Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

The threat posed to women’s rights …

Image from HERE

The Women’s Liberation Front Southern Tasmania (WoLF Tas) has written to Tasmanian and Victorian MP’s warning them about the threat posed to women’s rights if proposed legislative changes tabled yesterday in the Victorian Parliament by Premier Daniel Andrews and also similarly proposed in an Options Paper by the Office of Equal Opportunity Tasmania (EOT), go ahead.

WOLF yesterday alerted all Tasmanian MPs about our concerns regarding Equal Opportunity Tasmania’s recommendations for amendments to the Tasmanian Births, Deaths & Marriages Registration Act (1999), which are made in their [i]Options Paper – Legal Recognition of Sex and Gender Diversity in Tasmania: Options for amendments to the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999.[/i]

“[b]We have serious concerns for the consequences to women’s and girl’s rights should these recommendations be adopted into legislation.”

“This change would allow any person to self-identify a sex which is not truly their sex, with far reaching legal ramifications.[/b]”

The proposed change would practically limit the protections afforded to women and girls under the [i]Sex Discrimination Act 1984[/i] (Cth) (‘SDA’), which implements Australia’s international obligations regarding the protection of women’s rights under the [i]Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [/i](CEDAW).

For example, [b]women would be forced to allow access to males who have self-identified their sex as ‘female’ into women’s only services, such as domestic violence shelters[/b] and women’s support groups. Women’s clubs (such as gyms) and events (such as festivals and awards ceremonies) will also be similarly affected.

[b]Services that provide intimate care to female clients (such as assistance with toileting, showering, grooming and dressing) would not be able to legally discriminate against male people who have identified their sex as ‘female’ in recruitment to such positions.[/b]

The ability of women to exclude such males from [b]competitive sporting activity, as explicitly provided for under the SDA, will become practically void[/b] if males become legally indistinguishable from females.

The change would also limit the ability of authorities to prevent males who self-identify their sex as female from being housed in female prisons,as they would be legally indistinguishable from actual female people. This scenario raises particularly grave concerns for women’s rights.

Further areas of concern include the implications for confusing demographic data, especially as it relates to reporting on health, crime and the social, economic and political status of the sexes.
WOLF Tas has urged MP’s to consider the impact on women and girls as central in any legislative change regarding the legal recognition of sex and that women and girls be recognised as key stakeholders regarding this issue.

Download …

• Briefing Paper on Equal Opportunity Tasmania Options Paper – Legal recognition of sex and gender diversity in Tasmania: options for amendments to the Births, Deaths & Marriages Registration Act 1999:

Briefing_Paper_on_Equal_Opportunity_Tasmania,_Options_Paper-_Legal_recognition_of_sex_and_gender_diversity_in_Tasmania.pdf

• WOLF Submission provided to Equal Opportunity Tasmania on the Options Paper:

WoLF_Comment_EOT_BDMR_Act.pdf

*Tessa Anne is a law student with a passion for social justice and ensuring the human rights of women and girls.

*WOLF stands for women’s liberation front, an international radical feminist organisation

Atlanta Progressive News: Georgia ACLU Director departs over transgender litigation …

Kut.org, News from Austin, Texas: Federal Court Halts Guidelines on Transgender Bathroom Use in Schools

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
82 Comments

82 Comments

  1. Leonard Colquhoun

    December 13, 2016 at 11:49 am

    Is this the main point in Comment 13’s response to #12, that all ideologies are, at base, moronic?

    What seems to have happened in this / these matter/s is what Freud called ‘the narcissism of small differences’. In Christian history, tens of thousands were murdered as heretics over a doctrinal triviality called the ‘filioque’ clause, for example; the 1400 years of Sunni v Shia mutually murderous enmity seems to about something similar – most of us outside these two sets of extremes could not give a toss. Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ satirised the mentality beautifully ‘Life of Brian’ in the Judaean Peoples Liberation Front scenes.

    Posted by Leonard Colquhoun on 13/12/16 at 02:11 PM
    – See more at: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/trans-activists-trumped-by-their-own-flawed-policies/#sthash.Fvsii45N.dpuf

  2. Brian Johnston

    September 16, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    #80 Not clear enough? Psychiatry is quackery. Still not clear enough? It is B……t. A male with a male genitalia and a male pelvis should not be mutilated. It is a head condition. It is not about choice.

  3. Leonard Colquhoun

    September 16, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    About this claim in Comment 79, “Psychiatry is untested and unproven. It is not a science” – the really annoying answer is sort of ‘No’, and sort of ‘Yes’.

    ‘No’, it is not a science in the full sense that the physical sciences are, such as chemistry, physics, astronomy and geology, mainly because you can’t cut living people into bits or irradiate them or heat them up to 1000 degrees or see what happens when they eat this or that toxin.

    This applies to every one of what are called the ‘social sciences’, a fact which some of their practitioners forget or deliberately deny.

    But, ‘yes’, the social sciences can use many of the standard scientific methods (double-blind testing is an example) up to or close to some point when physical, mental or emotional harm happens. If they fail to use standard scientific methods available to them, then many of their findings will be just rubbish, and often harmful.

    Link (among many others) – https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/psychiatry-bashing/ .

  4. Brian Johnston

    September 15, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    Psychiatry is untested and unproven. It is not a science. Therein lies the greatest part of the problem. To give an example from another field/issue.
    An innocent person in gaol is deemed by a psychiatrist as to dangerous to release.
    A man who says castrate me and chop it off has to be mentally assessed, but no , it has become the new norm.

  5. Tessa

    September 15, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    Thanks for your comment Brian.

    You may be surprised to learn that the current discourse demands that a male person who ‘identifies as female’ be recognised as having a ‘female penis’.

    I kidd you not. The penis is now a female sex organ….

  6. Brian Johnston

    September 15, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Transgender, the debate goes on
    The nuts and bolts of the issue have not been considered
    If a man decides he should be a female is the problem below the belt or above collar
    Do we operate below or rewire above
    The question I ask is
    Do these men have a male or female pelvis?
    More the likely a male pelvis, therefore
    I believe the problem is mental

  7. Andrew

    August 29, 2016 at 11:02 pm

    #72 Simon – I’m afraid that you’re flogging a dead horse here and whatever you say will be misconstrued! Your comments on TT are always thoughtful, insightful and intelligent and in this case, have clearly supported the author’s view that the proposed legislative changes pose a threat to the wellbeing of women and should be stopped. This appears to be the view of pretty much all of the men who have posted. I’m not sure why the discussion has degenerated into a Feminists v All Men (and Ruth) stoush. It would be much more constructive to present a united front, given that nobody disagrees with Tessa’s views in her excellent article. Unfortunately, kindness, tolerance and humour are too easily replaced nowadays by indignation and spite.

  8. John Wade

    August 29, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    (cont)

    Ultimately, it seems women-whom-you’ve-had-sex-with are the only category of people straight men aren’t expected to treat cordially. This deep-seated sexism comes alongside various other problematic assumptions—that sex is something women give to men, that women always want relationships, that talking about emotions in connection to sex is “crazy”—that still seem to permeate heterosexual sexual relations. And that left me, a hard-core feminist in 2016, feeling like a cow that had given away the milk for free.

    Glad I didn’t call her a cow. You can imagine the outrage.

    Anyway, she says that men do not call a woman they barely know and who has provided a sexual service because they are sexist. Oh really. Is that the best she can do?
    Young Olivia Goldhill has been bragging about how feminism has destroyed common courtesy, which is fundamental to courtship, and then she complains that her latest hookup, call him Dan, was discourteous and did not call her back.

    You cannot, Olivia dear, have it both ways. The fact of the matter is, courtship existed to ensure, as much as possible, that you would be having sex with someone you know. Not only that, but that you would await some level of commitment before giving it away. If you do not act like a lady you cannot expect him to act like a gentleman. How about a little coherent thought?

