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

A Liberal conscience vote on transgender law reform will diffuse potential hate campaigns

2019 is the thirtieth anniversary of one of the worst episodes in modern Tasmanian history.

In June 1989 Ulverstone hosted Australia’s first ever public rally against decriminalising homosexuality, with rallies to follow in Burnie, Launceston and Hobart.

A particularly nasty aspect of these rallies was how Liberal MPs sat in the front row applauding anti-gay speakers because the plan to decriminalise had been proposed by Labor and the Greens.

Those angry rallies tore families and communities apart, and most Tasmanians hope they never happen again.

But tragically, we are seeing a return to politicised prejudice against LGBTI people.

The State Liberal Government is deeply hostile to Labor and Green transgender law reform proposals.

The proposals will do several things, including protecting transgender people from hate speech, after this protection was accidentally removed from the Anti-Discrimination Act a few years ago.

But the two main points of concern about the transgender law reform proposals seem to be these:

First, they will remove the requirement that transgender people have surgery before they can amend their birth certificates so their true gender is officially recognised.

Second, they will allow people to choose not to have gender marked on their birth certificates, including allowing parents that choice in the case of children.

The Government says these proposals have no place in its original legislation which was about bringing Tasmania into line with marriage equality at a federal level.

But when you look at what the Government’s legislation actually deals with, that objection makes no sense.

The Government’s original legislation was about removing the brutal requirement that married transgender partners must divorce before their birth certificate can be amended.

If we are going to remove that hurdle, why would we leave in place an even more brutal hurdle that affects far more transgender people, namely the legal requirement that they have invasive, expensive and dangerous surgery before they can change their birth certificate?

It is bizarre that the Government is happy to remove an old law that discriminates against transgender people, while insisting an even worse law remain.

The Government says the proposed Labor and Green reforms require further consultation, which also makes no sense.

The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission conducted a public inquiry in 2016 that recommended the reforms currently on the table.

At the end of last year, the Northern Territory adopted, and the West Australian Law Reform Commission recommended, just the kind of reforms being debated in Tasmania.

Clearly, these reforms are not as complex or as unpopular as the Tasmanian Government wants us to believe.

What mystifies me most of all are those Liberals who say this is “cultural Marxism” when it is actually a classic liberal reform.

By allowing transgender people to amend their birth certificates without the need for divorce or surgery, we are giving them more choice, greater control over their own lives, and the same opportunities as other people.

By giving trans folk the choice to remove gender from their birth certificates, the law is effectively saying “it’s not the Government’s role to decide who you are, it’s yours”.

Giving everyday people greater choice and getting Government out of their lives is the fundamental principle behind these reforms.

Any Liberal worthy of that label should be an enthusiastic supporter of Tasmania’s transgender reforms.

So why aren’t they?

A recent opinion poll commissioned by the Liberal Party caused me great concern.

As well as being leading and misleading, the poll question explicitly targeted Labor and the Greens.

On top of that, media outlets seeking comment on the poll were directed by the Liberal Party to its candidates in upcoming elections for federal parliament and for the state Upper House.

These candidates have little or nothing to do with the issue, and in the case of federal candidates won’t even vote on the legislation.

It looked like the Liberal Party was using community misunderstanding about transgender reform to give their candidates a boost.

It looked like a return to the politicisation of discrimination.

What re-inforces fears in the LGBTI community that prejudice is being politicised has been the distribution of anti-transgender flyers that misrepresent the current law reform proposals in Liberal Party branches in Hobart, again, just like the 90s.

For me, all this is deeply disappointing because I genuinely believed the Tasmanian Liberal Party had moved on from this kind of thing.

It has an LGBTI whole-of-government framework that commits it to working with the LGBTI community to reduce “stigma, social isolation, prejudice, harassment and discrimination still experienced by many LGBTI Tasmanians”.

It approved an Equality Bench in Parliament Gardens commemorating how far the state has come on LGBTI human rights.

Will Hodgman was the first Liberal Premier in Australia to apologise for former laws criminalising homosexuality and for the hate that found refuge behind those laws.

Will one of Will Hodgman’s successors have to apologise for the Liberal Party’s current anti-transgender campaign in the same way Will apologised for his predecessor’s anti-gay campaign?

But my disappointment is nothing compared to the trepidation and anxiety transgender and gender diverse Tasmanians and their families feel right now.

They had their identities and rights demonised during the postal survey.

They rightly believed the Yes vote brought that to an end, especially in Tasmania where the vote was above the national average.

The last thing they need is for their hopeful bid at equality and dignity turned into the postal survey version 2.0.

The way to prevent this is simple: a Liberal conscience vote.

In 1996, after years of polarisation in regard to decriminalising homosexuality, the Liberal Party adopted a conscience vote, leading to gay law reform being embraced by most Tasmanians.

By allowing a conscience vote on LGBTI law reform ever since, including on same-sex parenting and marriage, the Liberal Party has helped forge the more inclusive and tolerant Tasmania we all enjoy today.

