We can't say anything concrete about how Sam McMahon voted on transgender children and young people having access to gender affirming healthcare
How Sam McMahon voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should not restrict access to gender affirming healthcare for transgender people under the age of eighteen, rather they should leave healthcare matters in the hands of the professional bodies responsible for administering such healthcare (e.g., the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Psychological Society, etc.)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for transgender children and young people having access to gender affirming healthcare” which Sam McMahon could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Sam McMahon on this policy.
| Division | Sam McMahon | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for transgender children and young people having access to gender affirming healthcare” which Sam McMahon could have attended.
| Division | Sam McMahon | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
15th Jun 2021, 4:50 PM – Senate Motions - Gender Dysphoria - Treating gender diverse children |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Sam McMahon has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.