    Goldhill has every right to behave as she wishes. No one would reproach her for doing as she pleases. And yet, she does not confer the same right on her hookup. She insists that he show her proper respect, and fails to understand that showing respect is part of the courtship game that feminists destroyed. She doesn’t just want to do what she wants, but she insists that other people respect her for it. She is arguing for mind control.

    Anyone who has is able to reason like an adult—and that includes most mothers of adolescent and adult daughters– will tell Goldhill that she should act as though she respects herself. Because if she acts as though she does not respect herself, why would any man respect her?

    Blaming it on sexism is shifting the blame. And disempowering women. One notes, with chagrin, that feminism, in its radical fervor, has overthrown traditional customs and beliefs. As such, it has done women no favors. In place of the cordial and perhaps even awkward game of courtship—see Jane Austen—it has given women the freedom to hook up and it has given men the freedom to treat women with disrespect. Moreover, in its constant assault on men’s character, its constant accusations of sexism—these are certainly not limited to the dating world—it has produced a hostile cultural environment.

    And, why would anyone imagine that men will not retaliate by treating women with something less than respect. Since physical retaliation is a criminal action, men have found other ways to mistreat women—by not calling them in the morning, by using them and discarding them.

    If you think that men are going to sit back and take the hostility and the abuse, the assaults on their character and dignity, you are wrong. It is insulting and offensive. It has taught men the power of ghosting.

    One might not like the way that men treat women, but feminists should cease and desist from denouncing men as sexist and should start acting as though they respect themselves. At that point, men will be far more likely to show them more respect.

    Gringo said…

    And that left me, a hard-core feminist in 2016, feeling like a cow that had given away the milk for free.

    My grandmother, born in the 19th century, also made the analogy of the cow giving away the milk for free.

  9. John Wade

    August 29, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    – There is a lot of talk going on about this issue in many places, right at this moment.
    19 out of 25 Labor politicians in the new NT gov are women – the Presidente of Brazil is the 1st elected president and is fighting the fight.
    Below, just to throw into the mix, is an article:
    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/when-he-doesnt-call-back.html

    When He Doesn’t Call Back

    What hath feminism wrought?

    Olivia Goldhill is standing tall and proud. She correctly remarks that feminism has overthrown courtship customs that have existed for centuries. She apparently missed the point, made by yours truly and by Camille Paglia, that traditional courtship empowers women.

    If your mind does not veer too close to the paranoid you will have figured out that courtship and dating could not have evolved without the active participation of women. More so since they are in charge of the game. Even more so since, when it comes to romance women have home field advantage.

    So if you think that traditional courtship was a vast patriarchal conspiracy, you have missed the point entirely. And you have grievously insulted all the women who created and fostered the custom.

    Goldhill is down on dating because she has bought the party line that considers it sexist. Thereby she places herself among those whose minds have not gotten beyond the name-calling state of intellectual development:

    With feminism almost universally embraced, I had long assumed that anyone I’d be interested in hanging out with would know that the traditional, heterosexual dating rules are ridiculous. And why play some outdated game when you’ve absolutely no intention of starting a serious relationship?

    But then, since Goldhill had overcome dating, she found herself hooking up. Truth be told, like it or not, the hookup culture—see yesterday’s post—arose after feminists rejected traditional courtship. But, hooking up does not always produce the desired outcome. It is decidedly bad for women. Worse yet, as everyone but Goldhill knows, when you hook up with whomever you might never see him again.

    She offers us her anguish:

    The first time I met someone I was interested in post-break-up, none of those rules were relevant. We had sex, texted, and hung out without counting the hours between messages or playing hard to get. The second time, however, I was not so lucky. In a scenario familiar to millions of people, yet honestly surprising to me, I had sex with a guy (we’ll call him Dan) and never heard from him again. I didn’t know him well and certainly wasn’t emotionally invested, but the interaction still rankled me. We’d got on incredibly well and, for all the nonchalance endemic to casual hook ups, sex is an unavoidably intimate experience. The radio silence post-coitus seemed strangely cold.

    And she continues, to wring her experience through her feminist mind:

    (cont)

  10. Robin Charles Halton

    August 29, 2016 at 3:16 am

    #70 The feminist stand alone sexist agenda in Tasmania is really starting to show its lack of understanding for actually defending womens rights as it appears to denies inclusion of a men role too.

    For a start our first two Anti discrimination Commissioners are feminists and that leads to the bad news.

    The first being feminist laywer … Joycelene Scutt who claimed bullying by the DPP and the Ombudsman during her five year term, there is no doubt she helped create her own demise with her strong feminist agenda.

    Next we have Robin Banks who has been cautious till now until where things seem to have backfired for womens rights by her support for the transgender recognition not by birth certificate but by fiddling with the sex change issue which could involve “men” using a range womens facilities which goes against the fundamentals of womens rights in the community.

    This really complicates the issues for your hard line feminist mates does it not, Isla ha ha !

    In future The Tasmanian government needs to appoint suitable ADC’s based on unbiased gender selection criterea, not those engaged in counter activities and agendas that can lead to obvious bias in decision making among the broader community.
    It is my view that a potent feminist is a potential recipe for disaster in public debate.

    As for Josie Young, she is free to write into TT as often as she wishs to. It has been a bit complicated to figure out her pseudo Muslim/ Feminist transformation agenda for which she has been so proud of in her previous article.

  11. Simon Warriner

    August 29, 2016 at 1:10 am

    Jane, going back to my original comment, it is a comment, an observation, given in the spirit of trying to help. Nothing more, and most certainly not an instruction, or anything like it. You are loading your prejudices onto me and getting it wrong.

    I have a choice, bow out and in doing so contribute to getting the discussion returned to where it belongs, focused on getting a stupid bit of legislation binned, or continue to argue with you. I am choosing to bow out.

  12. Jane Rankin-Reid

    August 28, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    Thank you the link Ilsa, its a brilliant cultural time capsule of the obstacles women are still facing in this community.

    Leonard, your passion for the philological integrity of isms gives new energy to the subject. I take all your points. But it seems to me that the only thing we can be absolutely sure of about the English language is that it is always evolving, culturally porous, innovative and alarmingly accommodating. Even to the point that until recent decades, beginning a sentence with ‘But’ would have suggested a different meaning. Now, sadly, in spite of its marvellous evolution, vocabularies are shrinking over all. Therefore, the closer our use of language is to 21st century cultural frames of reference ie choice of words, tone and intention, the better it will serve us for raising all of our awareness and expectations of equality. In today’s world, those challenging use of the word ‘feminism’ for any other reason than to refute these basic human rights, are squandering their talents.

  13. Isla MacGregor

    August 28, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    #68 The reason why most people who comment on TT are men can been seen from:

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/feminists-please-dont-shut-up-/

    Why did Josie Young stop writing for TT – no guesses here!

  14. Leonard Colquhoun

    August 28, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Jane (at 68), re your “why only one ‘ism’ out of all these” others: because it is the -ism which is the major one in this thread.

    Similarly, but to a lesser extent, ‘male chauvinism’ has a presence here, if only by implication. However, I would regard it as a type 5 ‘-ism’, one which (much like capitalism) does not have the attitudes and structure of an ideology. Somewhat like mid-19th century socialism, before the influence of Herr Marx and Herr Engels, and somewhat like what the Fabians^ wanted – and how, traditionally, the ALP has seen itself. And still should.

    ^ the original ‘Fabian’ was the Roman who defeated Hannibal, while more macho chaps kept losing battles, armies, and tens of thousands of legionaries to the Punic genius, because he did it his way. Bit by bit.

  15. Jane Rankin-Reid

    August 28, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Leonard, interesting but inconclusive as to why only one ‘ism’ out of all these bothers local chaps of a certain generation quite so much. To be honest, I suspect for all the ‘rejection’ here in this corner of the universe, ‘isms’ may well make a big come back with the next generation; with good reason.

    Simon, you’re exaggerating for dramatic effect but you are most certainly not being hung when your views are being questioned by women here on TT.

