Billboard Chris 🌎 Profile picture
Oct 24, 2023 12 tweets 14 min read Read on X
Massive news!

The American Academy of Pediatrics and several leading doctors are being sued for civil conspiracy, fraud, and medical malpractice!

Isabelle Ayala was just 14 years old and struggling with trauma, depression, cutting, and suicidal ideation when she was coerced onto testosterone by ideologically captured doctors who push childhood sex changes.

Isabelle has suffered from vaginal atrophy from the extensive use of testosterone; she deals with excess facial and body hair; she struggles with compromised bone structure; she is unsure whether her fertility has been irreversibly compromised; she still has mental health issues and deals with episodes of anxiety and depression, further compounded by a sense of regret; and she has since contracted an autoimmune disease that only the males in her family have a history of.



Image
Image
Image
Image
Under the AAP’s so-called ‘gender-affirmative care’ model, the charlatans named in this lawsuit advocate for the immediate, unquestioned embrace of a child's chosen ‘gender identity.’

They also advocate for immediate ‘social transitioning’ of the child to the newly chosen gender identity, and encourage puberty blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones.

Notably, at least four of the six members of the Committee including Defendants Dr. Rafferty, Dr. Forcier, Dr. Allen, and Dr. Sherer —worked at pediatric gender clinics that prescribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to patients as young as 10 and

Instead of supporting the conclusions and recommendations contained in the policy statement with scientific evidence, they fraudulently and misleadingly cited evidence that did not support any of their conclusions and recommendations, and they knowingly misrepresented the known risks and dangers of some of the medical interventions the policy statement promoted.



Image
Image
Image
Image
At some point between January 2016 and October 2018, the Committee chose Defendant Dr. Rafferty — who was then only in his medical residency — to be the lead author for the ‘gender-affirmative care’ policy statement they envisioned.

The Gender Policy Statement was alarming to many in the medical community, as it memorialized and institutionalized the radical personal beliefs and ideologies of its authors and visionaries, as opposed to proposing a treatment model based on cited scientific research and evidence.

Indeed, the Gender Policy Statement has been described as "an extraordinary departure from the international medical consensus" (which was and is watchful waiting).



Image
Image
Image
Image
A particularly egregious misrepresentation, which is repeated multiple times in the Gender Policy Statement without even a citation is the contention that puberty blockers to treat gender diverse children are completely reversible and generally helpful to treat gender diverse youth.

And Defendants have stated and continue to state the same fraudulent claim in their private practices as well as their public appearances and in the media. This is an entirely false and extremely dangerous misrepresentation to make and advocate to the public, particularly since the affected audience are children and adolescents (and their families).

In truth, puberty blockers are known to impact children's bone density and can lead to early onset osteoporosis and decreased bone density. They can also impact a child's mental illness. In fact, on the package insert for Lupron, one of the most commonly prescribed puberty blockers, it lists ‘emotional instability’ as a side effect and warns to "[m]onitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment."

Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment, and sterility if the patient proceeds to take cross-sex hormones.

Additionally, a leading expert on the subject noted in relation to a recent experimental trial of puberty blockers, "There was no statistically significant difference in psychosocial functioning between the group given blockers and the group given only psychological support. In addition, there is unpublished evidence that after a year on [puberty blockers] children reported greater self-harm, and the girls also experienced more behavioral and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body so puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria."



Image
Image
Image
Image
For three consecutive years, concerned AAP members, who became increasingly worried with what they were seeing in their practices with children suffering under the care being promoted by Defendants, brought official resolutions before the AAP challenging the Gender Policy Statement.

Each time the AAP used procedural hurdles and even changed certain procedural rules to table and silence those resolutions.

Furthermore, over the past almost two years, there have been six systematic reviews of the evidence surrounding "gender-affirming" medical treatments for children and adolescents (i.e., puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) conducted by research teams across the globe, as advocated for by the Gender Policy Statement, and every single one of them has reached the conclusion that "the evidence for mental-health benefits of hormonal interventions for minors to be of low or very low certainty," whereas, "[b]y contrast, the risks are significant and include sterility, lifelong dependence on medication and the anguish of regret."