If the Liberal Party allows a conscience vote on transgender reform it will immediately stop the gathering hate campaigns and help foster greater community understanding, just as it did in the late 90s.

My plea to Tasmania’s Liberals is not to go backwards to a time when fear was whipped up to win a few votes.

Instead, let’s keep moving forward to a Tasmania where we are all treated with respect and dignity.

Rodney Croome is a spokesperson for Equality Tasmania, formerly the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group

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

117 Comments

  1. Russell

    April 8, 2019 at 5:27 pm

    Now I know why Cassy O’Connor has backed this stupid bill so much. Last night I saw her on TV with her trans child.

    Democracy isn’t by the people for the people any longer. It’s all about self-empowerment and self-gain and petty personal wants of the very, very few for the very, very few.

    If this went to a plebiscite, as it should, it would be smashed.

  2. Russell

    April 8, 2019 at 5:23 pm

    Kiss your political chances goodbye, Tasmanian Greens. You’re going the way of Meg Lees’ Democrats.

    • Formally Just Kate.

      April 9, 2019 at 8:13 am

      Tasmania will be able to look back on this event as the day the 57 year old Ruth Forrest adopted an illegitimate child. With DNA from Greens, Labor and a mutated Liberal, which most considered to be an unnatural relationship, I suspect that her “baby” will be highly dysfunctional, and we shall all end up paying for this misled, emotively charged decision.

  3. Lola Moth

    April 8, 2019 at 8:22 am

    Congratulations, Mr Croome, on winning your fight against women’s rights. You managed to not answer one question put to you about these changes. Women were crying out tor answers and you ignored them. You fought for the rights of minorities most of your life, and you have now succeeded in tearing away the rights of half the population. Women will never forget what you have helped to achieve in getting these laws passed in Tasmania. It is a dark day indeed for women and girls.

    • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

      April 8, 2019 at 8:52 am

      My dear Lola, this is the time to organise a demonstration outside Parliament! You will get some publicity. This struggle has only just started. Stop moping. We were always likely to lose at this stage.

      This is a chance for feminist activists to show their real metal. The battle is over, but the war has just begun …

      • Lola Moth

        April 8, 2019 at 10:27 am

        Christopher, I will leave the organising of protests to those with experience so that they can be as effective as possible. I will definitely demonstrate, protest, march, and bellow through a megaphone until I am heard at any organised event I can physically get to. I’m house- and wheelchair-bound at the moment but I will find someone to push me to the fore. I still can’t believe I have to fight again for the rights I thought I’d already won in the 1970s.

        One question that is still doing my head in about this new law is regarding children. What if my mother were to become legally male? My mother would have a birth certificate that states she was born male so how could she have given birth to me? If we are making biological truth obsolete, does that make me the biological product of two men? How am I to prove I even exist as a product of the impossible?

        • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

          April 8, 2019 at 12:41 pm

          Lola, it is not your fault that you live in a society that is losing control of critical consciousness and open to any colonising pathogen/usurper that happens to be drifting past. Accept that Marcuse’s statement that capitalism is a highly rationalised irrationality is no longer just an economic, but now a social/ideological fact of life.

          None of this is likely to last much longer, although that probably is cold comfort, because the following post-modern interregnum is likely to be pretty messy and none of the options will be winning ideological beauty prizes.

          Our job is not to leave it to traditional religions to take over the space left by the indulgent deregulation and privatisation sponsored collapse of secular reason and the social infrastructure that underpins it, which unfortunately is what will happen as affluent secular societies start to unwind.

          We have a lot of work to do. See:

          https://www.writing.com/main/books/item_id/2064958-The-Secular-Fundamentalist

          In the meantime dear Lola, get better if that is possible, or if not, start weight training for the disabled Olympics, or the nearest possible ambition that seems feasible. We need you for the long haul …

    • Geoff Holloway

      April 8, 2019 at 1:51 pm

      Don’t give up yet Lola and Kate, the revised Bill (19 revisions of the Bill were presented to the Legislative Council), as now the finalised Bill (8 votes to 7) has to go back to the House of Assembly … this could be delayed for some time, hopefully until the Law Reform Institute examines the repercussions and the losses for the rights of women. The Greens and their acolytes are obviously panicking given their recent media blitzes.

  4. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    March 24, 2019 at 3:34 pm

    The audience has fled and this machinery of discourse is shutting down like Hal in ‘2001, a Space Odyssey’.

    The time has come to walk away to something else.

    We will continue to talk, argue, negotiate, shout at and kill each over these matters as events continue to unfold; as the charade of Late Indulgence Capitalism is forced into Capitalism Lite, and the fantasia collapses, revealing the sometimes brutal and fundamental facts of life, and what we are prepared to tolerate, and not.

    We must bid each other goodbye and hope that some of us do not live long enough to have to meet each other again in what may be much less salubrious and moderated circumstances.