    The message in your response is clear; if women want your help marshalling the widest possible support base so as the problem has the best chance of being ‘fixed’, we are going to have to take your advice about how to speak and behave, or face the consequences of losing such an important battle because of not obeying men like you who know better. You’ve even gone so far as to detail how to address a meeting, so quite evidently, you see major shortcomings where the rest of us see strengths…But let’s follow your rationale for a moment longer; the consequences of ignoring your advice or to be more accurate, your instructions, will be that women can at last be forced to acknowledge that so much of our continuing oppression is caused by… ourselves.
    What leaps out like the cancerous node on a genetically modified salmon in this equation is the alarmingly conditional ‘if’ of support or endorsement. It is a conditional style of offer that is virtually unheard of in any other Tasmanian Times campaign discussions. I wonder what the balance in the frequency of men telling women how to behave in comparison with the frequency of women telling men how to behave in debates on this website?

  16. Isla MacGregor

    August 28, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    More from Maya Dillard Smith here:

    http://www.mayadillardsmith.com/maya-dillard-smith-calls-federal-gender-identity-ruling-a-win-for-american-democracy/

    [i]Today, in an op-ed entitled Federal Court’s Denial of Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Directive a Win for Everyone Dillard Smith writes, [b]“The Federal Court’s just gave the green light for a broader conversation.” She adds, “The question now is will it be civil?”[/b]….

    Dillard Smith has been demanding a [b]broader conversation of all the rights being implicated under the new legal term “gender identity.”[/b] Her goal as a civil rights advocate and constitutional scholar is to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that lawmaking bodies are mindful to mitigate potential unintended consequences.

    The federal courts agree with Dillard Smith….

    Ms. Dillard Smith created a wildly successful digital community (www.facebook.com/WeAre FindingMiddleGround) that is a safe space for conversations addressing the most controversial civil rights issues of our time. The site launched and the conversation was kick started with the first topic: “Transgender Bathrooms, The Rights of Those Born Female (formerly Women’s Rights), “Gender Identity” & The Law – Can We Broaden The Conversation?: The Case for Civil Discourse.”[/i]

  17. Claire Gilmour

    August 28, 2016 at 12:36 am

    This is completely insane that women have to still think they have to ‘fight’ for consideration, recognition, fairness.

    It’s like being back in the dark ages, but pretending we are ‘modern’ … better than the old school.

    It’s like watching a movie of the ‘ol’ days’ but with different clothes on.

    The simple answer is … don’t be weak, meek and mild!

    Women’ actually’ control the planet … that’s what scares the boys!

    Get real ….

  18. Isla MacGregor

    August 27, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    #64 In sisterhood – I totally concur.

  19. Tessa

    August 27, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Thanks to all the women here continuing to speak their minds and tell the truth of their experience, in the face of backlash from both men and male-identifying women.

    We have tried to do liberation by men’s rules and it has gotten us nowhere. The time has well passed where we are justified in seeking liberation on our own terms.

    In sisterhood.

  20. Leonard Colquhoun

    August 27, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    Here is a response to what Comment 61 requests.

    ‘Feminism’ the abstract noun has quite naturally evolved from ‘feminine’ the adjective by the swapping its old suffix ‘–ine’ for another suffix –ism’, a classical Graeco-Roman ending (together with ‘-ist’) which has become very productive since the English Renaissance.

    Here is the range of ways which the suffix /-ism/ is used; it is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism , abridged and with my insertions shown by [ ]s; numbering is mine:

    1: to form nouns of action or process or result based on the accompanying verb in -ize [our customary spelling would be –ize, except at Oxford] as in baptism, criticism and magnetism;

    2: to form the name of a system, school of thought or theory based on the name of its subject or object (or alternatively on the name of its founder, e.g. Liberalism / liberalism), as in Lutheranism , Calvinism , Protestantism , Mohammedanism, [Darwinism, Lysenkoism, Marxism, Maoism and Platonism];

    3: to form names of a tendency of behaviour, action, state, condition or opinion belonging to a class or group of persons, or the result of a doctrine, ideology or principle, as in atheism, theism, religionism [first citation 1706, would be very useful now, had to do an ‘add to dictionary’], patriotism, despotism, capitalism, conservatism, feminism [economic rationalism]; see [7] below;

    4: to form nouns indicating a peculiarity or characteristic of language, as in Americanism [1781, didn’t take long), did it], vulgarism [was less ‘offensive’ than it now is], colloquialism, Shakespearianism [1886, only took 300 years!], [txtism / txtsm ??] ;

    5: to form names of ideologies expressing belief in the superiority of a certain class within the concept expressed by the root word, or a pattern of behavior or a social norm that benefits members of the group indicated by the root word. [based on a late 20th-century narrowing of the “terms for a doctrine” sense], as in racism (1932), sexism (1936), classism (1971), speciesism (1975), heterosexism (1979), [doctrinal] feminism, [hetero-normativism];

    6: used in medicine to form names of conditions or syndromes such as rheumatism [and ‘000s of others];

    [7: to form names of ideologies expressing belief in the superiority of a certain idea, belief, creed, within the concept expressed by the root word].

    ‘Feminism’ began life as a very useful catch-all abstract noun for the awakening and developing women’s liberation movements (note the plural). However, like many such –isms, degenerated into a simplistic one-size-fits-all creed with its own ‘correct path’, or rather, into several simplistic one-size-fits-all creeds with their own ‘correct paths’, to a Brave New World.

    All ideologies, whether religionist or secular / philosophical, carry within them the virus of their own destruction: their truly unnatural urge to force us individually and variously shaped round pegs into a one-size-fits-all square hole. Hence, Sunni v Shia, Catholic v Protestant, Stalinist v Trotskyist, et bloody, very bloody, cetera.

    What’s unnatural in ‘Nature’ is just as unnatural in Humanity. Besides, it does not even work for socks.

  21. Simon Warriner

    August 26, 2016 at 8:53 pm

    Jane, do you want the issue to get the widest support and best chance of being fixed? If so then you need the widest possible support base. I suggested a way to get there. Go with that and stop trying to hang me as a heretic. I could have stood aside and said nothing, which would clearly have been the safer approach. Given the choice of thanking me for the suggestion and observing that I might change my attitude over time, or castigating me for my ambivalence you chose the latter. Instead of wining a convert you chose to create division and drive me away. Ponder that a while.

  22. Jane Rankin-Reid

    August 26, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    #59; I’m trying to follow the logic of your distaste for ‘isms’. Do you include ‘activist’ who engages in ‘activism’, or ‘environmentalists’ who engage in ‘environmentalism’, all systems of activity, if not belief. I take your point about the suffix being overused. But, and it is a very big but, does the literary crime of such overuse truly relieve the need to continue championing women’s equality? “Degenerated” is hardly fair; it is a word that denotes a degree of disgust in my view. Do other liberation/ human rights movements ‘degenerate’ in the same way, or is it just feminism? Finally, does it occur to you that putting up with the relatively minor irritation of overused ‘isms’, is a very small price to pay for women’s equality?

  23. Robin Charles Halton

    August 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    All is becoming very intriguing as the the main suspect … Robin Banks is leading the charge, attempting to lead persons of obverse thinking that they can rule society to suit their own agendas.

    Wrong, it is a pornigraphcal ill doing to attempt to define humanity either morally or legally.

    Only complete complete twits – in my view – and radical attention seekers need to spoil life as we know it.

    #57 As for you Isla with your strong feministagenda, are you actually supporting these off the planet actions by men who have nothing better to do than create havoc among the human race.

  24. Leonard Colquhoun

    August 25, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Yes, as claimed in Comment 57, some may find “intensely worrying^ to hear men in this online community [or elsewhere] still hoping women can just find another word for their historic quest for equality”.

    But others may find it just as “worrying” that women’s / female liberation has degenerated into just another -ism, with all the baggage that being an -ism carries, and all the reductionist thought and feeling that -ismists (of any kind) try to impose on the rest of unfanatical us.

    ^ BTW, good to read ‘worrying’ getting a run – its pretentious synonym ‘concerning’ has been given far too much space in print, online and across the airwaves.