Every systematic review has also contradicted the claims that non-medical intervention for gender diverse youth leads to increased suicides another claim pushed by the Gender Policy Statement. "There is no reliable evidence to suggest that hormonal transition is an effective suicide-prevention measure."



Image
Image
Image
Image
Isabelle was sexually assaulted at the age of 7, and experienced early onset-puberty at age 8.

Still haunted from the sexual trauma, and experiencing natural female discomfort, insecurities, and anxiety with puberty, she starting cutting herself at 11.

Then came social media interactions which introduced Isabelle to the concept of being "trans," an idea that immediately gained traction in her mind since Isabelle's life experiences to that point taught her that to be a woman is to be vulnerable.

Within months, to distance herself from the trauma she endured as a young girl, Isabelle began to identify as a boy amongst her group of close friends.



Image
Image
Image
Image
During Isabelle's initial visit with Dr. Rafferty, she in her deeply compromised mental state told him that her growing suicidality was related to her level of discomfort with her natal sex and her inability to transition due primarily to her mother's refusal.

She was convinced that getting rid of her secondary sex characteristics, dissociating herself from the vulnerable female she was when she was attacked at seven years old, and becoming a boy was the only way to treat her mental health struggles.

At this first visit with Dr. Rafferty, Isabelle made the following requests of Dr. Rafferty:

▪️“I would like to start on testosterone but my mother said she would not let me until I am an adult and she no longer has any say."
▪️“I want everything to transition towards a more masculine expression."
▪️“I would like to switch bodies with a boy if I could."
▪️“I would like a penis.”

At that same meeting, however, Isabelle also shared with Dr. Rafferty a major hesitation regarding her desire to medically transition, namely, "that [she] might want to have a biological child."

She further explained, "giving birth really fascinates me and I think it is a beautiful thing," reflecting the fact that even at 14 years old she could sense the unique bond between a mother and a child.

Even so, in a matter of minutes and based substantially, if not exclusively, on the endorsements of Isabelle set forth above, Dr. Rafferty concluded that Isabelle "would benefit [from] and meets criteria to consider hormonal transition," noting only a single "concern," namely "parental (maternal) refusal."

Dr. Rafferty formed these conclusions in spite of the fact that Isabelle was at the moment undergoing inpatient mental health evaluation and treatment, and the fact that Isabelle had expressed desire to give birth to a child someday.



Image
Image
Image
Image
Shortly after starting on testosterone, Isabelle reported "profound depression with intermittent suicidal ideation."

Dr. Jason Rafferty increased her dose!

6 months in, she reported ongoing depression.

She then saw Dr. Michelle Forcier (the “Do chickens cry?” lady from “What is a Woman?”)

Isabelle told Dr. Forcier how her anxiety and depression had been worsening, but Forcier did nothing to slow down Isabelle’s testosterone use.

The next month, Isabelle attempted suicide.



Image
Image
Image
Image
With the intent that Isabelle and her parents would rely on such representations and would "consent" to starting a regiment of cross-sex hormones, each of the Fraud Defendants falsely represented that cross-sex hormone therapy was the only treatment option available to Isabelle to effectively treat her gender dysphoria, as well as her anxiety, depression, PTSD, and suicidality.

They further knowingly fraudulently represented that cross-sex hormone treatment was the settled medical consensus and was based on sufficient and valid scientific evidence for treating patients such as herself.

The Fraud Defendants compounded these fraudulent misrepresentations and coerced Isabelle's mother into giving her "consent" by stating that if Isabelle did not start cross-sex hormone therapy, she would commit suicide.


Image
Image
Image
Separate and distinct from their duties owed to Isabelle under the general standard of care, Malpractice Defendants owed a duty to fully address the known risks associated with the invasive “gender-affirming” treatments they pushed and to discuss all viable alternatives to such procedures.

Malpractice Defendants each breached this duty to provide and obtain informed consent by failing to address the risks of cross-sex hormone treatment (and indeed actually downplaying/minimizing known risks) and by failing to discuss or even present any other alternative treatments.

