as “sex-change” procedures) could end up in prison. The measure has sparked a wave of outrage, with many seeing it as a direct attack on parental rights and plain common sense.

According to a report by ServusTV, a draft bill promoted by the SPÖ (Social Democrats) and Neos (Liberals) parties would impose penalties of up to €30,000 or one year in jail on anyone who questions a minor’s “gender transition”—including parents, doctors, or psychologists. In other words, simply advising caution regarding an irreversible decision could lead to criminal liability.

Although members of parliament have rushed to distance themselves from the proposal—SPÖ claims it is not a government bill, and the Greens are now being pointed to as the actual instigators—the fact is the text exists and, according to multiple sources, could be debated as early as this June. The political confusion and blame-shifting reflect an institutional chaos that only heightens public concern.

The proposal aims to prohibit even psychological treatment of gender dysphoria as a mental health condition. This would amount to a de facto ban on mental health professionals who do not align with the dominant gender ideology. Doctors who try to help young people reflect before making life-altering surgical decisions could be treated as criminals. Proponents, as in other Western countries, argue such approaches amount to “conversion therapy” and therefore qualify as “transphobia.”

The numbers are alarming: in 2011, only four minors in Austria underwent mastectomies for “gender reassignment;” by 2023, that number had surged to 128, many of whom now deeply regret their decision. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, this is a growing trend that some on the left seek to legally ‘protect’ through gag laws.

Psychiatrist Bettina Reiter gave a stark warning: “Logic is being turned on its head. What used to be part of a parent’s duty of care—to protect their children—may now become a crime.” If this legislation passes, Austria will criminalize parents who refuse to hand their children over to the trans industry, an aberration that befits authoritarian dystopias more than a liberal democracy.
 
This is absurd. It is a physicians legal and ethical obligation to ensure a patient is informed of and understands the treatment they are receiving and the potential risks and side effects. Trying to threaten to jail a doctor for literally doing what their profession explicitly requires them to do is as batshit as it gets. They're essentially legally mandating medical malpractice under threat of prison

That isn't even getting into the fact that such an act violates the entire concept of informed consent for a medical procedure by preventing the patients doctor from notifying them of the risks of and adequate information about the procedure they're intending to get. Strictly speaking, this means a patient can't consent to it to the standard the law, the attending physician and the hospital involved are supposed to be legally required to have for any medical procedure

I wouldn't follow this insane law no matter what they threatened me with and would flat out threaten legal action for any hint of trying to stop me from adhering to legal and ethical medical standards. What are you going to do? Drag me into court and make it a matter of public record that you're trying to jail me for telling a patient that a dangerous medical procedure carries some risks and tell me - on the record, that i'm supposed to lie about it or hide that fact from a patient? I'd love to see a judge explain how thats going to work if there are complications and the insurance company finds out the patient wasn't informed there were serious risks and is threatening to sue everybody involved, alongside the patient. How could a doctor or hospital even be insured to carry out a procedure like this under these kinds of circumstances? There is no way any insurance company would allow it. There is far too much liability. Their legal departments would throw shit fits over it
 
That isn't even getting into the fact that such an act violates the entire concept of informed consent for a medical procedure by preventing the patients doctor from notifying them of the risks of and adequate information about the procedure they're intending to get. Strictly speaking, this means a patient can't consent to it to the standard the law, the attending physician and the hospital involved are supposed to be legally required to have for any medical procedure
Yes exactly. And now … think about how the concept of informed consent and consent in general has also been mutilated recently.
IFC (informed consent) used to mean that you’d given the person a full run down of the reasons for , risks and benefits of the treatment, and they also had the right to consent or not. There are a lot of other things about consent. The person should be capable if consent for example. If I’m designing a trial for kids or demented elderly they can’t consent, so they need to have a process where they assent and a legal caretaker or parent consents for them. Again many rules about consent. Must be Freely given, not coerced in anyway. You know where I’m going here don’t you?
1. Covid. Suddenly noooooo! Consent doesn’t work like that oh no no no! Your employer isn’t coercing you by telling you you’re fired if you don’t take the shot no sireee. You think you once read something about informed consent and nazi experiments? No you didn’t, we hid it ten pages deep down the search results behind a hundred articles telling you that this is fine.
2. Sex and fetishes. Note how so much of that stuff talks about consent. It’s consent based, apparently, but that consent now doesn’t quite mean what it used to. And now anyone can consent to anything even if it harms or kills them (remember the spanner case? People can’t consent to being GBHd or killed before..)
3. Consent creep. Kids are minors, minors by nature if being minors are UNABLE to consent. Back to point 1. They literally cannot consent. Except now there’s Gillick competence, and this lets them give your kids hormones. And now here’s gavin new some and his pet faggot wiener insisting that we don’t need to criminalise buggery of children because some of them are mature minors. Canada has this concept too. Mature minors. Where’ve you heard that before? Oh yes ‘she was very mature looking for her age your honor.

So now instead of having this idea that consent is a specific thing done in specific circumstances to very strict rules, it’s consent based everything and anything without standards. Hormones for kids? Well they consented. What else can they consent to?

The whole thing is an attack on the concept of bodily integrity, of consent, of the concept of the vulnerability of minors. The need to protect children and the vulnerable. When you hear consent now add it to your list of words that let you know there’s fuckery afoot (like hate, kindness, etc.)
 
This is absurd. It is a physicians legal and ethical obligation to ensure a patient is informed of and understands the treatment they are receiving and the potential risks and side effects.
This could A upset a mentally ill person B cut big pharmas profits.
What are you some kinda anti Semite? I bet you had pedophiles too!
 
I take this as a good sign for the medium term. They used to get away with transitioning children using social consensus, "the science," and the threat of cancellation. Now they feel they have to use state violence. I smell fear.
 
I actually wish they would try this with a country that doesn't have their guns taken.

There's literally nothing to debate, talk about or behave like civilized people.

These people need to be shot, a lot.
If anything, batshit crazy laws always seems to follow right after people got their guns taken away. See Commiefornia and Bongistan.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LilShotaBoy
I seriously hope Austria votes against this because it's actually 100% fucking insane that this is even on the table.
While I would love for this to be the case the neoliberal overlords will make sure the people opposing this are rightfully silenced and called far right nazis.
We will make sure that the people vote the right way on this bill because transphobia is a real real problem.
Yes I'm dead serious trans kids are real and not agreeing with it makes you a literal nazi who needs to die ~ Neoliberal eurocuck.

Yeah the working class will accept the pozz the worldview must be protected.
 
Can someone from beyond the language barrier provide names and faces of the particular individuals who push it? For science and the lolz, ofc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: i440BX
Just remember, Europe does not have free speech problem, it just bans all speech its leaders don't like.
 
Mark my words, troons and their enablers will eventually try a full armed insurrection. The depths of their desire, lunacy, and stubbornness is enough to propel them further than any before them, until they can lead armies of their ilk in the same way as the muslims lead jihad.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: i440BX and Marvin
Back