The proposed federal Social Media Minimum Age legislation will prohibit children under 16 from accessing social media accounts, citing their increased vulnerability to platform-related harms. While the Act does not delve into the physiological basis for this vulnerability, it is well established that the emotional and impulsive limbic system is not fully tempered by the rational prefrontal cortex until the mid-twenties. This biological reality underscores the need to protect youth from external pressures while they gain the knowledge, wisdom, and resilience necessary for informed decision-making.
However, a troubling contradiction emerges. While children under 16 are deemed too vulnerable to navigate social media safely, politicians from both major parties suggest that children as young as nine possess sufficient “agency” to consent to interventions affirming a gender identity incongruent with their biological sex. These interventions often involve profound and irreversible consequences, such as hormonal treatments, surgical modifications, and lifelong medical dependency.
If we legislate to protect children from the harms of social media, we should also apply consistent safeguards in other areas of vulnerability. Criminalising genuine therapeutic interventions that help children explore and find comfort in their gender identity without ideological coercion may itself constitute a form of systemic “bullying.” Protecting youth requires more than selective advocacy—it demands coherence, compassion, and a genuine commitment to their well-being.
Dr Philip Morris AM