Human wrongs

Australia has a human rights agency that rides roughshod over the female sex

Photo by Molly Blackbird on Unsplash

It comes as no surprise to learn, given the long game being played by trans activists, that as early as 2010, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) began a campaign to review the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA)1984. They conducted a consultation to canvas the experiences and views of people who might have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity.

Despite this broad agenda, the specific aim was to have the biological definitions of females and males removed from the SDA. This was achieved in 2013, under then Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The definition of a “woman” meaning “a member of the female sex irrespective of age” was repealed to instead accommodate the demands of men who want to be women.

This was done without proper investigation or discussion, as the Affiliation of Australian Women’s Action Alliances recently explained: “Nothing was said in the relevant parliamentary debates about redefining ‘sex’ or ‘woman’ or about women’s rights, while the now famous explanatory memorandum to the Act notably excluded ‘special measures’—that is, measures that previously allowed for female services and spaces—from the 2013 changes.”

Paradoxically, the current version of the SDA does contain protections for discrimination on the ground of pregnancy or potential pregnancy, and on the ground of breastfeeding, and these protections are recognised as being required for women without any reference to transwomen or transmen, so this is a back-handed acceptance of the biological characteristics of women.

The definition of “woman” in terms of her reproductive role and related sex characteristics—that is, a woman as an adult female human—had served humanity since we were able to use words to describe sex differences. However, it seems the legal system does not have to acknowledge the biological process of reproduction that is the foundation of the survival of our species, instead it can develop a new set of “facts, knowledges and truths”—

“Facts sustain law and legal institutions. Contesting, debating, and then ‘finding’ or establishing facts is seen as essential to the process of law-making that follows. But, far from acting on or applying to a set of pre-existing facts, law produces, writes and determines its own facts, knowledges and truths (Emphasis added).”

And so, with the Gillard amendments to the SDA, the grounds for erasing female sex-based rights were set in law. The AHRC is currently involved in two legal cases, and at the heart of both cases are the vexing questions of “what is a woman?”, “is sex binary and immutable?”, “can a woman have a penis?”, and “can a biological man be a lesbian?”.

Tickle v Giggle

Roxy Tickle is a transwoman who underwent “gender-affirming” surgery and changed the sex marker on his birth certificate from male to female (for reasons outlined below, I will refer to Tickle with masculine pronouns). He wanted to join a social networking app, Giggle for Girls, developed by Sall Grover for women only. Tickle apparently passed an initial on-line application which used artificial intelligence to identify applicants as female or male. Grover removed him from the group after identifying him as male.

Tickle initially complained to the AHRC, but conciliation did not proceed. Tickle then began legal action, claiming he was refused access because he is a transwoman, and therefore had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender identity.

The AHRC was not a party to these Federal Court proceedings but acted in the role of “a friend of the court” (amicus curiae) by providing submissions on their interpretation of the SDA.

Justice Robert Bromwich determined—in line with the current legal “facts, knowledges and truths”—that “sex is not confined to a biological concept” and “a person’s sex can be changed.” Therefore, “Ms Tickle is correctly described as a woman.” The judge then decided Tickle had been subjected to “secondary discrimination,” and Sall Grover was obliged to pay him $10,000 compensation plus his legal costs.

The Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, welcomed the ruling—

“We stand with trans communities and will continue to advocate for their rights and the rights of women. No one in Australia should face discrimination or exclusion based on their sex or gender identity (Emphasis added).”

Unfortunately, despite lip service to “sex and gender identity”, gender appears to trump sex every time for Dr Cody.

Lesbian Action Group

In August 2023, the Lesbian Action Group (LAG) sought the AHRC’s approval to hold a public event only for lesbians born female. The group needed an exemption under the SDA to exclude transwomen who identify as lesbian.

The group said—

“Our application for the exemption is so we can run lesbian-only events again. We are tired of living in the shadows and being underground. We are also really concerned that young lesbians have no community or lesbian-only spaces in which to socialise and meet potential partners. They have not had the benefit older lesbians have had pre-1990s and they are finding it hard to find lesbian community when everything LGBTIQ+ is compulsory mixed sex. We know young lesbians who are finding this to be a major issue (Emphasis added).”

The AHRC decided it was inappropriate and unreasonable to—

“make distinctions between women based on their cisgender or transgender experience, or among same-sex attracted women based on the exclusivity of their same-sex attraction at an event of this kind, or exclude same-sex attracted women who are transgender, bisexual and queer from an event of this kind.”

Further, the AHRC expressed concern that the organisers would not be able to identify translesbians and might ask “questions about an attendee’s physical sex characteristics or the exclusivity of their same-sex attraction, which could reasonably be expected to intrude on an individual’s privacy and, in some cases, has the potential to amount to sexual or sex-based harassment.”

