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

Article

Transforming Tasmania and Rodney Croome Spreading ‘Fake News’

On 24 November, Transforming Tasmania and Rodney Croome congratulated the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on the passage of ‘laws removing discrimination against transgender, gender diverse and intersex people’ – see https://www.facebook.com/rodney.croome.   Apparently, this legislative miracle happened on Friday 23 November, according to Transforming Tasmania spokesperson, Roen Meijers – see https://ymlp.com/zEfeKv?fbclid=IwAR3HGBZr4LTz26dKPNeDj4Q6V15YyL-P0VpkdKSywpSdelV0_pdvoALLWXs.

Download Transforming Tasmania’s Media Release …

Read the Media Release here

This is ‘fake news’.

The Northern Territory bill – the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 – is yet to be debated in the NT Assembly.

In fact, the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee inquiry into the bill is not due to produce a report until 27 November.  We’re surprised Mr Croome and Mr Meijers are spreading this sort of misinformation.

Mr Croome and Mr Meijers both qualified their praise for the Northern Territory legislation, saying it doesn’t go far enough to support transgender rights.

Leaving aside the fact the bill hasn’t passed yet, Mr Croome and Transforming Tasmania could learn something from the process undertaken in the Northern Territory, and the content of the amendments proposed.

The amendments were referred to as parliamentary committee for inquiry and public consultation, as they should have been.

The NT amendments will remove the forced divorce imperative for transgender persons who wish to change the sex/gender marker on their birth certificate.  They will also remove the need for gender re-assignment surgery before those changes can be made, but maintain a requirement for ‘appropriate clinic treatment’ and a ‘statement from a registered medical practitioner or psychologist’ to that effect.

Importantly, the NT amendments retain the overarching principle of family law in Australia.  Any sex/gender change applications by parents on behalf of a child must be shown to be in the ‘best interests of the child’.

Additionally, the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages will have the discretion to limit the number of applications that can be made by an individual, or their parents, to change the sex/gender marker on their birth certificate.  The Tasmanian amendments, as passed by the Lower House, are silent on this issue.

Although the NT amendments are still problematic for women’s rights groups, they don’t attempt to totally rewrite history and the law with no oversight or clear social licence.

The Tasmanian Labor and Greens parties, and speaker Sue Hickey, have been persuaded – by Transforming Tasmania – to take a wrecking ball to birth registration laws.  The legislative changes they supported could introduce untested concepts, like ‘gender expression’ into anti-discrimination law.  They talk about the ‘apparent sex’ of a newborn infant ‘as assessed by the parents’, and the notion of determining a child’s ‘will and preferences’ about gender by ‘speaking to them’.

What happened to commonsense and objectivity?  What about the ‘best interests of the child’?  How can a pre-verbal child articulate their ‘will and preferences’ about gender to anyone, let alone a magistrate?  What happens if parents disagree about the gender to be registered for their child, or about a change to the sex marker on their child’s birth certificate?

There are so many questions, and no answers in the amendments passed by Labor, the Greens and the Government speaker.  The Legislative Council truly has its work cut out, and no-one would logically expect them to sort the mess without expert advice.

Rodney Croome and Transforming Tasmania should be upfront with the Tasmania people.  Stop taking them for fools by spreading false information and dumbing down their agenda with cute posters and grossly oversimplified explanations of the amendments.

We might be just the ‘masses’, according to Labor trans rights champion, Ella Haddad, but we’re not stupid.

Bronwyn Williams is a retired lawyer and social worker

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

47 Comments

  1. Annie

    November 30, 2018 at 11:35 am

    Mr Croome linking the same sex marriage vote with the trans debate is, in my opinion, insincere.

  2. Stephen Menadue

    November 28, 2018 at 11:34 am

    To those who want to divide …

    There is only ONE community, and that is the COMMUNITY. Not LGBTIQFSD or ABC, just community.

    You have created this divide by bringing your sexual preferences into the conversation. Do you actually realise how many people are sick to death of your whining and whinging about a subject that not only offends a lot of adults, but worse still, you’ve brought sexuality into the lives of children who do not need to think about such things .. let alone even hear about them.

    The postal vote wasn’t enough for you .. you had to keep going. You reap what you sow.