Because the Malpractice Defendants failed to provide the information necessary for informed consent and failed to discuss the viable, non-invasive alternatives to the “gender- affirming” treatments, Isabelle and her parents were misled into agreeing to take testosterone, which failed to address her underlying issues, and Isabelle now suffers from irreversible changes to her body.

Image
Image
This is just the latest lawsuit for detransitioners, brought by the four dads at Campbell Miller Payne.

Their sole focus is to help put an end to this child abuse. 👏🏼

@detranslaw
@detranslaw I’m heading across the pond to London in a few days for more street conversations, and to inspire some global leaders at the ARC Conference to take action against this child abuse.

If you wish to support my efforts, I greatly appreciate your help.
billboardchris.com/donate

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Billboard Chris 🌎

Billboard Chris 🌎 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BillboardChris

Jul 1
We won!

Together with @X, we just defeated Australia’s government in a huge victory for free speech!

The eSafety Commissioner’s effort to censor me and to demand that X complies has failed. This sets an important precedent.

Congratulations, Australia! 🇦🇺

@elonmusk Image
From the Deputy President of the Tribunal in his ruling:

“The applications before this tribunal have their origin in a social media post insulting Teddy Cook, a transgender man. The post, which among other things refers to Teddy Cook as a woman, has been blocked in Australia as a result of action by the online safety regulator.

“The person who posted the material and the platform on which it was posted have both challenged the decision of the regulator to issue a removal notice. The broad question to be answered is whether the post meets the statutory definition of cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult.

“The more focussed question is whether I can be satisfied that the necessary intention to cause serious harm to the subject of the post has been established. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that it has. Consequently, the decision of the eSafety Commissioner to issue a removal notice is set aside.”

You know what this means, Australia. You are perfectly free to call a man a man and a woman a woman. It’s not misgendering, and it’s not cyber-abuse.

The only people misgendering are the ones who play along with the cult of gender.

There are two sexes, zero genders, and infinite personalities.
I’ll add a link to the entire ruling soon. It’s truly a devastating blow for the @eSafetyOffice.

All of their experts were dismissed as unconvincing and contradictory. In her worst dreams, the eSafety Commissioner could not have expected such a total defeat.

More importantly, this ruling provides a safe roadmap for free speech in Australia, when that speech intends to genuinely debate matters.

With a shoestring budget, we went up against the inexhaustible resources of the government and won. Why? Because we have truth on our side, and all they have is authoritarianism and lies.
Read 5 tweets
Jul 1
BREAKING: The long-awaited verdict in my lawsuit and @X’s lawsuit against Australia’s government will be announced in a few hours time, at 4pm Australian EST, or 2am ET. @elonmusk

This is the most important freedom of speech case on the planet right now.

More details below. 🧵
My original post upon learning @X had been ordered to take my post down or face a $782,500 AUD fine.
Case Summary

Chris Elston, known as Billboard Chris, a Canadian father of two, took to “X” (formerly Twitter) on 28th February 2024 to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of a UN trans expert REVEALED”. 

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the suitability of transgender activist Teddy Cook to be appointed to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy. 

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commission, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Melbourne. 

Billboard Chris, with the support of @ADFIntl and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions. 

The case was heard in Melbourne for five days on the week of March 31st 2025.

“It is vital we challenge the global spread of censorship. We’re used to hearing about governments punishing citizens for their ‘wrong’ speech in parts of the world where strict blasphemy laws are still enforced – but now, from Australia, to Mexico, to Finland, we see Western governments increasingly take authoritarian steps to shut down views they don’t like, often by branding them as “offensive”, “hateful”, or “misinformation.” 

“In a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not state censorship. We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris – and others around the world punished for expressing their peaceful views – in defending the right to live and speak the truth,” commented Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who is serving as part of Billboard Chris’s legal team. 

adfinternational.org/cases/billboar…Image
Read 6 tweets
May 13
The Sydney Morning Herald has done an excellent job reporting on my censorship fight with Australia’s government!

Not just my fight — @elonmusk’s and the Trump administration’s, as well.

