The court challenge that proves trans activists are actually whākd'

Transgender activists dragging the Government into the High Court is the latest chapter in a saga that has gone whākn’ nuts - literally. A microscopic activist class, representing a fraction of a fraction of the population, is once again demanding the power to override everyone else’s rights, rewrite the rules of medicine, and bend public policy to suit their ideology.

Now they are furious that the Government has finally said no.

Health Minister Simeon Brown has banned the use of puberty blockers.

PATHA’s outrage over the puberty blocker ban is not about human rights. It is not about healthcare. It is not about discrimination. It is about control. For years, activists have treated the public health system like a political playground, pushing unproven medical interventions on children, pressuring clinicians, and insisting their ideology should trump evidence, caution, and basic safeguarding.

The tantrum now unfolding in the courts makes one thing obvious. These activists are terrified of losing influence.

The Government has done what responsible governments around the world are finally doing. They have looked at the evidence, seen the uncertainty, seen the risks, and applied the brakes. The Cass Review exposed exactly how flimsy the science around puberty blockers is, and how reckless the previous model had become. Countries across Europe are pulling back. Even the UK Labour Party supported the review.

But in New Zealand, activists want to pretend none of this exists. They want to pretend puberty blockers are harmless, reversible, and proven. They want to pretend confused teenagers can meaningfully consent to treatments that may affect fertility, bone strength, sexuality, development, and long term health. They want to pretend the public should ignore every warning sign because their ideology demands it.

And when the Government refuses to indulge them, they run to the courts.

PATHA calling this “unethical” is laughable. What is unethical is the idea that children should be medicalised to satisfy an activist worldview. What is unethical is treating puberty like a disease that must be halted. What is unethical is insisting the state must fund interventions that even their overseas counterparts are now abandoning. And what is unethical is claiming politicians have no right to set boundaries when it comes to children’s safety.

This legal challenge exposes everything.

It exposes how deeply activism has infiltrated public institutions.
It exposes how little humility these groups have.
It exposes their belief that they are entitled to reshape society, medicine, sport, and language, and that anyone who resists them is committing a moral crime.

Most New Zealanders are beyond tired of these men pretending to be women, trying to make it all about them.

Adults can live how they choose. That has never been in dispute. Activists crossing into the territory of children’s medical treatment is a line the public never agreed to. The Government is right to draw that boundary. The louder these activists scream, the clearer it becomes that they expected no one to ever challenge them.

This court challenge is about entitlement. It is about ideology. It is about a tiny group insisting they deserve exceptions no one else gets, authority no one voted for, and influence far beyond their size.

And the country is finally pushing back.