    • Melissa

      November 28, 2018 at 12:50 pm

      What is that you’re saying Stephen? The homosexuals can’t hear you from down there under the bus.

    • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

      November 28, 2018 at 10:16 pm

      Hear, hear!

  3. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    November 28, 2018 at 8:55 am

    Tracey Wing,I would take you for TransTroll if it weren’t that your attitude, abusive methodology and ideological bluster weren’t so typical of the propaganda genre you represent.

    Your cavalier use of the language and intellectual bluff take the form of systematically assuming what you need to prove, which is a propagandist’s way of turning a smear into the appearance of an ideological case. Let us deconstruct…

    ‘Dogma’ and its allied word ‘prejudice’ are negative characterisations of underlining belief, which as it happens we all unavoidably have. But for the propagandist, like yourself, ‘we’ vacantly (without substantiation) claim the legitimate beliefs, whereas ‘the other’ has the ‘dogmas’ that ‘we’ don’t like. And even if Isla and Bronwyn have very carefully made their case, ‘we’ don’t have to because ‘we’ are the ideological cognoscescenti who have ‘the correct line’.. and they don’t .. because ‘we’ say so …

    “Isn’t that right children?”

    “Yes, Miss!”

    ‘Inclusiveness’ assumes what actually needs to be proved, that you, your agenda and its beneficiaries actually deserve to be ‘included’ because they qualify and meet a certain standard. Nobody necessarily qualifies for anything, just because they are them. You have to demonstrate that you are not mounting some spurious opportunistic ideological bluff, crib and fudge on behalf of people for whom exclusion is entirely warranted.

    No one has a divine right to inclusion just because they demand it, or are ‘poor thing’ importuners, or because sponsors like you are an ideological ‘elect’ whose judgements are ipso fact infallible.

    “Isn’t that right children?”

    “Yes, Miss!”

    But I leave the best for last .. ‘Transphobia’ sounds so really cool, in a tough sort of way. Actually it is a cheap, but scientific sounding (pseudo scientific) ideological smear that quite gratuitously makes out that someone who disagrees with you can’t possibly have a principled intellectual position, because folks, they are suffering from a psychiatric compulsive condition which means ‘we’ don’t have to take them seriously.

    “Isn’t that right children?”

    “Yes, Miss!”

    Deep south rednecks used to use this dirty tactic on civil rights workers by claiming their principled stand was a result of being ‘nigger lovers’ whose motives were therefore a result of some ‘unnatural’ and ‘inappropriate’ emotional (irrational) attachment .. and probably sexual.

    The Soviet state police, the NKVD, used psychiatry as a means of getting rid of political dissidents by ‘showing’ that their negative attitude to the regime was a result of a serious personality disorder .. which naturally meant they needed to be in closed asylums so that they could be ‘treated’.

    See what I mean, Tracey? You are full of you-know-what. Isla and Bronwyn have made their case. You are just a blusterer and an ideological phoney who needs to be exposed for the ideological fakery you really represent. All you have done so far is make a noise that signifies absolutely nothing. Try harder to make your case.

    “Isn’t that right children?”

  4. stephen menadue

    November 27, 2018 at 2:15 pm

    While the rest of us deal with the difficulties of our own gender, some think they have the right to change their gender. It is unnatural, and it’s a weak way of dealing with the difficulties of the human condition.

    This group of people CONTINUALLY try to make the rest of us feel guilty in order to push their agenda. Heterophobes.

    • Tracey Wing

      November 27, 2018 at 4:00 pm

      If you feel guilty Stephen, you could always try being inclusive and respectful.

      Start with not being transphobic, as it’s easier than you think!

      • Russell

        November 28, 2018 at 6:37 am

        Tell us why our born sex status shouldn’t be recorded on our birth certificate, Tracey.

        • Isla MacGregor

          November 29, 2018 at 9:18 am

          The biological sex one is born with cannot be “unborn”.

        • Russell

          December 2, 2018 at 9:35 am

          No answer, Tracey?

  5. suzie

    November 27, 2018 at 1:33 pm

    The amendments put forward by Greens/Labor have nothing to do with Marriage Equality. They are an act of capitulation to Croome and some elements of the LGBTQI movement for fear of backlash at the polls.

