It’s important to address some of the myths and misinformation about the transgender, intersex and gender diverse law reforms being proposed in Tasmania.
These proposals will not “criminalise” parents of intersex children.
They will provide parents with a long-overdue legal and policy framework that will help them deal with the difficult choices they face.
These reforms will not stop the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages from collecting data on the sex and gender of children.
They will allow gender references to be removed from birth certificates, in the same way they were removed from drivers licences years ago.
Those who want gender references on their birth certificate will still be able to have them.
These reforms are not “secret”. We have been lobbying for them for almost twenty years and the Government has had specific legislative proposals on its desk since earlier this year.
Indeed, before approaching any other party, we took our proposed amendments to the Liberal Government in the hope equality would be enacted with tri-partisan support.
These reforms are not “controversial”. Despite months of debate, there has been very little concern expressed within the community.
These reforms are not “radical”. They are a sensible solution to the problem that Tasmanian law treats transgender and gender-diverse people more harshly than any other state.
These reforms do not affect all Tasmanians, only those transgender and gender diverse people who face discrimination because years of government inaction mean our laws are backward and repressive.
There is no need for the inquiry being proposed by the Government, because there was an inquiry into exactly the same issue by the state Anti-Discrimination Commissioner as recently as 2016.
We accept there is a need for an inquiry into the intersex reforms, because they cross across many different areas of law.
But the other reforms are straightforward, and another inquiry will serve no purpose other than to further delay long overdue reform.
I urge Tasmanians who are concerned about the proposed reforms to talk to transgender and gender diverse people about how the law damages our lives, instead of accepting fear-mongering campaigns at face value.
Like all other Tasmanians, all we want is to be treated with equal dignity by the law – and with respect by our fellow citizens.
Christopher Eastman-Nagle
October 19, 2018 at 14:17
Well Martine, now that we know that your proposed legislative changes are not as radical as all that, then you will have no problem with the very moderate amendments proposed by Isla McGregor and Bronwyn Williams as laid down in these columns.
Problem solved …
Rebecca
October 19, 2018 at 14:53
“These reforms are not “controversial”. Despite months of debate, there has been very little concern expressed within the community.”
There you have it. That lie again.
Women wishing to maintain the legal ability to say “no” to males in certain circumstances is not ‘fear mongering’. Numerous examples have been provided via Isla McGregor and Bronwyn Williams from around the world where self-ID of gender has resulted in harms to women. These are real actions, not mere ‘fears’. Two women were raped in a Canadian prison because of self-ID. Women have been booted out of domestic violence shelters because they don’t want to sleep in a room with a man.
Your proposals will allow any man, yes ANY man, the right to be legally recognised as female but you maintain that this is only about trans people. You are either being obtuse or you are lying, Delaney.
Rob Halton
October 19, 2018 at 14:55
Tasmania is a quiet little place, lets not make too much noise to upset the neighborhood. Better to be seen occasionally having a latte in North Hobart .. but keep the noise down, please. hush hush!
Christopher Eastman-Nagle
October 19, 2018 at 15:11
Martine, there are men, women and then the gender mis-assigned and/or psychologically off message. I do not buy your gender ideology ‘movement’ or the gender studies that rationalises it, any more than I buy the eugenics ‘movement’ or racial ‘science’.
I do not have any problem with people who want to live the life of the opposite sex and happy to make sure that they can live out their identity fantasies without being given a hard time about it. But the reality is, sex isn’t an identity commodity. It is a reproductive agency … and trying to colonise and distort it with your agenda is not something that you can make legitimate by PR bamboozling mass constituencies into consenting to a temporary legislative outcome in your favour.
You may be able to bluff, crib and fudge your agenda into what is left of our now deeply marketised and propagandised culture, for the time being, but when the deregulatory and privatising corporate and social libertarian ascendancy comes unstuck, as it is already starting to do, you and your off message mates may very well find yourselves just a tiny bit ‘exposed’.
Indulgence capitalism, and the ideological mates of yours who are running its economic and social agendas, do not have a very sustainable future on any front, whether ecological, economic, social or existential. And the ruinous deregulatory damage that they are doing to economic and social governance and infrastructure is making some serious enemies, of which I am one.
And when the tide turns, it’ll be on. I shouldn’t have that long to wait … five to ten years, max.
Isla MacGregor
October 19, 2018 at 15:45
All Tasmanians concerned about women’s rights and the trans rights agenda should read yesterday’s Editorial in The Guardian. What it tells Tasmanians is contrary to the trans rights movement’s mantra that this is the debate “we don’t need to have” … ‘The public needs to be better informed, and safeguarding considered’…
The Guardian view on the Gender Recognition Act: where rights collide ..
Editorial 18 October, 2018
Isla MacGregor
October 19, 2018 at 18:32
All these criminal matters have been through the UK Courts: http://transcrimeuk.com/ If this data base is being called ‘fearmongering’ by the the trans rights movement then the public will view their movement as no different to climate change deniers.