    We are all going to be playing for keeps on this, in a game where the stakes have become enormous and no one can afford to lose.

    Best of luck with that. There will only be one right answer on this. May the winners win and the losers lose….

    I expect to lose in the short term, but I will die for it nonetheless, because I take the longer view.

    Until we meet again…..

  5. Formally Just Kate

    March 24, 2019 at 7:24 am

    Congratulations Mr Croome, it appears your straw man has been successful. Instead of people focussing on arguments and lobbying Upper House members to send this matter to enquiry, they allowed themselves to be side tracked. The” hijacking” of this bill is now on course for completion. It is a sad day for democracy; not because of your goals, but for the way they were attained.

  6. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    March 19, 2019 at 4:27 pm

    Ladies, gentlemen and others, lend me your ears for me for this one last time on this thread. I ask this because the reason why there has been such an extent and intensity of discourse here is because what is being fought over is much greater than the transgender legislative push and Feminist response to it in the Tasmanian parliament that has triggered it. It lays bare, at least to some extent, the kind of existential abyss and civilizational questions you would expect coming out of a world order that is already coming unstuck and beginning to disintegrate.

    I want to make it as clear as possible to my postmodernist marketing interlocutors who think they are working for the best interests of a constituency blighted by a psychiatric disorder, that their work at attempting to further reinforce the delusions of that constituency by pretending that these are not delusions, but a new and enforceable reality paradigm, are further plunging not just them into a Mad Hatter, Humpty Dumpty (Thank you for the correction Lee-Gwen) and Queen of Hearts world, but all of us, ever deeper, into the same la la land. The whole thing won’t work unless the collective consciousness shares the delusion as well, by having its rational baselines, existential touchstones and critical faculties systematicallly destroyed.

    Predating, as the transgen lobby are. on our now all but ruined commons is absurdly easy, because it hardly has any defenses left. We now live in a world order that is already subsumed by delusion and fantasy. This is the outcome of 60 years of the larger system of Indulgence Capitalism unbundling our collective and individual autonomous behaviour and critical judgement in favour of marketing and sales inc, and its loyal co-workers in the downtown postmodernism of universityland. Both are made of exactly the same rotten stuff, wherebye the truth is just a perception and truth values are whatever happens to be convenient at the time for the dominant interests of commerce and its collateral social ascendancy, that are now in power.

    Both eschew all notions of axioms, rules and boundaries that could interrupt the deregulatory and privatization agendas that drive the fantasy engines of overproduction and consumption to the point that hardly anyone can tell the difference between fantasy and reality anymore and all the templates for fixing that have been destroyed and quite deliberately not replaced, as the Feminists found to their very considerable cost during the later part of last century.

    Ladies gentlemen and others, we all know in our hearts that none of this is sustainable at any level. The social and existential fabric of our time, and the governance that is supposed to steward it, is as wrecked as the natural environment that supports the life of our planet. It is predictably going to either collapse and/or blow up any time at all in the next thirty to forty years. And when that happens, it won’t just be the economic machinery that goes down. So will all the rest, along with the mountains of bullshit that have accumulated with the ancien regime.

    This is the warning that I give to my transgender brothers and sisters and the ideological parasites that are leading them. The latter are almost certainly going to win what they want in the birth certificate department, because they have that kind of momentum and muscle. I note the ease with which they have successfully deplatformed the Women Speak Tasmania forum. It is a measure of the collapse in judgement of even people like the Quakers, whose religious quietism has degenerated into merely wanting a quiet life, because they too can no longer tell a frog from a cane toad, without someone else whispering in their ear which is which and which to tread on. But this kind of outcome does not have long to live. The carpet under the collective feet is already starting to move.

    Right now brothers, sisters and others, there are forces that assembling themselves throughout the world who have seen the end of the status quo and are already hardening their resolve and moving against it in anticipation of that. The end of the modern period is as tactile to them as it was to the young nationalists in the colonial world after the First World War, who could see that the European ascendancy had been mortally wounded. And while the colonial security apparatus was able to contain the nationalist threat in the interwar period, what they hadn’t reckoned on was that the Japanese had registered that mortality too, They destroyed it in less than six months, beyond all hope of recovery. Their campaign wasn’t so much a war as a humiliating coup de gras.

    And like all other destroyers of worlds,they did not get there by winning ideological beauty pageants.

    Worlds are created and destroyed over piles of corpses, which is what we are heading straight into, and there will be very little forgiveness or quarter given or taken. There never is. We will find ourselves in the same kinds of enveloping wars of toleration that marked the beginnings of the modern period, and for exactly the same reasons, as all the bets come off, the lines in the sand get drawn and enforced, everyone starts to play for keeps and the stakes become so colossal, no one can afford to lose!

    I have absolutely no idea how that is going to pan out or have even anything but the vaguest idea of time scale. It could easily spring itself without notice, like it did in Sarajevo in 1914, or just be a gradual slide, like it is at the moment. But what I can say, is it will be a great time for the modern iterations of witch hunters.