    It is no different to capitulating to the tantrums of a child screaming “I want … or else”. And, for those pollies whose eyes are still rolling in their sockets over these demands – do some research!

    Trans rights – sure thing – but not by taking women’s rights away or putting children’s lives at risk.

  6. A. Murphy

    November 27, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    Where exactly was this extensive public consultation? The mainstream media’s silence was deafening on the subject.

    • suzie

      November 27, 2018 at 1:05 pm

      Mainstream media didn’t cover all sides of the debate, lest they be called transphobes and bigots or man haters.

    • Peter Black

      November 27, 2018 at 1:13 pm

      There has been a little on ABC state radio promoting Rodney and Martine’s view. The ABC people seems very excited .. for them.

      But it was very noticeable that the concerns raised by Women Speak Tasmania were not touched upon. It would seem very few members of the general public are, at this moment, aware of the concerns raised.

    • Tracey Wing

      November 27, 2018 at 3:58 pm

      Perhaps the ‘extensive public consultation’ done a couple of years ago right here in Tasmania is the one you are looking for.

      https://equalopportunity.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/338490/EOT_Options_paper_on_legal_recognition_of_sex_and_gender_diversity_in_Tasmania_~_CONSULTATION_DOC.pdf

      Be my guest.

      Also, there has been a lot of mainstream media coverage, much of which was not impartial.

      • Russell

        November 28, 2018 at 6:40 am

        Why is it that none of us here, or that I know of, or heard of, or was involved in any consultation two years ago, Tracey?

        Exactly WHERE was this PUBLICLY discussed by all the population?

      • Melissa

        November 28, 2018 at 8:59 am

        So, a paper written to a set of definitions that are inconsistent, and blown away like a fart in the wind when one tries to look for some kind of material consensus on what it all actually means …

        And let me guess Tracey, this manifesto of gobbledygook was passed around the echo chamber of your GTQ allies (the usual suspects) to be endorsed through furious agreement. THAT is the consultation you are talking about here, right?

        • Isla MacGregor

          November 28, 2018 at 10:06 am

          A recent Change.org petition provides more useful info:

          ‘We represent Lesbians who demand that the petitioned drop the L from their organisation names, and drop the L when reporting about any LGBT issues not directly related to lesbians since they do not represent our interests. The petitioned did not heed a petition to drop the T, leaving us with no choice but to remove the L from the LGBT.

          The addition of T to the LGBT has resulted in Lesbians being silenced and threatened, all women and girls to be at risk for our safety, and our interests to take a backseat to those of transgenderist males who co-opt our name and culture.

          The mission statements and resource allocation of LGBT orgs not only prioritize T but actively discriminate against L interests.

          LGBT orgs and publications slur Lesbians with “TERF” and “cis”, and attempt to silence us with accusations of “transphobia” when we point out that T demands conflict with our demands for safety.

          LGBT orgs and publications condone the destruction of lesbian culture and heritage by silencing women who want to keep Dyke Marches and other lesbian events as lesbian-only.

          LGBT orgs and publications condone corrective rape against Lesbians through their non-condemnation of “the cotton ceiling” and rape- and death threats by T against Lesbians on social media.

          LGBT orgs and publications condone medial anti-gay “conversion therapy” through their non-condemnation of the transgendering of children.

          T demands for access to women’s safe spaces puts ALL women and girls at risk since there is no objective way of assessing who is “genuinely transgender” or not.’

          https://www.change.org/p/hrc-glaad-nclr-lambda-legal-the-advocate-huffpo-gay-voices-we-are-getting-the-l-out-of-the-lgbt

          • Melissa

            November 28, 2018 at 10:36 am

            Thanks Isla, for a good summary of the concerns there.

            Lesbians seem to be the canary in the coalmine when it comes to women’s rights. It’s sad to see a community which could be standing up for a common interest turning away from each other for the sake of including men. It’s a tale as old as time, I suppose.

            It is an uneasy alliance of tenuously-linked concepts, the acronym.

          • Russell

            December 2, 2018 at 9:40 am

            Just further proof that this freak movement is all about anti-feminism and nothing more. Male gays are ok, but lesbians are not?

            You people are strange.

  7. Joanna

    November 27, 2018 at 12:42 pm

    Women Speak Tasmania’s position is not dogmatic. Just because it centers around biological females, does not make it dogmatic.

