Can Doctors Still Discuss Gender?

I questioned representatives from AHPRA regarding their heavy-handed and unjustified actions against Dr Amos, an academic psychiatrist from North Queensland.

On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia slapped immediate restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, banning him from patient contact and social media commentary on gender.

This move was triggered by just four complaints (three were anonymous and none were from patients) concerning three X posts — one questioning whether trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis and another using biological pronouns during an exchange.

When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on what specific parts of those posts allegedly posed a “serious risk to public health and safety” to justify an immediate action order, he hid behind confidentiality provisions and refused to discuss individual cases. Even with support from Senator Henderson challenging their secrecy, the agency repeatedly dodged direct questions.

When I asked Dr Orchard whether a health practitioner has the right to refer to biological sex, or if doing so constitutes discrimination, they hid behind vague codes of conduct and social media guidelines instead of giving a straight answer.

AHPRA claims they only intervene when debate crosses into hate or discrimination, yet they couldn’t provide a clear set of guidelines defining what they actually consider “misinformation.”

I questioned their process of issuing severe penalties before facts are even established or investigations conducted, ultimately destroying doctors’ careers over anonymous complaints and standard public commentary.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have Ahpra please? Thank you all for being here. Dr Amos is an academic psychiatrist based in North Queensland. His academic work includes numerous published journal articles and
conference presentations on gender medicine. On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia placed restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, preventing him from having direct or indirect contact with patients and banning him from posting on social media on the topic of gender. This was in response to four complaints about three X posts. Three of the complaints were anonymous. It’s important to note that there was no patient complaint. He had posted that ‘there is no reliable evidence that trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis.’

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, given that it is almost 10.30 and we’ve had all of these questions from senator Henderson—

Senator ROBERTS: No, we haven’t had these questions.

ACTING CHAIR: I think you’re going to get a similar response.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had this topic but not this question. Another complaint was that, in a post exchange, Dr Amos used biological pronouns and thereby was accused of misgendering a UK trans activist. The
immediate action order used by Ahpra against Dr Amos is meant to be reserved, as I understand it, for when there is a reasonable belief that a health practitioner poses a serious risk to public health and safety. What specific elements of those posts did the board determine posed a serious risk to public health and safety under the socalled national law?

Mr Untersteiner: As the chair has highlighted, I’ve answered this question numerous times. My response will remain. I can’t comment on individual cases, because we have very clear confidentiality provisions.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Does a health practitioner have the right to refer—

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just one moment. I hope it is a point of order, Senator Henderson, and not commentary.

Senator HENDERSON: No, of course not. This is just a point of order in relation to advice that I’ve just received through the secretariat. If the information is public, there’s no basis not to answer these questions. We’ve
checked the advice with the chair. So I would just challenge—

ACTING CHAIR: You haven’t checked the advice with the chair.

Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, I meant with the secretary. Apologies. I’m just saying through the chair that I don’t think it’s appropriate that you decline to answer these questions. It’s not consistent with the rules of the
Senate insofar as—

Mr Untersteiner: Sorry, to confirm—

ACTING CHAIR: I think this is an interpretation issue. The information that that you have is not necessarily the stuff that is printed in whatever publication it is that has been quoted. There is a big difference in reporting from wherever you got it and the agencies actually providing you with their detailed private information that is protecting other people’s privacy. But I’m happy for Mr Untersteiner to take that on notice and provide the rationale and the breakdown. Perhaps you, Senator Henderson, could provide the information that you were reading from previously in terms of your—

Senator HENDERSON: I’ve tabled that, Chair. That’s been tabled.

ACTING CHAIR: Right. I still haven’t seen it. Nobody’s given it to me, I’m afraid.

Senator HENDERSON: Please speak to the secretary. Please don’t—

Senator Roberts interjecting—

ACTING CHAIR: I’ll just finish. I believe you’ve been asking the Clerk about a public interest immunity claim, and we can go to that point at that time. But let’s just take it on notice and come back with the rationale and the understanding, and then Senator Henderson and Senator Roberts can go through that and determine what steps they might like to take next.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate Senator Henderson interjecting, but the ultimate umpire is the TV camera—the people watching this at home, the Australians. Does a health practitioner, Mr Untersteiner, have the right to refer to a trans person’s biological sex?

Mr Untersteiner: I’m struggling a little bit with that question in regard to our role as the regulator. I don’t know—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it discrimination for a health practitioner to refer to a person’s biological sex? Is it discrimination?

Dr Orchard: I understand your question to be: is there an issue with a practitioner making public reference to someone’s gender or sex?

Senator ROBERTS: To refer to a person’s biological sex.

Dr Orchard: Generally, in respect of public comments by practitioners, you’ve heard earlier the discussion around the right of free speech and the fact that Ahpra and the boards are committed to those ideals, but there are limits to free speech and how people express themselves—

Senator ROBERTS: So a doctor talking about biological sex is going against free speech?

Dr Orchard: What I was going to say is that the codes of conduct and the social media guides that are published by boards set out quite clearly the expectations of practitioners when they are making public comments.
They should make comments that are respectful and that rely on the best available information and so on—

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.

Dr Orchard: I beg your pardon?

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, it’s not appropriate to get personal with the witnesses. Please have some respect.

Senator ROBERTS: How can a doctor fulfil their ethical obligation to inform the public of potential harms of gender interventions and gender ideology without being accused of discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people?

Mr Untersteiner: I’ve answered this question several times. As a regulator, we think health practitioners have a right to have public debate about a range of different issues, which include, again, gender-affirming treatment, gender blockers and other like treatments. We would not be taking regulatory action on that basis. Again, I think I’ve got to be very careful here about selective media and about using that as the basis.

Senator ROBERTS: What specifically would Ahpra consider to be misinformation in a post? If you can’t speak to that now, take it on notice.

Mr Untersteiner: Sure.

Senator ROBERTS: How do Ahpra staff acquire the capacity to know what is true or false information in this highly contested area? How do you know?

Mr Untersteiner: We rely on the existing clinical guidelines, but we also will look at the specific facts of the case, the specific facts of what was said and what context that was said in. Again, I want to be clear here that we will intervene where this goes beyond a debate about clinical pathways and treatments and moves into a place of hate or discrimination against individuals or groups. Again, I see firsthand the harm that discrimination and hate cause the community. I see vulnerable people in all walks of life in this country who fear seeking help because individuals go beyond debating appropriate clinical pathways or advice and move into very clear discrimination.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me specifically, please, a set of guidelines of what would be deemed by Ahpra to be misinformation in a post.

Mr Untersteiner: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t think I can answer that question.

ACTING CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re breaking careers on it. The Medical Board of Australia’s immediate action orders are implemented before the facts are established and before an investigation occurs. Is it reasonable to destroy a doctor’s career for three social media posts without conducting an investigation—three anonymous complaints, no patient complaints?

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’re working on a limited basis there.

Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’d just say I don’t agree with your characterisation there. There’s a lot more information that won’t be public and isn’t appropriate for me to talk about. I’ve got legal obligations that I must
meet—

Senator ROBERTS: They’re facts.