    I am getting old, so what happens to me really doesn’t matter. But if I were young and transexual, I would be shitting my pants and cursing the stupid self aggrandizers that are so unnecessarily exposing me to even greater hostility and insecurity than otherwise would be the case; the stupid, blind and egotistical swill!

    Forcing the transexual agenda through now will have no other effect than at some time in the predictable future of blowing up in its collective face. It has no more chance of making that agenda any more sustainable than the rest of the already heavily compromised system.

    You are part of the system of Indulgence Capitalism and you will go down with it.

    And it will be very messy.

    • Alanna Kennedy

      March 19, 2019 at 10:09 pm

      Bravo!

  7. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    March 18, 2019 at 10:54 am

    Ladies and gentlemen….and others….lend me your ears, for I have a tale that will astound and shock you as much as it did me….

    How did we get ourselves into a state where a bunch of ideological sales people could run through legislative change to our nature as a species and seem so plausible that they can change the law to effect this with hardly a whimper?

    Let us suppose that you, Neddy, feel that your right leg doesn’t belong to your body. The sight of it causes you intense distress every time you look at it.

    So you go to see a surgeon and ask him to chop it off. He politely refuses and suggest that you many need ‘help’ and that a psychiatrist might be just the ticket. The shrink tells you that you are suffering from ‘body dysmorphia’ and will need several years of ‘treatment’ that will cost you several tens of thousands of dollars.

    Neddy walks away feeling very bad about himself and sensing the beginnings of a massive hole his wallet, goes to the pub and starts crying into his beer. But as luck would have it, a rather sexually indeterminate character sidles up to him and tells him that he used to suffer from ‘gender dysphoria’ until some very empathetic and friendly people had given him/her a unchallengeably and scientifically bullet proof new identity called ‘gender fluidity’ that no one questions anymore and they are in trouble if they do…How cool is that?

    Neddy is given a card with the name of some people ‘who can help him’.

    Of course they can help him…..”Ah Neddy, have we got a plan for you…..”

    He gets taken down to the science and identity department for identity re-assignment, scientific redesignation and victimological enhancement…..

    They point out that a single designation all-in-one product like ‘gender fluidity’ is a once in a generation masterpiece, like the ‘It’s The Real Thing’ Coke ad back in the day, but they have something almost as good for the poor fellow…

    The identity repackage is….tah dah…’Corporeal Remorphism’. It sounds latino-medicalish with an ‘ism that implies that it is part of an institutionalized and intellectually respectable ‘movement’ at the end. But it needs to be operationalized with a very psychiatrically plausible name (no Latin or Greek unfortunately) but the sort of term they might use….Tah Dah…’Body Image Plasticity’.

    You Neddy are now the proud owner of a real ideologico-scientific blast which now goes by the uber cool and irresistibly packaged nomenclature of….Tah Dah….’Corporeally Remorphic Body Image Plasticity’ or, (even more importantly) C-ReBIP. It isn’t quite as snappy as ‘Things Go Better With Coke’, but hey, this is science we are talking about here! The psychiatry peak organizations will cream themselves on that one. We have some willing stooges in there who will run it through faster than a sex change operation.

    And look, Neddy’s bullet proof jacket is standard issue we give to everyone. Now that Neddy is Corporeally Remorphic Body Image Plastic, he is a fully fledged, scientifically proven and unassailably legitimate ‘identity’. Anyone who gives Neddy ‘dissonant’ feedback (a reality check) is a ‘dissonator’ (‘ignorant’, ‘prejudiced’ and ‘bigoted’) who is ‘discriminating’ (exercising normal critical judgement) against you, Neddy. You Neddy no longer have a problem. The dissonators have a problem. And if they cast doubt on your new status, any anti discrimination commissioner in the world will be instantly at your service to deal with the first bruto-emotional fascist who has the temerity to question you.

    All Neddy’s dreams have come true. The surgeon who refused to initially treat his (repeat constantly after me) Corporeally Remorphic Body Image Plasticity or C-ReBIP (not a ‘condition’, but ‘a poor thing scientifically verifiable state of beingness) is forced to apologize for ‘ignorantly discriminating’ against him and does the operation for free by way of compensation for ‘all the needless hurt’ he caused.to him….and his family.

    The psychiatrist offers free family counselling to make amends for causing Neddy’s pre C-ReBIP ‘rejection difficulties’ with his wife, who is still in hospital as a result of the ‘trauma’ he suffered by being told he had (oh my god) a ‘psychiatric condition’…..

    Ladies and gentlemen and all the poor pathetic, but now ’empowered’ Neddy feelalikes in the world. I give you the never before understood or empathized with state of being, that until this moment you knew nothing about, but in reality was always there, ready to be discovered….. Corporeally Remorphic Body Image Plasticity!

    C-ReBIP….You can’t leave home without it….

    My Dear Isla and Bronwyn, consider taking this little morsel with you when you next go to see the pollies. They will love it.