  25. Isla MacGregor

    August 25, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    #57 An excellent expose on double standards and anti feminism coming from some of the men here.

    I am starting to hear many more people in the community are in total shock at the EOT’s proposals.

    Complaints must be deluging in to Vanessa Goodwin’s office by now! Keep them coming.

  26. Jane Rankin-Reid

    August 25, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Simone, doubled over! You’ve got to watch your tone love.
    Simon, you killed it for me in your first line. As a leading commentator in this online community, could you have discredited the courageous Tasmanian NGO launching this important initiative any more publicly with your distaste for ‘feminist organisations’ remark? You’ve demonstrated your point about tone though, as in; men’s tone towards women needs… Talk to Jeff Kennett and Eddie McGuire about their ‘tone’ Simon, the tone police have quite a lot of work to do… on themselves.
    A UN report examining progress for achieving women’s equality in small communities throughout the developed world highlights the differently hostile conditions female activists face in campaigning for change. So, it is immensely worrying to hear men in this online community still hoping women can just find another word for their historic quest for equality. From this recurrence of male doubt, should we assume that men believe they will continue to be prohibited from granting women equality until we get the message that the very word ‘feminism’ is the instrument of our greatest oppression! The emphasis is deliberately intended in my previous sentence. Isn’t it time to stop trying to dominate equality debates with this hierarchical sexist nonsense?
    Ruth, I’m not loving the public diagnosis of Simone’s state of mind in spite of your offers of kindness. This is a debate about proposed legislative changes, not someone’s ‘residual anger’, although the remark plays a deliberate role in demonstrating just how little respect and equality women in our society are given, even on a leftist online discussion site. Tasmanian Times, Ruth …everybody, the time to stop publicly sponsoring these not terribly tender acts of psychological gas lighting against women is NOW! Simon, you may have noticed that my tone is becoming slightly shrill? Good! Gaslighting is one of the most insidious forms of abuse against women and it works every time; women being called ‘hysterical’ for getting upset (about hearing a woman’s state of mind being publicly diagnosed) is not exactly new ground but yes it remains just as offensive. No one to my knowledge has ever told a male on TT that he was carrying ‘residual anger’ etc… implying that such a state of mind could potentially diminish the integrity of his arguments. As if!
    My apologies for this digression, but the opening comments definitely set the editorial tone, in spite of the writer’s hard work on presenting the issues of proposed changes in the public definition of the female gender. I believe the changes to the legislation will be vigorously opposed and that women’s equality in Tasmania still faces a number of urgent threats of this nature within the Tasmanian community.
    On a happier note, the discussion here is a lively example of a healthy debate of differences, carried out over a number of days, much awareness raised in the bargain. It needs to be continued, money should be spent. Give generously and often. In the meantime, well done all…Bravo Editor!

  27. Dorothy Sheedy

    August 25, 2016 at 4:25 am

    I concur with previous posts highlighting the dangers to natural females which will be caused by legislative changes proposed by the EOT. There needs to be a greater level of consideration of the possible future ramifications of such a change and a more measured and responsible approach which takes into account the needs and safety of everyone.
    A cursory look at some of the abusive stories coming out of other countries where males are able to legally identify as female without any surgical/medical intervention should be enough to raise alarm bells and ensure that we put some safeguards in place.

  28. Leonard Colquhoun

    August 23, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    The clearly stated natural realities presented in Comment 54 give us ‘real’ world citizens another reminder of George Orwell’s perceptive observation about some ideas being so utterly stupid that only an academic could take them seriously.

  29. Barbara Mitchell

    August 23, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    #3’If a male person ‘feels like a woman’, his penis is female. Such is the power of ‘gender identity’.

    I’ve heard this before, along with petulant accusations of ‘transphobe’ and ‘TERF’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). I made the mistake of expressing surprise that any person familiar with the human reproductive process could characterise the veiny, sausage-like piece of meat hanging between a male person’s legs as ‘female’. Does that mean big, hairy, sweaty, dangling testicles can also be ‘female’? And sperm? And hairy bum cracks?

    Some women find male genitalia confronting. Women who have been sexually assaulted must find it particularly so. Young girls, similarly, would prefer not to observe male genitals, particularly the mature variety.

    Any legislation that purports to allow biological males to change their birth sex to female simply by self-identifying as such, and thereby gain entry to female only jobs, services and spaces is taking no account whatsoever of the needs of women and girls. Rather it is putting them at risk of trauma, and possibly assault.

    Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is a woman, and yet she seems oblivious to these realities, blinded, apparently, by the dazzling light of political correctness. Does she really think it beyond the realms of possibility that men will use such legislation to prey on women and girls?

    Is she not aware of the lengths some men will go to in order to gain access to women and girls for the purposes of sexual exploitation, or to track down and punish an estranged female partner? It is naïve in the extreme to assume only genuine transgender persons will take advantage of her proposed changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act (BDMRA).

    And what about men who want to pass as female and gain access to female only jobs, services and spaces but do not wish to change their birth certificate sex to female – will Ms Banks’ proposed amendments to the BDMRA require them to make the change?

  30. Isla MacGregor

    August 22, 2016 at 11:56 pm

    Professor Bronwyn Winter’s views are very illuminating:

    [i]”Unfortunately, I am aware of several instances of bullying, by some (mainly male-to-female) transgender people of some feminists and lesbians who disagree with male-to-female transgender claims that they are women just like us and therefore should have unrestricted access to women-only events and spaces.

    I certainly know that not every member of the transgender community engages in such bullying, but those who do engage in it are vocal enough, and powerful enough, to do serious damage to women. Some women are now either too angry or too intimidated to even attend the upcoming IQ2 Debate hosted by The Ethics Centre in Sydney on Thursday March 3, where the proposition ‘Society Must Recognise Trans People’s Gender Identities’ will be debated.[/i]

    Read more here:

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bullying-out-of-place-in-gender-debate-20160228-gn6058.html

  31. Caddy Stanton

    August 22, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Yet to read anything in the mainstream media about WOLF’s challenge to the Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Commissioner Robyn Banks on the exclusion of women from consultation on these proposed bills.

    The finger must be pointed straight at the mainstream media in Australia for only reporting sensational stories from transgendered people – because these stories sell newspapers!

    But now women are objecting to these silly proposals the media are off with their tail between their legs cowering for fear of being targeted as “transphobic”. Can we get back to some freedom of the press here?

    TT – what a public service!

  32. Robin Charles Halton

    August 22, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    # 49,# 50, This is exactly what is delaying the government from advancing gay marriage to the legislation stage either directly through Parliament or indirectly via the plebicite.

    Selfish trannies by trying to change the Birth, Deaths and Marriages Act to suit their own personal problems with society are stalling Marriage equality, acting as bloody selfish obstructive fools in my opinion!

    This gives the anti gay political do gooders ammunition (Eric Abetz comes to mind) to enforce excuses for delays over the inequality and as a result nothing is achieved perhaps further division, in fact the ridiculous plebicite could now be put on hold throughout the term of the Turnbull government.

  33. Colin

    August 22, 2016 at 12:00 am

    There are real safety concerns for any proposed legislation on this issue. Common sense should prevail and the rights of women and girls to safe spaces must come first. Well done for voicing your concerns in this article.

  34. Isla MacGregor

    August 21, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    #47 I have total confidence Ray that neither house of Parliament will support changes to Birth, Death and Marriages legislation either in Tasmania or elsewhere.

    But what Tessa has exposed here highlights the lack of rigour applied by the EOT in drafting this legislative proposal and how women and the community across Tasmania appear to be totally in the dark about why these amendments have been proposed and why they were not consulted.

  35. Isla MacGregor

    August 21, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    [i][b]Walt, however, claims that his gender confusion was caused simply by his environment and family relationships………….