It was a very bad idea to censor me.

“In March, in a drab hearing room of the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne, lawyers spent five days going back and forth about a post on social media platform X from a Canadian anti-trans activist and whether it should have been removed from the internet.

“Now, a year after that post was published, the case has caught the attention of the Trump administration, which is accusing Australia – among other countries – of coercing American technology companies into egregious censorship.

“With the White House warning that it is out to enforce free speech around the world, the matter has the potential to creep into high-stakes trade talks between the United States and the re-elected Albanese government.”

Article continues in the thread.👇🏼🧵Image
“The administration has been really straightforward,” David Inserra, a fellow at the Cato Institute, a free market Washington think tank, says. “They view these types of actions as assaults on American competitiveness.”

What happened?

Chris Elston describes himself as a father of two girls who “decided to take a stand against gender ideology”. In practice, that means regularly touring the streets of North America – and the world – with billboards that say: “Children cannot consent to puberty blockers”.

It also means publishing a constant stream of anti-transgender material on social media, where he is known as Billboard Chris. Elston rejects the “anti-trans” label. “I cannot be anti something that doesn’t exist,” he says. “I am pro-child.”
In late February 2024, Elston read a Daily Mailarticle about Teddy Cook, an Australian trans man and activist who was then the community health director at NSW charity ACON, which advocates for the LGBTQ+ community and on HIV/AIDS. The article purported to reveal Cook’s “kinky track record” and questioned his appointment to a World Health Organisation advisory body on transgender issues.

Elston posted a link to the article on X, the Elon Musk-owned platform formerly called Twitter. “This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people’,” Elston wrote, before questioning Cook’s suitability for the appointment.

Cook complained to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, and on March 22 last year, a delegate ordered X to remove the post. A letter from the delegate to X said the post deliberately misgendered Cook, invalidated and mocked his gender identity, was offensive and constituted cyberabuse. If X failed to remove the post, it was liable for a $782,500 fine.

The platform complied by geo-blocking the post in Australia, although it is still available elsewhere, including in the United States. Musk’s company also appealed to the Administrative Review Tribunal, as did Elston, leading to the hearing that was held in March.Image
Read 9 tweets
May 8
The United States has accused Australia of “coercing” Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, into “censoring” free speech, as part of a broader complaint about foreign countries pressuring the tech giants.

At issue is a decision taken by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner to require that X remove a post by Chris Elston, a Canadian campaigner against “gender ideology”. Mr Elston is known online as “Billboard Chris”.

The tweet in question, from February of 2024, took aim at an Australian transgender activist, Teddy Cook, who had been appointed to an advisory panel at the World Health Organisation.

Mr Elston misgendered Mr Cook, who identifies as male, and suggested global guidelines for dealing with trans issues were being written by “people who belong in psychiatric wards”.

He later acknowledged it was “not my nicest tweet ever”, but insisted it was accurate.

“These kids are lost and confused and they’re being lied to, but there are clearly psychiatric issues, and as per all the scientific evidence, the children who end up in these gender clinics are struggling with various mental health comorbidities,” Mr Elston said.

Mr Cook complained to the eSafety Commission, which issued a takedown request for the post, saying it “deliberately” misgendered him in a way “likely intended to invalidate and mock the complainant’s gender identity”.

X and Mr Elston both challenged that decision, prompting a more formal removal order. Mr Elston’s tweet is now geoblocked in Australia, but remains visible overseas.Image
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, which is housed in America’s State Department, has cited the case as a reason to be “concerned” about governments “coercing” tech companies.

“The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected, online and offline,” the bureau said in a statement.

“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech; Turkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticising an individual for promoting gender ideology.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety.

“The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As (American Secretary of State Marco) Rubio said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”

Here’s a very brief summary of the two non-Australian examples.
Mr Breton, a Frenchman who was, at the time, commissioner for the internal market of the European Union, was accused of going rogue when he sent a letter to Mr Musk threatening consequences if content on X placed European Union citizens at risk of “serious harm”.

Turkey fined Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, for resisting pressure from President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government to restrict content from its political opponents. Meta said the content was “clearly in the public interest”.