    There were varied proposals on legislation in the UK. The balancing of rights is important. Feminists rightfully have an issue with the modern transgender movement. Its activism impacts women’s rights like nothing else in the recent history. We have issues with the politics and the tactics applied, but we don’t have issues with people who have gender dysphoria and we agree that they need protection from discrimination and better level of treatment.

    We have also identified that the leaders of the global transgender movement are biological males (from Stonewall to Gendered Intelligence) who behave in an arrogant, narcissistic and chauvinistic ways towards females and femaleness.

    Germaine Greer was correct in stating that femaleness (the biological reality of our bodies) is still despised in our society, but femininity is championed. Men in fact can do femininity better than women. It does not make them the same. If you fail to acknowledge the difference it makes women angry.

    Removing the category of “biological sex” and substituting or conflating it with “gender identity” in public discourse and law harms women. It creates legal fictions compounding our struggle to liberate ourselves form being seen as non-men, or second class by much of the patriarchal history.

    It is incredibly unfortunate, but I have come to realise by observing what has been happening internationally, that the goals of the transgender movement are incompatible with women’s rights and goals of women’s liberation.

    I really don’t think most people involved in both sides of the debate are “bad or evil people” who don’t care. I think they do care, but our goals and understanding differ and we are seem to losing the common ground.

    I think input from more diverse members of our community is important to balance the legislative issues. We need to hear from people who can look at both arguments objectively and balance them in the best possible way. If this was to be done fairly, I would accept the outcome.

    As it stands currently, I can have no faith in the Greens (and I will not renew my membership) or Labor to be good arbiters. It takes time to understand both the transgender movement and women’s rights movement.

    Currently, as a society, we don’t have the skills or insights to provide solutions. I can be certain though, that ramming through policies will hurt people.

    • Tracey Wing

      November 27, 2018 at 4:01 pm

      It’s dogmatic.

  8. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    November 27, 2018 at 12:29 pm

    In any propaganda war, language victory is a precursor to victory ‘on the ground’. So successfully repurposing a word like ‘discrimination’ as a negative descriptor of criticism of the propagandists agenda (and its beneficiaries) is half the battle. Once established, the term no longer has to justify what it actually needs to prove; i.e., that that agenda and its clients actually qualify and meet the standards to avoid critical defenses against their claims; in this case, on the the reproductive biological infrastructure of our species.

    Then the propagandists reinforce their agenda with not arguments, but a range of well worn and highly effective negative stereotypes/ideological cliches, such as ‘transphobe (as if opponents have no legitimate agenda because they suffer from some sort of compulsive psychiatric disorder), ‘TERF’ (as if ‘exclusion is necessarily a ‘bad’ thing) ‘prejudice’ (as if the other person’s beliefs and values are without foundation…as opposed to the propagandists’) ‘bigotry’ (as if opponents are only motivated by ‘irrational’, ‘repressive’, ‘authoritarian and ‘puritanical’ moral extremism) ‘repressive’ (as if opponents are trying to ‘forcefully’ hold down the legitimate aspirations of the ‘oppressed’) ‘authoritarian (as if firm beliefs and standing up for them is ‘oppressive’).

    Criticism that deconstructs propaganda narratives is thus conveniently delegitimized without having to do anything except throw cliches at it. And this is a front that feminists who have the broader interests of women in mind have to fight their way through to even lay a glove on any off message gender lobby. It relies exclusively on its capacity to bluff, crib, and fudge tobacco industry style PR/marketspeak and ideologically manipulated ‘science’ into the consciousness of now thoroughly colonized consumer/citizens, who can be persuaded to buy water at 4,000 times the price of tap.

    One knows one is dealing with lobby propagandists because in true Trumpist style, they just blandly deny carefully prepared evidence based accusations as to the way they are operating, without making the mistake of trying to provide evidence based answers, as one might be expected to do in a real debate. Propagandists never get into real debates because essentially they are in the business of ‘persuasion’ through keywords and slogans rather than education, in just the same way as the fossil fuel lobbies are….and dear old Mr Trump…who I think could learn a thing or two from the transgen lobby to polish up his act a bit.