The AHRC, faithful to modern gender theory, rejected the application.

Gender theory meets the criteria for an ideology as it is based on queer theory, which in turn rests on a set of beliefs that are not backed by any tradition of scientific research. These beliefs have been and continue to be strongly contested.

Belief: Sex isn’t binary

Perhaps it is because this generation is one of the first to have access to reliable contraception that gender ideologues are able to claim there is a disconnect between sex and reproductive function. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to accept that any adult would not have a good understanding of human reproduction. Every person on the planet—including people with a disorder in any biological system—exists because an egg from a female was fertilised by sperm from a male. There are no in-between sexes that contribute to this system of reproduction. Two and only two sexes, female and male, exist and maintain the survival of the human species. Sexual characteristics may overlap across the range of feminine traits and masculine traits, but sex is binary.

Any textbook on human reproduction outlines the differences between women (females) and men (males) and how babies are made.

Belief: A person’s sex can change

The concept that a person can change sex reflects the incorrect inference drawn from the disorders of sexual development (DSDs). The argument is that because some people appear to change sex then all people can change sex. For example—

“Babies born with 5-alpha reductase deficiency are classified as girls when they are born. During puberty, an increase in the levels of male sex hormones leads to the development of some secondary sex characteristics, such as increased muscle mass, deepening of the voice, development of pubic hair, and a growth spurt. The penis and scrotum (the sac of skin that holds the testes) may grow larger.”

The essential point to grasp is that only people born with a specific DSD can experience this change in their sex characteristics. There is zero evidence that any person can change sex simply by identifying as the other sex.  Using DSDs as “evidence” that anyone can change sex is like claiming that because some people are born with disorders of sight that ultimately cause blindness, it follows that—

becoming blind is not a disorder but a normal condition

if someone declares they are blind, they are blind despite evidence to the contrary

to refuse to accept they are blind is bigotry and sightphobia

Although trans activists rage against biological reality, which is incorrectly called “bioessentialism,” they implicitly acknowledge that a person’s sex doesn’t change when they argue for “inclusive language.”  

By insisting that transmen can menstruate, get pregnant, and give birth, trans activists reveal their knowledge that a women’s biology doesn’t change when she identifies as a man. What they champion is simply changing labels—

“Front hole: An alternative word for the vagina preferred by some transmen and/or non-binary people with a cervix”

“Pregnant people”: The term used by the Australian Government’s website on family and domestic violence

“Menstruators: all people that menstruate”

“Nonman: a being that is not a man”

Belief: What is a woman?

In simple terms, trans activists say a person is a woman if he or she says so. What criteria does a man use to come to the belief he is a woman? Aside from “because I say so,” there is no science or logic to support his insistence that he is a woman, regardless of any medical and/or surgical interventions.

Attempts to define a woman as anything other than an adult female human ultimately become circular and/or absurd.

Transwomen also acknowledge that they don’t actually change sex when the great majority of them choose to keep their symbol of masculinity, the penis, which they simply rename as a “ladydick.”

Belief: What is a lesbian?

The AHRC has two definitions of lesbian on their website, which indicates just how recent the change is, and again, it is a change without any evidence-based history.

“Sexual orientation: Refers to a person’s romantic or sexual attraction to another person, including, amongst others, the following: heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual or same-sex attracted (Emphasis added).”

And then: “According to the Yogyakarta principles, sexual orientation is understood to refer to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender (Emphasis added).”

The first definition reflects the understanding of women who love women going back as far as 1700 BCE:

“The Code of Hammurabi provided one of the earliest mentions of lesbians in existing historical documents when it referred to ‘salzikrum,’ or daughter-men, who were allowed to marry other women.”

The second definition? Who knows? Did anyone at the AHRC survey the lesbian community?

AHRC and conversion practices

The definitions of “woman” and “lesbian” were changed to accommodate the dictates of trans ideologues, and now everyone is expected to instantly agree to adopt these terms without question. However, with no history of research to determine how valid and reliable these new definitions are, and with recognition of the harm these new definitions cause females, many people cannot in all conscience and wisdom comply with these demands.

But what happens when someone disagrees with the science fiction underpinning trans ideology?

The Victorian Police Force says of conversion practices—

“Change or suppression (conversion) practices are considered extremely harmful. They are practices that intend to change or make someone hide their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

“They are now prohibited as part of the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021, which came into effect on 17 February 2022.”

The Queensland government’s definition adds that conversion practices use “ideology as a reference point (Emphasis added).”

By these definitions, it is a conversion practice when, consistent with gender ideology, a girl or woman is compelled to accept, without their clear consent, that a male-born person is a girl or woman.

Being forced to accept these situations under threat of sanctions of one kind or another adds to the seriousness of the conversion practice as it requires the female to change or hide her deeply held sense of self as a girl or woman or risk punishment. In my view, it is a conversion practice at odds with female rights when a girl or woman is compelled to accept male-born people in female-only changerooms, sports, prisons, associations, work roles, and wards.