    • Geoff Holloway

      March 18, 2019 at 1:52 pm

      Sheer brilliance Christopher! Now, can I talk to you about the proposed cable car . . . . . .

    • Lola Moth

      March 18, 2019 at 2:31 pm

      Christopher, you need to add Lee-Gwen’s “gender confirmation surgery” to your lexicon.

  8. mctessa

    March 18, 2019 at 8:31 am

    Indeed.

    If gender has nothing to do with the body anyway, how can surgical alteration to the body be confirming? I’m really sick of these unexamined contradictions being pedaled to undermine women.

  9. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    March 17, 2019 at 7:19 pm

    Once we get our heads around the idea that the transgender movement is not a rationally driven or science based or empirically verifiable artifact, but a public relations and marketing mishmash of factoids to grab control of our sense of reality in the same way as Coca Cola does, then ideas like ‘Gender Fluidity’ make much more sense, in the same way that ‘Things Go Better With Coke’.

    ‘Gender Fluidity’ is a gorgeously and memorably mellifluous sounding, scientisitcally referential and so conflated, cribbed and fudged beyond rational disentanglement that no one can really deconstruct it without getting hopelessly bogged down in megatons of bullshit.

    ‘Gender fluidity’ is the perfect slip, slide, weave ‘n duck public relations tool. And it It is a ripper.

    ‘Sexuality fluidity’ sounds a lot more plausible at one level, but it lacks the sheer powertorque of ‘gender’, ‘Gender’ sounds much more profound, more existentially ‘insightful’ and relevant to ‘our deepest humanity’.

    But I almost have orgasms over ‘fluidity”. If some gorgeous woman cornered me at a party (say about fifty years ago) and started talking to me about ‘fluidity’ and kept regularly repeating into my ear, I would become as putty…and she wouldn’t have far to reach, as it were, to pull me into her corner….

    The image of fluidity gives us a sense that there no boundaries to the possibilities, like fish in an infinite sea of them.

    ‘Gender fluidity’ is a powerfully sexy and iconically memorable journey into the collective imagination, where the bloody thing sets up shop in style and starts to redirect the ideological traffic, bust the normal critical defenses and then takes over the reality paradigm.

    And when you have a cracker of a tool like that, you just keep repeating it ad nauseam until it is embedded into the language lexicon. If you listen to the transgender sales people in the media, you will notice they keep repeating it. The other side will ramble on with all the rational this and that, and get all cross, bothered and raise their voices in frustration and anger, but all the punters will remember is ‘Gender Fluidity’. ‘Gender Fluidity’, ‘Gender Fluidity’….Mesmomemorized.

    Job done. End of story.

  10. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    March 17, 2019 at 6:10 pm

    There is a lot of material here and it bears some need for summary.

    The argument started over what initially appeared as an innocent and small matter of birth certificates, which seemed on the face of it to be just a clean up from the leftovers of the same sex marriage campaign of just over a year ago….until some feminists took a closer look and realized that not only was this ‘innocuous’ little number going to slam dunk substantial tranches of women only infrastructure and sports pastimes, but was also an even more brazen attempt to reconstruct reality than anything ever tried by the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union during the 1930s.

    That view has been overwhelming argued in these columns to the point that if the transgen position were a cartoon coyote, it would have been clobbered more times than a dozen episodes. But like the cartoon coyote, no matter how often its gets clobbered, it just gets up again and cheerfully moves to the next clobber station.

    And the reason one cannot ‘really’ clobber them is because they are a cartoon, albeit a very powerful and totalitarian one. Mystified dorkasaur debaters finds themselves boxing with shadows….and wearing themselves out with their own words until they have maneuvered themselves over a conveniently waiting trap door….and down they go……loooozzzers!

    Doctors who tried to take on the tobacco lobby had exactly the same problem and they were led round and round in circles by the publicrelationsmarketspeakers for decades and decades. And the fossil fuel people are exactly the same. It doesn’t matter what the truth is. And that is the rub.

    The postmodernism that has been spewing out of university humanities (social administrators) and economics departments (corporate administrators) since the deregulatory and privatization driven roll out of the fantasy driven consumer economy in the 1960s, is that there are no such things as fundamental axioms or beliefs. All beliefs have relatively the same status. So there is no such thing as truth or falsehood, only relative truth values embodied in the arguable and the deniable. And the beautiful thing is that truth values only need to be ‘packaged’ with brand values and naming rights, including some some really negative ones to deal with competing products,disgruntled customer objections and hostile constituencies who have ‘negative perceptions’.

    Even more beautifully, if the branding and the marketing is good enough, the product can be complete schlock, but it doesn’t matter, because the branding agencies and the marketing positioners will most of the time be able to smooth over the reality wrinkles.

    But ladies and gentlemen, there is even more. In the postmodernist firmament, over time, the old reality chocks keep being eroded and corroded away until there are simply no boundaries or rules based fabric or axioms that contradict even the wildest fantasies. What better way to subsidize the larger economy, which itself is built around fantasies, desires and satiating them at all costs.