    In the mid-1980s, Walt says he came to the realisation that his desire to change genders came from deep-rooted childhood trauma – rather than a genetic disorder.[/i][/b]

    In today’s [i]Daily Mail Australia[/i][/b]

    By Jay Akbar For Mailonline

    Monday, Aug 22nd 2016

    [b]The man who’s had TWO sex changes: Incredible story of Walt, who became Laura, then REVERSED the operation because he believes surgeons in US and Europe are too quick to operate[/b]

    [i]Walt Heyer had sex change to become a woman when he was 42 years old
    After eight years living as Laura Jensen, he reverted back to being a man
    He believes the desire to change gender stems from psychological trauma
    Heyer controversially disputes that Gender Dysphoria is a genetic disorder
    Now 74, he acts as a counselor to those considering a sex change surgery
    Psychological vetting of patients before operation is inadequate, he claims

    At 42-years-old, Walt Heyer was, by all accounts, a happily married man with two children.

    But it was then he decided to undergo gender reassignment surgery to become a woman – a decision he would later say had a ‘tremendous, destructive process’ on his life. He reverted back to being a man just eight years later.

    Now, at 74, Walt, from Los Angeles, tells MailOnline he should never have been allowed to have the sex change in the first place.

    And he claims hundreds of others are making the same mistake because surgeons are not properly evaluating their motives to change gender.

    He was delighted at being a female at first, having felt trapped in the wrong body since he was five years old.

    But the Californian said these feelings of elation soon gave way to much darker feelings: ‘Immediately after the procedure, you’re in a state of euphoria because you battle it for so long.

    ‘You think this is wonderful and fabulous and you think your life’s going to be good and then as time goes on, there’s this funny little thing that happens in life. It’s called reality.’

    Walt’s genitals were removed as part of the transformation. He also received breast implants, treatment to reduce the hair on his face, and a course of estrogen hormones for as long as he remained a woman……………………..

    He said: ‘I ended up for a long time unemployed and trying to figure out what to do………..

    In the mid-1980s, Walt says he came to the realisation that his desire to change genders came from deep-rooted childhood trauma – rather than a genetic disorder. But with no safe reversal procedures at the time, it was already too late.

    It is accepted that people like Walt, who believe they were born inside the wrong body, suffer from Gender Dysphoria.

    I was living a lie, says British Army’s first transgender…
    ‘I don’t miss having a daughter:’ Mother let her transgender…
    ‘I’ve known I was mostly gay ever since I can remember’:…

    The condition was once believed to be psychiatric, but is now recognised as a medical condition by bodies such as the NHS. Recent studies suggest that it is a biological disorder caused by hormonal imbalances before a baby is born. The NHS does not class it as a mental illness.

    Walt, however, claims that his gender confusion was caused simply by his environment and family relationships……..[/i]

  36. Ray Broomhall

    August 21, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    Well done Tessa and WoLF, I totally agree with your submissions.

    Questions for thought to add to the mix.

    Would a male rapist (beard, no medical intervention) be sent to a female prison simply because he identifies as a female?

    Can the same person enter a domestic violence refuge for women?

    What implications could occur if a female patient makes an appointment to see a female doctor only and a male doctor who identifies himself as a female presents to the female?

    Would the same doctor be able to enter female toilets?

    I am aware that women only social services in Tasmania will allow men who identify themselves as female to enter and use those services.

    Females are different to men, they need protection from men at all costs, any amendments to the legislation as proposed has the distinct possibility of eroding female protection facilities in society.

    If men are allowed to use female only services, then the majority of women will most likely not access those services and be forced to suffer in silence.

    Legislation changes will set hard earned womens rights back into the dark ages. Our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters need to be able to source refuge and protection from men.

    I have four daughters, I see that men who identify as female should be treated as a class of their own, and yes they should be afforded protection by all of us, but not at the expense of well established protection mechanisms for our daughters.

    But wait there is more;

    POSSIBLE SAME SEX MARRIAGE WITHOUT A PLEBICITE

    If a male (Fred) simply identifies himself as a female (without having to undergo medical intervention)and thus applies to get his birth certificate changed. One would think that Fred could get married to another male “legally” using his new birth certificate. In effect one could say that if Tasmania embraces the recommendations to amend the Birth Deaths & Marriages Registration Act 1999 (Tas)it will in effect result in circumventing current Federal marriage laws to enable same sex marriage which is currently illegal in Australia.

    Say Fred (now Frieda) marries a male and it is all legal, then 12 months later he identifies himself as a male again and changes his birth certificate accordingly.
    His legal status will be that his is now married to the same sex?

    Is he still married?

    Now lets pose the question in the reverse.

    If a male is married to a female, the male changes his sex/gender to female. They are now same sex, are the couple still legally married?

    What is the point of having a marriage plebiscite, all States will simply change the Birth Death Marriages legislation regardless of the plebiscite outcome?

    Comments please!!!!

  37. Leonard Colquhoun

    August 21, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    Thanks, Tessa, for your answer to my 44. For me, individual rights are the primary rights. But necessarily the only rights.

  38. Tessa

    August 21, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Hi Leonard #44

    I will do my best to clarify. My comments were in response to someone claiming this particular issue as a men’s right issue (as well as a women’s rights issue), in that men have ‘a right’ to some kind of knowledge/control over the lives of women with regards to their association with other women and men. I believe ‘men’ in this sense was posited as a collective social group – juxtaposed with my framing of this as a ‘women’s rights issue’.

    So my responses come in that context – with ‘men’ in my response referring to the social class ‘men’- that have a set of shared interests. Remembering also that I come from a structural feminist perspective, that recognises ‘men’ and ‘women’ as political classes of people – as well as ‘men’ and ‘women’ being words that can describe billions of individual people.

    I think parents have certain rights to information about their children – given they are responsible for their wellbeing. But I don’t think men have any right to information about their ‘sisters and daughters, mothers and grandmothers, aunts and nieces’ with regards to this issue.

    As I have clarified with Pete (#39) this does not mean that men cannot hold opinions (with the women in their own lives in mind) on whether a proposal that regards women’s rights is good public policy or not, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they should stay away from assisting women in their political battles for rights – but I don’t think there is any concern in this policy for ‘men’s rights’.

  39. Leonard Colquhoun

    August 21, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Some questions about this (personal) opinion in Comment 43, “Men have no right ‘to know’ anything in regards to women, IMO”:

    ~ Are “men” and “women” being reckoned here as hundreds of millions of individuals?

    ~ Does these terms mean a single group (whether other-identified or self-identified, whether biologically-identified or socio-culturally-identified) as “men” / “women”? With all individual differences ignored / dismissed / dissed with extreme (but non-physical) prejudice?

    Clarification needed, IM(H)O, please.

    And does, for example, “Men [having] no right ‘to know’ anything in regards to women” mean that fathers “have no right ‘to know’ anything in regards to” their sisters and daughters, mothers and grandmothers, aunts and nieces?

  40. Tessa

    August 21, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    #39 Hi Pete.

    In your first comment you said “Surely men have a right to know that their daughters, partners and friends, who happen to be women can know that they are sharing the space with other women.”

    “a right to know” was the right you identified.

    Men have no right ‘to know’ anything in regards to women, IMO.

    You have clarified “In my opinion he would be within his rights to protect someone he loved” – Well, perhaps – if you are talking about self-defence, we already have that right, men and women both.

    So I’m still not convinced that this is a ‘men’s rights issue’. The rights to be safe, is the right of everybody, but in this circumstance it is women and girls safety that is being put at risk. A father wanting to protect his daughter, or a husband wanting to protect his wife are positions from which men could see the issue we present and support our efforts, but it does not present a ‘rights issue’ for men per se.

    “you tell me that men have no right to know this is going on” – everyone has a right to know what is going on with regards to law reform. But that’s quite distinct. Please continue to be engaged.

  41. Isla MacGregor

    August 21, 2016 at 11:56 am

    #39 Pete, Simon, Robyn, Leonard, Harry and Martin your contributions on this issue are of great interest and value. Thank you all.