“Government requests to restrict speech online alongside threats to shut down online services are severe and have a chilling effect on people’s ability to express themselves,” the company said in a statement at the time.
Back to Australia. Last month, the eSafety Commissioner and Mr Elston both testified before the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne. The Commissioner argued the X post was likely “intended to have an effect of causing serious harm”.

Mr Elston was asked why he had chosen to write the post.

“Because the World Health Organisation has global influence,” he said.

“We should have evidence-based care.”Image
Read 4 tweets
Apr 10
Judge lashes child gender-medicine experts in blow for peak clinic! Image
The mother, who wants to harm her child with puberty blockers, has been stripped of custody!

One of Australia's foremost child gender medicine experts has been ruled to have misled the Family Court when giving evidence to support a mother who wished to prescribe her child puberty blockers, in an astonishing judgment that calls into question the integrity of one of the nation's peak gender clinics.

Justice Andrew Strum's extraordinary judgment, which stripped the mother of custody and effectively prevented the child from accessing treatment, criticised the approach of hospitals to children questioning their gender, saying the decision to “affirm unreservedly” any child that raises concerns over their gender is "oddly binary".

He also found the gender clinic that treated the 12-year-old failed to formally give a gender dysphoria diagnosis until the court proceedings had commenced, despite having treated the child since they were six.Image
The case marks the first time a sitting judge has blown a hole in the country's gender-affirming treatment of care guidelines.
While Justice Strum does not comment generally on the gender-affirming care model adopted by the gender clinic at the child's hospital, the judgment raises big questions regarding the treatment of gender-incongruent children.

The matter centred on the biologically male child whose mother believes is gender dysphoric and should be prescribed puberty blockers, but whose father wanted to hold off on treatment and "let the child be the child".

In handing down his judgment, Justice Strum sided with the father who did not wish to "pigeonhole" his child, and decided
"all options" in the child's life should be open.

"This is a case about a child, and a relatively young one at that; not one about the cause of transgender people," Justice Strum wrote.

“As this child grows, develops and matures, and explores and experiences life, the child might, with the related benefits of the passage of time and the acquisition of balanced understanding, come to identify as a transgender female and might elect to undergo some form of medical treatment, to affirm and/or align with that identity. But, similarly, with those benefits, the child might not do so, and for a variety of reasons.

"At this stage in the child's life, all options should be left open, without any unacceptable risk of harm to the child."

In his decision, Justice Strum declared gender dysphoria was not "immutable" but could be influenced by external factors, placing him at odds with the Australian Standards of Care, which back a gender-affirming treatment model.Image
Image
Read 6 tweets
Apr 4
Right now in Australia, a seminal free-speech battle is being fought that proves censorship regimes are no longer constrained by geography.

At the heart of this case is Billboard Chris, a Canadian father who publicly advocates against gender ideology. 🧵 Image
Billboard Chris (real name Chris Elston) has gained international attention for wearing a sandwich board, stating ‘Children cannot consent to puberty blockers’, and striking up conversations with members of the public about trans ideology. Elston has now been forced to travel to Australia to defend his right to post what he likes and have it be seen by his Australian followers on the American-owned social-media platform, X.

Last February, Elston shared an article from the Daily Mail on X about the appointment of Australian trans activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organisation ‘panel of experts’ on transgender policy. Along with posting the article, titled ‘Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED’, Elston criticised Cook’s agenda and supposed expertise.

The post drew a complaint from Cook to Australia’s ‘eSafety commissioner’, which demanded its removal. While X initially resisted, it eventually ‘geoblocked’ the content in Australia – so Australians, at least, couldn’t see it. Now, a legal battle for free speech is being waged Down Under, with both X and Chris challenging the censorship order. With the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, Elston is arguing that the eSafety commissioner violated his right to peacefully share his beliefs.
Elston landed in Australia last week, ahead of his five-day hearing this week. To make matters worse, when he ventured out on to the streets of Brisbane with his trademark billboard, intending to speak with the public, he was forcibly moved on by police and almost arrested. Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(