    And of course, the propagandists uses their propaganda successes as if they actually embodied real truth values. The fact that they have been able to bypass the critical faculties of their interlocutors (who cannot be seen to be all the nasty things above that they can be accused of) automatically legitimizes their agenda and turns it into an ‘irresistibly inevitable’ ‘wave of history’.

    Well yes it is and no it isn’t. The capacity of sexually mistaken opportunists to take over the already badly damaged and weakened social infrastructure they are now colonizing is not a result of their brilliant ideas, so much as being able to leverage an already heavily degregulated society that works in favour of private and personal interest at the expense of the commons, and uses economic and social indulgence as its main operating principle.

    The damage this operating principle is doing to everything it touches is not sustainable at any level…and very likely not for much longer. The counter attack on the post 1945 liberal ascendency is mounting as we speak, as is the collapse in the life support system that holds it and us up as a species.

    I am in no position to threaten anybody, but the warning is already out there, that anything that is happening today will be undone, no matter what happens now. The constituencies that will do that job are already in assembly. The world that makes what you are doing possible is already crumbling.

    And I say to my transgen brothers and sisters that as the tide turns and goes out on your agenda, you will be stranded with it. I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes, because the new emerging forces will want to hold you to account for your opportunist and unconscionable invasion and colonization of the reproductive centre, and what is left of its infrastructure.

    No pasaran for gender junkies.

    • Tracey Wing

      November 27, 2018 at 4:02 pm

      Is that your first work of fiction, Christopher? You should send it to a publisher. What’s the worst that could happen?

      • Simon Warriner

        November 27, 2018 at 6:43 pm

        And with that effort, and her (or his or whatever) other responses, Tracey Wing demonstrates exactly the point Christopher Nagle is making. Well done, there!

      • Ralph Wessman

        November 29, 2018 at 6:36 pm

        Christopher has a substantial amount of writing up on the Web, Tracey.

        PS: I loved your interview with Alison Lai.

  9. Isla MacGregor

    November 27, 2018 at 11:20 am

    Transexual man, Miranda Yardley, has this to say to trans rights lobbyists:

    ‘Transgender Ideology Does Not Support Women
    Posted on 22nd June 2015 by miranda …

    Transgender ideology is in a state. Its central ideas are inconsistent with each other, have little support in science or the ethics of power analysis and are so divorced from reality they require a complete suspension of disbelief in order to sit in one’s head without suffering cognitive dissonance.

    Although I am drawing a distinction between those of us who are transsexual and those who identify as transgender, all these points apply to both groups.

    Here are some of the things the things that transgender ideology needs to do so that it may support the lives of women:

    Accept that feminism and other women’s movements do not and should not centre transgender people. At the moment, trans is dominating the discussions, even causing huge ideological rifts, within feminism, yet here in the UK today’s news (22 June) reports hospital statistics showing 632 new cases of Female Genital Mutilation in the West Midlands (apparently girls “are brought to Birmingham to be cut”) from September 2014 to March 2015.
    Accept that innate gender identity is based on ideas with such a tenuous link to observed science it is barely a conjecture. The transgender claim to womanhood (or manhood) is completely dependent on this concept of an innate gender identity, and taking this away strips the movement of its cloak of being a civil rights movement, championing the fight of an oppressed minority, and instead reveals this to be the cross-dressing wolf of men’s rights activism, huffing and puffing at feminism and women.
    To accept that sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is a biological reality based on reproductive potential, and gender is a social system that harms women through stereotyping behaviour, by giving women the negative stereotypes and men those that are positive; gender itself is oppression, not a civil liberty. All transwomen by definition are biologically male, socialised as boys then usually ‘transition’ as adults, although in the present climate it appears to be coming acceptable for children to ‘transition’, which should be examined critically rather than accepted unconditionally. That our underlying biological reality remains fundamentally unchanged is not a value judgement, it is a morally neutral statement of fact, neither good nor bad, it just is and being a woman is not a feeling or an opt-in.
    To respect feminism, and this includes the ‘second wave’ without which today’s women’s rights, support structures and organisations would not exist. To accept that feminism is for and about women and girls, not transwomen. It is wrong to insist feminism centre transwomen, this forces the oppressed majority to centre the interests of part of the male oppressor class; women neither oppress nor have privilege by way of gender over trans people.
    To drop claims to womanhood based on the discredited and scientifically unsupported idea of ‘brain sex’. This is called ‘neurosexism’ and it is this sexist idea that has been used to stereotype and oppress women for millennia. It is our bodies that make human beings sexually dimorphic and ‘brain sex’ has no place in any modern civil rights movement.
    To cease insisting that language specific to describing over 50% of the population be erased to indulge the fragile egos of the 0.3% of the population that is trans. This means respecting women’s right to be able to describe their own bodies and experiences and also getting rid of the inherently redundant and coercively imposed ‘cis’; we already have a word for ‘women’ and that is ‘women’. Penises are the male sex organ, vaginas are female; this is how human reproduction works.
    To recognise that trans lives are different to the lives of women and that women are entitled to their own spaces, which should always be respected; it is not acceptable to attack women’s institutions that exist to support vulnerable women in the name of transactivism.
    To have honest discussions about autogynephilia. This is a real thing. Presently the existence of it is denied even though many trans people admit this is a motivation for their transition and pornography forms a central part of transgender culture. You cannot fight honestly for transgender rights while denying that autogynephilia exists.
    To accept and explicitly recognise that lesbians are women who are attracted to women, not transwomen, and that the ‘cotton ceiling’ is sexual coercion through shaming lesbians. No lesbian is bigoted, transphobic or hateful for having boundaries that exclude transwoman. This should be respected and those who do not respect this boundary should be admonished by their peers, especially those who make their living from exploitative activities like pornography. They should also accept that the word ‘lesbian’ belongs to women.
    Accept that men and women are socialised in fundamentally different ways, and that there is such a thing as ‘male socialisation’ and ‘female socialisation.’ Accept that it is unacceptable to abuse or make death threats to women or other transwomen on the internet. Single out the problem of male violence and stop blaming women for your difficulties, and this extends to using the acronym ‘TERF’ which is used so much and so indiscriminately its essence and meaning is a term of hate.
    It is fine to have disagreements with others, this is what discourse and debate are all about and we can do this without it becoming a matter of life or death. It is not acceptable to shut down any debate that you cannot control.
    Accept that ‘trans women’ fails in making ‘trans women’ a subset of women because reality gets in the way. Saying ‘transwomen are women’ is an erasure of the actual lived lives of both women and transwomen and at best makes transwomen appear broken. Do transwomen really feel like that? What anyway is the ‘trans’ for if that statement is true? Similarly ideas of being ‘coercively assigned male/female at birth’ immediately makes us start from a point of inferiority or defectiveness. This is not self acceptance, this is a crass denial of reality.

    Most importantly, those who are transgender should learn to accept themselves how and as they are without shame and understand that the people they owe the most to, and can learn the most from, are women.

  10. Tracey Wing

    November 27, 2018 at 11:16 am

    Hi Bronwyn and Isla!

    Hey, have you two become majority shareholders in Tasmanian Times? I’m just asking for a friend …

    • suzie

      November 27, 2018 at 1:08 pm

      Tasmanian Times allowing women a platform – a free press … really? Don’t you support free speech, or only that which the Mercury publishes, namely yours?

      • Tracey Wing

        November 27, 2018 at 4:12 pm

        Suzie, I must say I can’t remember the last time I had something published in the Mercury, but thank you! Was it for a cake bake? That rings a bell. Of course I support a free press and free speech.

        As they say, freedom comes with responsibilities. It also comes with a right of reply, something I am happy to receive if I write something in the public sphere.

        My comment was simply that the representatives of Women’s Bespoke Tasmania has been getting a lot of content space in the Tasmanian Times lately. Of course I realise it is very unlikely that they are majority share-holders, but even if they are, that’s their business.

        No, I think the explanation is that they have lots of time to re-phrase the same thing in a range of new season’s colours … always with the same worn out undergarments mind you.

        That’s the press for you these days though. Like Hollywood screen writers .. out of ideas so will look at a reboot instead.

        I actually don’t read the Mercury very often. If you do remember the details of when you saw something by me, please let me know.

        Maybe it was Relay for Life last year? Or when I was promoting STI check ups? Anyway never mind.

        Cheers!