    #38 Yes, I would say a fairly calm debate has occurred above with a lot of information being put out there. I have not read any comments that imply any demonising has been going on here but just some rather incisive analysis and questioning. Therefore I wonder if you could explain further how

    [i]It feels like this debate is creating a “them”(men) and ‘us” ( women) mentality [/i].

    Maybe a little over reaction on your part. Yes, many people I have spoken to about this issue are in total bewilderment but most recognise the brevity of this issue especially the EOT’s exclusion of girls and women from their stakeholder consultation on this issue. We have heard from the men on this thread here and clearly the whole community do not feel consulted on this issue either.

    If there is something you think you know about Simone’s past – would you like to share that with us

    [i]there is no [b]hidden agenda in my comments[/b] -just a feeling that Simone is carrying around a fair bit of anger , etc., about her past.[/i]?

  42. Second Opinion

    August 21, 2016 at 4:15 am

    About a year ago, there was a case in England’s Family Court, in which a woman, the mother of a female child of some 12 months, was deprived of custody of her daughter. It was a complex and difficult situation
    . Now, a friend of the woman has written what the mother herself was banned by the Court from doing.

    http://www.mydropintheocean.org/surrogate-mother-ms-justice-russell

    I’m encouraged by the responses I see here from real women.

  43. Simon Warriner

    August 21, 2016 at 1:59 am

    re 36, will be doing so tomorrow evening by email, all things being equal.

    Over, and out.

  44. Pete Godfrey

    August 21, 2016 at 12:05 am

    #35 Tessa, I am not sure where you are coming from but I will try to answer.
    First I do not know any transgender men but I do know people who have had quite a bit to do with them. I am told that they are unlikely to be a danger to women, that they just feel maligned and wish to have a safe space to be who they feel they are.
    I did not suggest at any part of my post that Men owned “their women” as you put it.
    I would suggest that if a father thought his daughter was in danger that he would intervene to protect her. In my opinion he would be within his rights to protect someone he loved.
    I find it very difficult when I agree with much of what is said in the posts on TT by womens rights people but every comment is amplified and taken as a slight or seen through a filter.
    I think that it is best to leave these issues to you to tackle, it seems that my support and input is not wanted.
    I find it strange that your article is seemingly against women having to share a space with men who identify as women, but then you tell me that men have no right to know this is going on.
    Forgive me for feeling confused.

  45. Ruth

    August 20, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    Hi Simone and Isla , firstly , l was actually just referring to you ,Simone , about the emotional baggage . I included Isla in my comment because l suspected my comments would be disapproved of by her too .
    Re no 37 – Isla , l work for no-one . I am a retired hippy-type – there is no hidden agenda in my comments – just a feeling that Simone is carrying around a fair bit of anger , etc., about her past.
    Nothing to do with discrediting – l’m talking to you both as l would a female friend , if l thought they were reacting a bit strongly .
    It feels like this debate is creating a “them”(men) and ‘us” ( women) mentality . I’m just hoping we can all remain calmly focused on the real issues without demonizing anyone . Including those who are transgender . I’m sure there is a solution .

  46. Isla MacGregor

    August 20, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    #30 An explanation is also due from #24 about your alleged comments Simone on this thread. Typically those who oppose a person’s views – frequently Government’s or their Agencies- often use these type of of veiled attacks to deflect from their cockups, the issues and discredit their opponents – a bit too transparent here though: [i]emotional baggage, has overreacted on events, or expressed anger or hurt[/i]. Not that I am suggesting, with respect, that #24 works for the EOT.

  47. Isla MacGregor

    August 20, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    #10 The following point you make more importantly applies to anyone reading the EOT’s pseudo legal discussion paper:

    [i]Most will have their eyes glaze over in the first two points. And most are soooo not interested in coded “in group” language and the various acronyms and coded meanings.[/i]

    Now you have been made aware of this issue I hope you as member of the [i]masses[/i], a [i]concerned, parent and outraged adult[/i], will contact the Attorney General Vanessa Goodwin, and all MP’s to complain about the conduct of the EOT in this matter and advise them of your views.

  48. Tessa

    August 20, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    Pete Godfrey – on that argument. No. It is not a men’s rights issue. Men have no right to know what women are doing, who they are sharing spaces with or fraternising with. Men can express concern for women and amplify our views, which is necessary and appreciated – but it is not a man’s right to have any control or knowledge over ‘his’ women.

    But it is a human rights issue – with women being human you know!

    And this goes far beyond toilets – they are the least of our concerns.

    Thanks you for commenting.

  49. JDN

    August 20, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    #16

    Would this also include female sporting events?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI8SuA7aigo

    My heart bleeds for Lynsey Sharp (her interview at the end).

  50. Robin Charles Halton

    August 20, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    At the end of the day without complicating support for the gay community, those that wish to extend themselves beyond their gender must take personal responsibility for their actions.

    Individuals are born as either males or females, biologically and legally by virture of their birth certificate.

    I fully support the woman’s rights to their individual privacy for expecting common decency from the opposite sex in society.

    There is no exceptions for transgender males, they must be prepared to face the consequences of their own actions resulting from their personal choice.

    It’s totally wrong that trangenders be allowed to bend societies rules, the Discrimination Commissoner needs to be careful not to deviate from the normal male and female order in society.

  51. Pete Godfrey

    August 20, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    I am not so sure that this is only a women’s rights issue.
    The way I see it, it is also a men’s rights issue too.
    So that makes it a Human rights issue.
    Surely men have a right to know that their daughters, partners and friends, who happen to be women can know that they are sharing the space with other women.
    The situation for Transgender people is a difficult one. I don’t have an answer except to suggest single cubicles with outside doors to toilets that are shared by all sexes.

  52. Julie

    August 20, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    On proposed changes to the anti-discrimination act ‘The state’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Robin Banks, said she was disappointed she was not consulted on the detail before it was made public.

    “The lack of consultation up to this point on this issue is disappointing because, certainly, I would have liked to understood what was being proposed,” she said.’

    It’s unfair when someone makes a decision that affects you without consulting you first, isn’t it Commissioner?

    (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-18/anti-discrimination-commissioner-blindsided-by-proposed-changes/7760572)

  53. Simone

    August 20, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    #24 Thank you for your wisdom Ruth. Can you please explain what words Isla has used that indicate Isla has expressed any emotional baggage, has overreacted on events, or expressed anger or hurt in her above comments?

  54. Hazel Moon

    August 20, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    Isla,s writing…extraordinary !!!! thankyou

  55. Leonard Colquhoun

    August 20, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    About Comment 14’s “ideas like ‘violating someone’s self-determined identity is
    an act of violence’ is meant to appeal to soft-hearted and soft-headed
    liberals”: seems to me that this use of “liberals” is how it is used in American politico-ideological discourse (aka ‘talk’). We would be more likely to call it by an adjective incorporating various ways of using ‘Left’, as in ‘the soft-hearted and soft-headed
    extreme / post-Cold War Left’.

    One of the saddest traits of such extremists is how they hate and despise success, probably because it reduces the number of targets available for the victimhood industry and for the photo-op compasionista collective. The other sad thing is that they never have the guts to ‘call out’, say, non-Western / Islamist violence to women. If this trajectory follows the normal pattern, some of the LGBTIQ collective will themselves be picked on by some of the rest, and therefore become suitable victims for agitprop by rest of the rest.

    BTW, you could reckon that one of the 20th century’s clearest thinkers had this nonsense in mind when he said that some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals [could] believe them.

  56. Becka

    August 20, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    I am concerned & frustrated by our politicians and people in positions of influence who have allowed the trans rights issues to overtake their commonsense & big picture thinking. There are always concerns for the safety of any minority group such as those identifying as a gender different to the sex organs they were born with but please let’s not legislate to discriminate alternately against those who don’t. I started reading articles about this issue in response to some Safe Schools info that came out. The more I have read, the more blogs I have accessed the more and more appalled I have become. There are much better ways to address bullying in our schools and in general everyday life than pandering to the idea that someone can be the gender they ‘feel’ right at that moment. For those interested in a long but incredibly informed read – look at rebeccarc.com sexandgenderintro . When I discuss this with relatives and friends who aren’t aware of the issue at all, one of the most eye opening ways I’ve found to get them to think is to mention the affect this will have in professional sport for women. These policies while affecting both men & women will have significantly negative impacts on biological women. Check out what’s happening in the US – in some areas if you call yourself a biological woman you are being oppressive!!!! Just how ridiculous do we want to get here?