    In a society that had not been colonized by this jewel wasp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp) of a system would immediately recognize the transgender agenda as the most hilarious try on that no one in the right mind would buy. The trouble is, we live inside an economy and a propaganda reality altering system that enables beverage companies to sell the stupid punters water at 4,000 times the price of tap….and keep a straight face while doing it.

    And that is the trick ladies and gentlemen. We are not really talking about a small minority of rather unfortunate people with a delusional disorder, because we have moved into a world where ‘a disorder’ is what we mean it to mean; no more, no less. The Queen of Hearts is now a postmodern iteration of Lewis Carol’s ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass’, where it is she, not Alice that has walked through it into our world. The vicious sod is here and kicking arse; our arse.. And The Queen says to the people in ‘Ordinaryland’, “We are the ones now ‘who know’ what is delusion and what is real and if you do not see it the right way, you are out…..Off with their heads!…which is dead right in the metaphorical sense that their critical faculties and existential validation are suspended until further notice if they do not toe the reality line.

    The transgendered people are incidental pawns in all this. They are just convenient leverage for a very small cabal of operators who have seen the entrepreneurial opportunities to be had in a society drowning in its own fantasies, to take control of at least a part of that fantasy world, and make it their own; i.e., a strategic power grab from the margins to control the reality manufacturing system of the cultural centre; one that is already so weakened and damaged, the exercise should prove very little problem at all.

    This is a rework of the narrative of ‘The Matrix’. Late indulgence capitalism is a ‘Matrix’. It is a ‘Jewel Wasp’ totalitarian control system and its newest politicians.are to be found in the likes of our dear Rodney Groome et al.

    As long as that Matrix lasts, the only way to winkle these ‘politicians’ out is to run public relations and marketing campaigns against them, because they are not susceptible to rational argument or debate. Power is no longer negotiated at that level. There are groups like ‘Binary’ that are just ‘coming in to the market’ and have some decent grass roots funding, just like ‘Getup’. They have the right tools for the job.

    One cannot argue or reason with sales people. But one can wreck their brand and their version of reality if we approach the problem the right way.

    The Age of Reason and the legacy of The Enlightenment is dead. Postmodernism rules. Get used to it.

  11. Isla MacGregor

    March 16, 2019 at 4:58 pm

    More and more trans people are dissenting from trans ideology. Their message is best summed up by Miranda Yardley…
    ‘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.’

    • Alanna Kennedy

      March 19, 2019 at 10:07 pm

      Eloquent and thoughtful. I stand with you.

  12. Lee-Gwen Booth

    March 16, 2019 at 11:54 am

    The daft idea that a birth certificate is ‘a true document of the time that you are born’ needs to disappear. It is simply not true. Birth certificates exist to provide individuals with ID and if a person’s ID does not sensibly reflect the individual it is useless – or worse, positively harmful. The sex as identified at birth will still be recorded but there is no reason that this needs to be reflected on the piece of paper drawn from those records if the person does not want it to be.
    This will have no impact on the lives of most people. However, it will have a massive, and very positive, impact on those who who are trans or gender diverse. They will be able to provide a major piece of ID without “outing” themselves the moment anyone sees the document.
    For those here who are gay or lesbian, think just how hard it would make your life if every time, from birth, you presented your birth certificate to prove your identity, it specified that you were gay.
    Given the discrimination that gay people, male or female, can face in accommodation or employment, think how easy this would make it for anti-gay forces to exclude you from opportunities that are rightfully yours.
    Think how hard it would be if people wanted to exclude you from spaces designated for people of the same sex as you just because you are attracted to people of the same sex.
    Think how awful it would be to have non-gay people claiming that you were only using the those facilities for voyeuristic, or worse, reasons.

    • Lola Moth

      March 16, 2019 at 3:48 pm

      I have read your comment carefully several times but it still makes absolutely no sense. Let’s start with your first sentence.

      “The daft idea that a birth certificate is a ‘true document of the time that you were born’ needs to disappear.”

      I’m sorry, but a birth certificate is a true document of the time that you were born. Is the truth ‘daft’? Are facts ‘daft’? The rest of your comment is just more of the same nonsense. I don’t even know how to address the other things you are confused about. You have my head spinning.

      • mctessa

        March 16, 2019 at 8:50 pm

        I think its because this person believes that ‘sex’ is a feeling or idea in an individuals mind – rather than a material reality.

        • Lee-Gwen Booth

          March 17, 2019 at 10:00 am

          I know it to be a material reality; it’s just that a person’s sex is not necessarily dictated by their chromosomes or their genitalia.
          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

          • Lola Moth

            March 17, 2019 at 10:55 am

            Lee-Gwen, you are confusing gender with sex. Sex is a biological fact that cannot be altered by chemistry, surgery, or by any other means. Gender is how you see yourself regarding sexual identity. You can change your gender as often as you change your underwear but your sex remains the same. Now that I know that you are confusing sex with gender, as many people who also hold your view do, I understand your comments better.