        • Russell

          November 28, 2018 at 6:54 am

          If you bothered to actually read everything you would see that there are just as many men here, if not more. I don’t agree with your stupid divisive and exclusive agenda.

          Just look at the by-elections, South Australia, Wentworth and Victorian elections, to see how that’s going to pan out for you.

        • Rebecca

          November 29, 2018 at 4:02 pm

          Just more ad hominem nonsense from the trans ideologue, Tracy. No substantive response. Classic trans.

  11. Rodney Croome

    November 27, 2018 at 9:47 am

    Yes, a mistake was made. The Northern Territory bill hasn’t passed yet, but it is expected to pass soon.

    Similar legislation is also likely to be introduced within the next few months in WA, NSW and, again, in Victoria. Also, don’t forget that SA and the ACT have also removed legal discrimination against transgender, gender diverse and intersex people.

    So, my question to WST is this: how do you explain the fact that most states and territories are moving away from WST’s position? Is it because WST is right and all these other states are wrong? Or is it because WST’s dogmatic position is out of step with community attitudes and with feminist principles of choice, equity and bodily autonomy? The balance of probabilities would suggest the latter.

    • Melissa

      November 27, 2018 at 12:24 pm

      The word ‘feminist’ is as broad and meaningless as the word ‘queer’ at this point.

      We are not arguing that we want equity. We respect that there are material differences between men and woman, and that is why sex is a protected category within Federal law.

      We think it is important to protect our choice and bodily autonomy by saying No to men who would like to invade our spaces. That is our right, and as a gay man you should know why having this option is so important.

      You are taking the right of free association off heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual women, disabled women, religious women, rich, poor and everything in between, online and offline in our private and professional spaces.

      This is so much bigger than you make out, and I think you underestimate the depth of women’s anger on this subject.

    • suzie

      November 27, 2018 at 1:16 pm

      These proposals are nothing but an attack on ‘feminist principles of choice, equity and bodily autonomy.’ They are a Trojan horse that will undo the gains of the women’s rights movement over decades. Women’s voices have been ignored for decades on these issues. No-one is reporting the boycott many women have put on previously women-only services that, including in Tasmania, have allowed trans male to females into their spaces based on self ID alone, for fear of being challenged. The boycotts will only ramp up.

      Dogmatism is when you can’t respond to questions in a debate, and you keep trotting out the same old mantra – trans women are women … when we all know they’re not. When you want to subvert language to suit your needs .. the magic fairy wand doing the disappearing trick over the words ‘biological sex’ – then that’s dogma.

      Got your next fake news MR ready to go, Rodney?

    • Russell

      November 28, 2018 at 7:05 am

      How about removing discrimination of those who don’t agree with this stupid idea to remove sex from birth certificates?

      What’s the point of it, Rodney? Seriously?

      It seems your position is nothing but patriarchal. It’s being promoted only by men, ex-men or people who are confused about themselves.

      Why can’t you leave women’s groups, and men’s for that matter, alone to be what they were formed to be, and just start and be a part of your own groups?

      Why try to push your minority agenda onto the majority of us who are happy, as the natural world intended, to be what we were born as?

      You don’t see dogs, cats, horses, birds, lizards and every other creature in nature trying to be what they are not, or pushing it on others of their own species.

      I wish I had never voted for same sex marriage now that you are pushing this nonsense!

    • Tessa

      November 29, 2018 at 4:06 pm

      … Because the trans rights movement is a men’s rights movement. No social movement has ever gained traction as fast as the idea of transgenderism and that’s because it reinforces, not challenges, the sexist and homophobic norms our society is founded on.

      Any comment on the cotton ceiling, Rodney?

  12. Martine Delaney

    November 27, 2018 at 8:16 am

    Ah, Ms Williams! Rodney Croome might have been misinformed in being wrongly advised that the NT bill had passed, but I’m surprised you’ve an issue with the notion of misinformation, albeit unintended on this occasion. It seems to be an underpinning feature of your commentary.

    The issues you raise are addressed by the amendments before Parliament. It’s wrong of you to assert otherwise. There has been an extensive consultation and review process prior to reaching this point. Again, it’s wrong of you to repeatedly assert otherwise.