  57. Harry Higgins

    August 20, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Can we now expect to see men facing a prison term self identify as female?
    I reckon a lot of male offenders would much prefer to be incarcerated in a women’s prison…..

  58. Carly

    August 20, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Thank you WoLF for bringing this to our attention, This is legislation that will greatly impact on all women and girls. It is very disappointing that EOT has chosen to ignore the impact on women and girls.

  59. Ruth

    August 20, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Hi Simone , the wisdom l’ve come to in my own life is this – the way you deliver a message can make all the difference. Delivering a calm message in concise , simple language reaches a lot more people ( of either gender) than an angry , complicated one.
    To me ,Simon was just trying to help.He’s not the enemy.
    Sometimes when we carry a lot of emotional baggage , our perspective on events can become an over-reaction. I know l risk being leapt upon by you and Isla by saying this , but that is my truth in my heart. I was a victim in my past , but it does no-one any good by carrying that angry , hurt energy into every interaction now .
    You can respond , calmly , to anything if you let go of the baggage . You can still be a really effective agitator for social-justice , just without the intense emotional reactions.
    As l said in my earlier post , we can have this debate while respecting everyone , can’t we ?
    Simone , l send you my respect and best wishes .
    I also send that out to everyone – this world needs that.

  60. Tessa

    August 20, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Morgan King asked “I wonder what would happen if the rights of transpeople came at the loss of rights of men and boys, rather than women and girls? Interesting speculation.”

    Indeed. A pertinent question it is. I doubt well-meaning liberals would be so hasty to jump on this latest cause du jour if it were to put men and boys at risk.

  61. Ret

    August 20, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Great article bringing our attention to the terrifying consequences to proposed amendments to the bdm act. Thanks Tessa and WoLF Tas for your ongoing commitment to women’s rights

  62. Marie Scott

    August 20, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    So a woman who flees male violence and goes to a women’s refuge could find herself sharing a room with a man who has decided that he is a woman this week?

  63. Robin Charles Halton

    August 20, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    #16 Sonia, agree society needs to guard against these … falsely acting as women for using women’s facilities.
    Reporting of these incidents must result in swift actions by police or by citizens arrest, charges being laid and penalties must apply.
    There should be legislation to enforce a ban on sex change surgery too as it only encourages this, in my view, untoward human behavior to become uncontrolled and to be seen as the norm.
    There is no doubt that the trans issues does not help with the gay marriage debate.

  64. Isla MacGregor

    August 20, 2016 at 11:29 am

    [i]TransActivists Shut Down Speech, Disrupt Moment of Silence for LG Orlando Victims[/i]

  65. Morgan King

    August 20, 2016 at 10:02 am

    I write as a retired manager of women’s services providing services to women who have experienced violence against women, about 95% statistically speaking overall from men. So while on the one hand, transpeople have the right to claim to be treated respectfully, on the other it seems our politicians are quite happy to reduce the safety of women and children who make up 51% of the population to meet their request. A question is for example, can women and girls feel safe going into women’s toilets when there are biologically male bodies with penises present? Ask any girl who has been sexually abused by a man and she will tell you the answer to that. A utopian vision is to have joint male and female toilets, and we don’t have that because of male violence towards women. This may well be an emotive argument, but it is a valid one. The murder rate for women by intimate partners in Australia is nearing two per week and still violence against women is not addressed nationally. I wonder what would happen if the rights of transpeople came at the loss of rights of men and boys, rather than women and girls? Interesting speculation.

  66. Isla MacGregor

    August 20, 2016 at 12:13 am

    Prof Sheila Jeffrey’s has frequently exposed transgender activists repeated attempts to stifle and derail debate on transgender practice:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/29/transgenderism-hate-speech

    [i]Psychiatrists and sexologists who are critical of the practice are targeted too. Transgender activism was successful in gaining the cancellation of a London conference entitled Transgender: Time for Change, organised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ lesbian and gay special interest group for May 2011. When, in 2003, US sexologist Michael Bailey published a book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, which argued that transgenderism was a practice based on sexual fetishism, he became subject to a campaign of vilification, which included placing photographs of his children on a website with insulting captions. The effect is to scare off any researchers from touching the topic.

    There are many aspects of the practice which bear investigation, including the history and social construction of the idea of transgenderism, the recent increased identification of children as transgender, the phenomenon of transgender regrets, that is those persons who consider they have made a mistake. Given that the drug and surgical treatments have now been normalised and are increasingly embarked upon by young lesbians and sought out by parents for young children, it is most important that the rights of researchers and theorists to comment and investigate should be protected.[/i]

  67. sonia

    August 20, 2016 at 12:01 am

    All people’s human rights must be respected. This means keeping biological men out of women’s only spaces.

  68. Isla MacGregor

    August 20, 2016 at 12:01 am

    Recommendation No.3, of the Options Paper on page 11 it states: [i]’That the requirements for an application to the Registrar to record a change of sex be consistent with the approach taken to registering a change of name, including limiting the option of registering a change of sex to once in a 12-month period.'[/i]

    [b]?[/b]

  69. Keely Emerine-Mix

    August 19, 2016 at 11:22 pm

    The idiocy of ideas like “violating someone’s self-determined identity is an act of violence” is meant to appeal to soft-hearted and soft-headed liberals who desperately want to be found on the right side of a new social justice frontier, no matter how much that new frontier works to re-define and then erase women. Biology is immutable. Male-born people can never become women, period, but they can, under gender identity laws utterly dismiss the lived experience of girls and women in favor of their own desire to colonize not only our experiences but our most intimate spaces – – simply because they say they are us. Pointing out the absurdity and the danger of this is not violence, and to suggest that it is is astonishingly insensitive given that biological females live in a world where one out of four of us will experience real, actual violence at the hands of males — our oppressors who gleefully take the power our former allies have given them to storm our identities and make us guests, subject to dismissal by our colonizers, at our own lives. Gender identity laws have never and will never help women and girls. Besides erasing us and our identities, they also require that in the war against male oppression and violence we now must share our bunkers and our fortresses with the very enemy that has always sought our Extinction.

  70. Paige

    August 19, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    I’m glad there is conversation about this issue happening, EOT need to be held to account and engage with the community before trying to pass legislation that will have real impact on women and girls.

  71. Simone

    August 19, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    The irony of some men commenting here,who ostensibly agree with Tessa’s article, telling women how they should present themselves in this article and in the comments is very telling of how even more dangerous this proposed legislation will be. Laughing so I don’t cry.

  72. Tintookie

    August 19, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    The description of gender identity politics provided in Isla’s comment at no.3 is precisely the ideology that this policy is informed by. It’s a disturbing state of affairs when public policy is being driven by such incoherent nonsense. If the public were more broadly informed of the consequences of this and had it explained to them in plain language it would have little support.

    If Equal Opportunity Tasmania were being honest they would inform the public that:

    “This legal change will allow any male to ‘identify’ as female – with no requirement for hormone therapy, sex-change surgery, or even any effort to present themselves to the world as a woman. This will mean that they are legally female for all purposes including being able to access women’s services such as domestic violence shelter’s, changing rooms and sports teams. It will also mean that they will be eligible for employment positions reserved for women only – such as counselling roles in rape crisis centres and caring roles in aged care facilities where they will shower, cloth and toilet elderly and disabled women. They will often be alone with these women”

    If they were being really honest (which they should be) they could add:

    “Males commit 98% of all sex crimes in Australia and are the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of all violent crime as well. There is research from Sweden suggesting that men who ‘identify’ as women commit violent crimes at the same levels as the general male population. Women in vulnerable situations such as institutional care or aged care and girls in the care of trusted adults are at the highest risk of being sexually assaulted”

    With such information – people would actually have a true understanding with which to make a decision to support such a policy.