            Many in the trans rights lobby deliberately conflate the terms sex and gender to mislead people. I feel you are not trying to mislead, but that you have been misled by others. Please read up on the differences between biological sex and gender identity so that this discussion can continue with everybody speaking the same language.

          • Lee-Gwen Booth

            March 17, 2019 at 11:41 am

            For some reason, I cannot reply to your message, Lola, but I did want to address it.
            No, I am not confusing gender with sex and the link I offered is actually about sex not gender.
            I will agree that a person can’t change their sex but, you see, I view trans people as being the sex they say they are. They’re not changing their sex if they transition, they are changing the way they appear so that it more closely matches their sex.
            I am aware, of course, that you will not view it the same way.

          • Lola Moth

            March 17, 2019 at 1:03 pm

            I also have no reply button under your comment so I hope this goes to where it should.

            The link you supplied discussed an abnormality that has been observed in a handful of people who were part of a set of twins or triplets but who absorbed the DNA of their siblings that did not develop into individual beings. It is very rare and is considered an abnormality and a defect. I also have physical defects, including a club foot, but I don’t consider myself to be a new and improved type of human that needs a separate category to feel validated as a person. If my deformities were recorded on my birth certificate I would not mind at all. Some of my deformities were surgically changed when I was young but they weren’t wiped from history.

            What you are suggesting is that 99.9% of the population should bow to the fantasy of a tiny minority of the population that they were born into the wrong body. I love gymnastics and dancing but I don’t feel I am a gymnast who was born into the wrong body. I accept the body I have with all its limitations.

            The safety of women and girls should not be compromised because a few gender-confused people demand validation.

      • Lee-Gwen Booth

        March 17, 2019 at 9:57 am

        “I’m sorry, but a birth certificate is a true document of the time that you were born.”
        Except that it is not. This is why the birth certificates of adopted children may have the names of their adoptive parents rather than those of the people who gave them life.

        • Lola Moth

          March 17, 2019 at 11:44 am

          I have looked up the information on what information an adopted person’s birth certificate contains and you are correct that it does not state who the biological parents are but it gives the names of the adoptive parents. It also states, “Please note that the adopted person’s original birth certificate will be stamped ADOPTED”. The birth certificate does not record the fiction that the adoptive parents are the biological parents, and it should not lie about the biological sex of the person either.

          • Lee-Gwen Booth

            March 17, 2019 at 12:15 pm

            The only place I found the quote “Please note that the adopted person’s original birth certificate will be stamped ADOPTED” was on the Victorian BDM, not the Tasmanian site. The Tasmanian site simply says “If you have been legally adopted, your birth certificate will show your adoptive parents, as they are recognised as your legal parents.”
            The point remains that birth certificates do not necessarily show the situation that existed at a person’s birth and changes to birth certificates are possible. In some cases, as in the Victorian situation, that change will be noted; in others, it will not.
            https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/bdm/adoptions

        • Lola Moth

          March 17, 2019 at 1:49 pm

          There is no reply button so I hope this gets to where it should.

          I ‘feel’ 23, so is that my real age? My birth certificate disagrees with how I see myself so should I be allowed to change my date of birth so it aligns with my ‘real’ identity? There is a lot of age discrimination about so perhaps abolishing the factual date of birth would remedy that.

          • Lola Moth

            March 17, 2019 at 3:59 pm

            Geoff, you have no reply button but I am sure this comment will appear in the right place.

            I wonder, if you decided you were 17 and you committed a crime, would you be taken to a youth detention centre? If I called you a senior would I be charged because of hate speech?

            If I wake up tomorrow and feel 70, will I be eligible for the age pension? You and I have much to mull over, Geoff.

          • Geoff Holloway

            March 17, 2019 at 4:57 pm

            My comment was made tongue-in-cheek Lola, I was trying to make light of a very serious situation. As Secretary of the United Tasmania Group (UTG) I can assure you that UTG supports Women Speak Tasmania 100% (having conducted a survey of UTG membership recently).

          • Lola Moth

            March 17, 2019 at 7:41 pm

            Geoff, I was just extrapolating on this absurd idea that truth can be bent in order to realise someone’s fantasy. The idea that males can become female, and females can become male can be shown for the rubbish it really is when we change ‘sex’ for ‘age’ in this argument. I was always taught that if you swap one object (sex) with another but equal object (age), you would see whether the argument has any merit. This topic does not pass the ‘swap test’ at all.

    • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

      March 16, 2019 at 5:48 pm

      Lee-Gwen, I hear where you are coming from. Honest self identification is tough, Honesty is often tough. Owning up to the not so good or ‘acceptable’ parts of ourselves is tough. When we do it to face just deserts (or unjust ones) it involves courage, taking responsibility for ourselves against all comers and being prepared to face down the consequences.