All require the female to agree, or hide her disagreement and acquiesce to the demand that a person born male is a girl or a woman, and she is expected to treat the transperson as if she believes that person is a girl or a woman. Apart from all other considerations, without the lived experience of being born and raised female, what do the males have in common with women?

In my opinion, in the two legal cases referred to above, the advocacy of the AHRC in general and of Dr Anna Cody in particular in support of the trans claims against women meets the definition of supporting conversion practices. In the first case, Sall Grover is forced to hide or suppress her own deeply held sense of what it means to her to be a woman and has already had a financial penalty against her.

In the second case, lesbians are being required not only to hide or suppress their own deeply held sense of what it means to be a woman, but also what it means to be a lesbian. Currently they are forced to go underground with their female lesbian-only events.

Compare Dr Cody’s response to the Tickle v Giggle judgement, where her focus was clearly on supporting trans rights regardless of the impact on women, to the response of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem—

“The [Bromwich] ruling demonstrates the concrete consequences that result when gender identity is allowed to supplant sex and override women’s rights to female-only services and spaces.”

It is for this reason that I referred to Roxy Tickle as “he.” I use a transperson’s preferred pronouns when that person is living in his preferred gender role but is not demanding to be accepted as a woman. It is my right to make that choice for people I respect, not something I can be compelled to do.

A more in-depth discussion of conversion practices can be found here.

Questions for Dr Cody

In my opinion, Dr Cody has a case to answer about her preferencing the wants of a group of people born male over the needs and rights of all females. There are three questions she should answer—

Does she require the women in the two legal cases above to change their deeply held sense of their own sex and gender expression that a woman is an adult female human, to Dr Cody’s preferred belief that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman?

If the women cannot change their deeply held sense of self, does she require them to act as if they believe that a man can become a woman, i.e. to hide their deeply held sense of being a woman?

If the women cannot change in either of these ways, does Dr Cody recommend sanctions against them?

If the answer is “yes” to any of these questions, Dr Cody is, given the legal definitions above, guilty of advocating conversion practices.

It is worth noting at this point that the AHRC has been found, over a 10-year period from 2012 to 2022, to have breached the guidelines of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions stipulating that positions for commissioners must be publicly advertised and finalised through a merit-based selection process.

This raises legitimate questions about commissioners appointed over that period. The AHRC should identify the changes made to ensure the integrity of the selection process since October 2022. What were the essential criteria for the 2023 appointment of Dr Cody as the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner? How many other candidates were considered?

Conclusion

In my opinion, the following actions are required to remedy the harm currently being done to females in Australia—

The Attorney-General should consider whether the AHRC and Dr Cody have been using conversion practices to compel females of all ages to accept a person born male as a girl or woman, contrary to their own deeply held sense of self as a female.

The AHRC should acknowledge that trans ideology is based on a set of beliefs that are strongly contested and lack a sound research basis

There should be a review of the AHRC as it is currently structured and performs to determine if that organisation is fit for purpose to support the well-being and safety of all females

The AHRC should work towards a repeal of the 2013 Gillard amendments to the SDA and add clear and unambiguous definitions of the words “female” and “male” derived from the field of reproductive biology

The AHRC should apologise for any identified conversion practices

The AHRC should publish statements that make it clear that any person, organisation, or workplace that threatens, abuses, punishes or otherwise pressures females for not wanting biological males who identify as women in their spaces is performing an illegal conversion practice

The right of free speech for females to define a woman as an adult female human without penalty should be restored

From my 50 years of clinical practice as a psychologist, I know that some people genuinely hold the belief that they are the other gender, and I know that some of these people benefit from transitioning socially, medically and/or surgically to live as the other gender as they experience it. They are ordinary people living their lives in their preferred gender role, working, studying, raising a family, socialising with friends. They don’t have meltdowns if they are “misgendered,” they don’t believe they change biologically to become the other sex, and they don’t parade in fetish gear.

They don’t get into arguments with people who don’t understand or accept them, instead enjoying relationships that are mutually respectful and avoiding those who disagree with them. In other words, they are a part of the diverse general community.

As more people become aware of the activities of males demanding access to female-only rights, and if the Gillard changes to the SDA are not repealed—

females of all ages will continue to experience sex discrimination and be subjected to conversion practices

and ordinary transgender people who are living their lives peacefully as accepted members of the community will face the backlash

This issue is not going to go away.

The AHRC was offered an opportunity to comment on the allegation that it is engaging in conversion practices; it made no comment. Dr Sandra Pertot retired not long ago after five decades of practice as a clinical psychologist specialising in human sexuality, including sexual dysfunction, sexual orientation and gender diversity