  73. Simon Warriner

    August 19, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    re 3, No Isla!

    This is how you need to be going about explaining this to the general public:

    Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Mothers and Fathers. We are here tonite to talk about a change to the law that will see your daughters face the possibility that their most intimate moments and concerns will become open to discussion to a person with a penis, just because that person has decided to identify themselves as “female”. It could be in the change rooms, the toilets, as a rape victim, or when they have their first period in the middle of class at school.

    That is straightforward, simple and clear, and it goes directly to the issues that matter to parents. It is the outrage of parents and concerned adults like myself that will put this garbage back where it belongs as quickly as possible.

    What you have presented is mired in gender politics, is overly long for the people whose support you need and the vast majority of people do not give a toss about gender politics at that level of detail. Most will have their eyes glaze over in the first two points. And most are soooo not interested in coded “in group” language and the various acronyms and coded meanings. It excludes the masses and that is the very last thing you want to be doing, imho.

  74. Martin Webb

    August 19, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    Why oh why would anyone think this is a good idea
    This is a political grenade
    Someone somewhere is obviously gaining something out of this!
    Very very suspect

  75. Simone

    August 19, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    What fresh hell is this? It is one thing for me to invite men who claim to be women into my home and another to legislate that men can ‘identify’ their way into public spaces dedicated to women. Apart from the very serious impact this will have on medical, criminal and social demographics- this reeks of an attitude that as women are most likely to be harmed by a man they know and in their own homes, we may as well make it open slather for public spaces as well.

  76. Leonard Colquhoun

    August 19, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Pseudo-identity politics and irrational ideology gone completely insane.

    Waiting for all animals (and some plants) to have their sexes made ‘optional’, too.

    Much more seriously, an insult to the real-world discrimination still present in our sorts of societies, and viciously rampant in most Islamic and all Islamist cultures.

    FFS.

  77. Ruth

    August 19, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Could l just suggest a possible solution ? What about a third toilet option – ok , so we have “women” , “men ” , and , how about “women/men” . Then , if someone enters the “women/men” toilet , they make a conscious decision to be amongst mixed genders .
    Not sure how to solve the issues around clubs and shelters , etc..
    Can we please just keep it a debate that respects all people , not just one gender ? Can we please consider everyone’s feelings ?
    We are all one race here ..

  78. Robin Charles Halton

    August 19, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    #3 Isla, Isla, please steady there … Oh my god what is the world coming too, its all too much in one gutfull!

  79. Pete Godfrey

    August 19, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Wow talk about a can or worms being opened.
    What seems like an olive leaf on first look turns out to be much more.
    I am interested in the opposite point of view too.
    What happens to the women who identify as men?
    It would be interesting to hear that side of the story too.
    I can’t really comment on the issues either way, being a man, who identifies as a human being, a spirit in a physical reality, basically precludes me from the discussion.
    Still there is a lot to think about for the legislators who would bring such a law into place.

  80. Isla MacGregor

    August 19, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    For those struggling to understand these issues a simple explanation:

    [i]Transgender Identity Politics

    1. It is an act of aggression to take away oppressed people’s language. This applies to women, and also to transsexual people.

    2. Transsexual people experience sex dysmorphia and therefore undergo physical and social transition. Transgender identity politickers, however, dismiss the necessity of any experience of sex dysmorphia OR transition to claim the label “transgender” or “trans.” Someone claiming the label “transgender” or “trans” could be transsexual, or they could be a part-time cross-dresser. You can’t know and you are not allowed to ask.

    3. Transsexual people who object to this colonization of their language are labeled “truscum,” quisling or TERF, and dismissed/monstered/silenced.

    4. According to transgender identity politickers, any male who simply states he “feels like a woman” is 1) “trans” and 2) a woman and also 3) female and also 4) has always been female, 5) because he says so. If a male person “feels like a woman,” his penis is female. Such is the power of “gender identity.”

    5. No one has yet distinguished “gender identity” from “sex-based stereotypes of human personality” but, when pressed, transgender identity politickers will fall back on brain sex.

    6. Brain sex is sexist pseudoscience, just as brain race is racist pseudoscience.

    7. However, according to transgender identity politickers, because less than one percent of people experience sex dysmorphia, and because those people are subject to suicidal depression and male violence, the rest of us must accept (or at least politely pretend) that there are male and female brains, that our brains not our reproductive capacity determine our sex, and if you disagree with this, it must be because you hate transsexual people, not because you understand a) how babies are made and b) how sexism works.

    8. In effect, male people are telling female people they must either accept brain sex – meaning, placate men by parroting the idea that any man who is not sufficiently masculine is not really male, neverminding that the necessary flipside of “masculinity is innate to males” is “femininity is innate to females” – or else be held responsible for male violence against those insufficiently masculine males. They are using transsexual people as hostages/human shields in their war on feminism.

    9. We call these transgender identity politickers “AFTAs” (anti-feminist trans activists) to avoid tarring all trans people with the same brush.

    10. AFTAs have only managed to compile political power due to the sanctimony and ideological totalism of the Left.

    11. Leftists will naturally feel sympathy for anyone with a painful psychiatric condition, yet conversely feel an equally natural aversion to major surgery on healthy genitals, leading to an aversion to considering this condition too closely. Combined with their pride in a high “disgust tolerance” (central to Leftist identity) this leads them to the knee-jerk projection that anyone questioning transgender identity politics is operating out of a low disgust tolerance (labeled “transphobia”).

    12. If you can push Leftists past this point, they still have to confront the idea of larger systems of power outside of individual “identity,” especially systems of power based on sex (what feminist theorists call “gender.”) This point of existential crisis -between individualistic identity politics and radical class analysis- renders the Leftist vulnerable to ideological totalism, at which AFTAs excel: Nevermind that difficult thinking stuff, our magical “truth” is all there is. Brain sex transcends mere science, all questioners can be renounced and declared sub-human, thought-terminating cliches (“trans women are women”) are all the effort required. Just relax and submit.

    13. Thus, here we are: If a male person says he “feels like a woman,” then we all must pretend he is a woman, and all blatant displays of male privilege and aggression no longer count as such. In this way, transgender identity politics provide men a “get out of male free” card, under cover of political correctness.

    14. An oppressed group cannot maintain boundaries against their oppressors if they are not allowed to identify those oppressors. By rendering maleness unnameable, transgender identity politics enable male people (most of whom experience no sex dysmorphia at all) to destroy women’s boundaries.

    15. Women who object to this destruction of their boundaries are labeled “TERFs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists) and dismissed/monstered/silenced.[/i]

    http://genderapostates.com/feminism-transwomen-a-bullet-point-overview/#comment-205

  81. Simon Warriner

    August 19, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Not generally that keen on feminist organisations, especially radical ones, but this issue is one that requires much more publicity, and support. Good on Wolf for raising it.

    Might I suggest that the organisation tone down the emphasis on “radical feminism” and direct its efforts at engaging the parents of girls and young women by focusing on the risk vector it opens for their daughters. Parents concerned for their children will be far more effective drivers of politicians attitudes and media engagement on this subject than radical feminists.

    I am a father to 1 male child and uncle to 2 nieces.

    This sort of legislative nonsense is what happens when enthusiasm for political correctness ignores the unwelcome truth that turds do not have clean ends.

  82. Isla MacGregor

    August 19, 2016 at 11:21 am

    When a Government funded Agency such as Equal Opportunity Tasmania produces such an irrational proposal to change the Births Deaths and Marriages Act, Tasmanians need to be asking the Anti Discrimination Commissioner just how the stakeholder consultation and policy development process has been conducted and just [b]who[/b] was consulted? This process appears little different to that conducted by the EOT in 2012 on Tasmanian sex laws:

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/tasmanian-sex-laws-paper-is-a-sham-poll/

Leave a Reply

To Top