    Transforming Tasmania has readily provided very detailed explanations on the amendments. We also provide simple explanations for those who don’t wish to spend their time on more. It is, once again, wrong of you to suggest we are treating people as stupid, and dumbing things down.

    There seems to be a pattern emerging here. Misinformation. Bronwyn Williams. Horse and carriage.

    • Isla MacGregor

      November 27, 2018 at 9:20 am

      Transforming Tasmania claim there are NO impacts on women and girls from changes to transgender laws through self id. Are you aware if the Legislative Council have been provided with this list, and can you publicly respond to the information set out here?

      ‘The Tip of the Iceberg:

      Women harmed by rape in bathrooms by Males:

      Woman raped in Vermont courthouse bathroom | Local News
      Phoenix man raped woman in park bathroom – AZCentral.com
      Woman Raped in Downtown Annapolis Restroom: Police …
      Cross-dresser arrested in bath house
      Stranger Grabs Woman by Throat, Rapes Her in Bathroom …
      Woman Was Raped In Flatiron District Bar Restroom, Police …
      Woman Raped in Bathroom of Gramercy Bar, Police Say …
      Man arrested in bathroom stall assault at Circle Centre Mall …
      Union Square Park bathroom rape attempt on woman, 63 …
      Police Warn of Attempted Rapes in Downtown LA Restrooms
      Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter
      Women get raped in public toilets in shopping malls. – Belle …
      Man Hiding In Bar Bathroom Rapes Woman – Huffington Post
      Woman, 23, raped in busy Manhattan sports bar restroom …
      Cross-dressing Peeper Infiltrates Cal Women’s Locker Room
      Police: Cross-Dressing Peeping Tom Arrested Again
      Woman (50) raped in toilet at her work in Chloorkop …
      Man at-large who lured 12 year old into CVS bathroom …
      12-Year-old Raped By Stranger in Public Bathroom – Jezebel
      Texas police hunt man who lured a girl into a restroom and …
      10-Year-Old Girl Raped in Restroom of California Denny’s …

      The Threat to Women and Girls Presented by Bathroom Bills  The story of biological male sexual predators who used nondiscrimination laws protecting gender identity to sexually assault women.

      Here is a site documenting 250 cases regarding transwomen harming women and girls over a five year time span.
      And here’s some more:

      A transwomen rapes and kills a six year old girl.
      Man, Dressed as Woman, Charged With Sexually Assaulting of Boy | NBC 10 Philadelphia.
      Crossdresser cabbie convicted of rape
      The ‘Cambridge Rapist’ is dead
      Transgender Woman: Convictions Irrelevant to Citation
      California: Male rapist claiming “transgender” status placed in CA WOMEN’S prison:
      David Megarry (“Sandy Jo Battista”) a convicted sex offender who has molested girls, expects taxpayers to pay for his feminising hormones.

      Male-to-Female transgenders are 18 times more likely than women to be convicted of violent crime.

      Regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’

      and the list goes on and on …

      See here to click on links: http://appropriately-inappropriate.tumblr.com/post/143065193655/the-tip-of-the-iceberg-please-add-to-this-list

    • Isla MacGregor

      November 27, 2018 at 10:16 am

      Rodney, answers to the questions I have asked Martine would be very useful to the TT readership and the wider Tasmanian public. Can you?

      • suzie

        November 27, 2018 at 1:22 pm

        Rodney and Martine won’t answer the questions cos they’d have to utter the words ‘the elephant in the room’.. or maybe “Yes, women do have a right to have their say, and we will stop denying they do”.

    • suzie

      November 27, 2018 at 1:19 pm

      The only consultation that was conducted on this issue was done by a person who has been accused of bullying, harassment, ridicule and intimidation.

      The MO of the trans movement seems to be – shut up and listen to us, or we will shut you down!

    • Russell

      November 28, 2018 at 7:13 am

      When you can have a monthly period, give birth to a baby and breast feed, only then do you have the right to call yourself a woman and have the right to change the sex on your birth certificate.

      NEVER should you even THINK you have the right to remove ‘sex’ from birth certificates.

    • Russell

      November 28, 2018 at 7:17 am

      “There has been an extensive consultation and review process prior to reaching this point.”

      Nonsense! Neither I, nor anyone I know, was ever consulted. And now that I DO know, YOU don’t want to listen to me or accept my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top