      We can hope that our honesty will temper the responses of others to treat us compassionately and fairly. but it doesn’t always happen that way. The consequences of honesty are often severe, whether we have behaved well or badly. That is life. You are either committed to honesty or you aren’t.

      I assert that no society can function for long on the basis of fundamental lies, and particularly the lies that envelop us if we embrace a culture of indulgence, where excesses, suboptimal and dishonest behavior is excused and tolerated on a protracted basis, because it acid burns and corrodes the existential integrity of individuals and eventually, compromises the larger integrity of central beliefs, the rules based behavior they imply and the boundaries that protect them.

      Honesty is always the best policy, no matter how hard it is, or how complicated the politics of honesty can be and I can speak from experience. We are talking here about sexual honesty in the public and private realm, and it is generally as scarce as Tasmanian Tigers. So I will give you something of myself that illustrates the point and why what you are advocating is fundamentally wrong.

      I am blighted with a lifelong dose of Sado-Masochism which I picked up in a 1950s boarding school for all the the obvious reasons. Even in my early ’70s, it never leaves me alone. I have learnt to live with it by some hard lessons and a lot of reflection about the nature of sexual politics and how vulnerable that politic is to perversion and disruption of its integrity. For the last thirty-five years I have abjured this part of myself and lived a thoroughly vanilla lifestyle with my darling and ever forgiving wife

      We sorted out our sexual politics early in the marriage by agreeing that my sexuality would have no part in it. The sex life was never brilliant, and as we have aged and the hormones slowed down, it has petered out. It hasn’t petered out for me. But if the only way I can manage sex is to fantasize my way through it, I am not prepared to do it, because it is dishonest. It is a ghastly intimacy of lies.

      She and I have a tough and honest relationship, literally from the bottom up, and I am very proud of it, and deeply appreciate the tolerance, love and goodwill she has shown to the somewhat eccentric and autistic man she unaccountably chose to live with.

      If she died and if I had the inclination to seek out another partner, The first thing is that I would not select potential partners on the basis of sexual taste, because I have been around long enough to know that one has to be careful of what one asks of the gods, in case they grant it. It is a negligible basis for any sort of relationship lasting more than three months.

      Second, I would declare myself very early in the piece to anyone I was introduced to, so that they knew what they were dealing with immediately; that is, that they were getting a vanilla relationship that would be pretty hopeless in bed and would understand the reason why, up front.

      One does not need much imagination to appreciate that that sort of honest approach would lose me plenty of takers who might have been highly desirable potential partners. And I would accept that as just the price of doing business with integrity. I would hope and trust that that way forward was ultimately the best way in all the circumstances. I accept that that is just an act of faith, that if you do the right thing, some of the time, the right thing will happen….sometimes, but not always.

      That ‘sometimes’ is the price you pay for high integrity behaviour and values. And if Lee-Gwen you believe in that enough, in a very small way, you make the world a better place. But you cannot force other people to align with what or who you are. Fearless personal transparency and the assumption that you have every right to be what you are and that is OK; that you can look anyone else squarely in the eye without shame, is probably the most powerful armamentarium you have.

      People respect that, most of the time, but not always. And you bear rejection and dismissal with equanimity, because one of the really big benefits of honest transparency, is a robust and secure character that can withstand the blows and cuts of life that are absolutely bound to come one’s way and from which you do not shrink, except to exercise the most ordinary standards of self preservation and common sense.

      If I were in the transgendered space, I would be exactly the same, which would give me even more reasons to vehemently kick guys like Rodney Groome out of that space as hard, as often and as furiously as possible.

      We live in a society awash with lies, because it has succumbed to the politics of Indulgence whose ecological, economic, social and existential fabric already lies in ruins and is not that far from starting to implode/collapse. That is the sort of time we live in. Much will be lost. But moral integrity and the honesty that underpins it, cannot be confiscated and maybe the only thing floats when all else fails.

      • Lola Moth

        March 16, 2019 at 9:12 pm

        Bravo, Christopher. You have no idea how much I admire your honesty and your ability to put your very essence into the written word.

      • Lee-Gwen Booth

        March 17, 2019 at 10:08 am

        Well, that was certainly interesting. However, the fact that you have made certain choices regarding your sex life does not, IMO, have a lot to do with the issue at hand. Get back to me when you have to identify yourself as a person who is attracted to, but chooses not to participate in, S&M sex acts whenever you apply for a job.
        I assume that the point you were trying to make was that you believe that for you to live differently would be for you to live a lie and that this is also true for those people who are living as a sex they were not assigned at birth. I’m not sure that I see your story that way but that’s not really a problem. The problem is that trans people who have transitioned are not living a lie; they are living a truth that is vitally important to them.

    • mctessa

      March 16, 2019 at 8:26 pm

      the legislative propsals are not just for the removal of sex from a document though. if a person could get a duplicate certificate with no sex listed so as to not out themselves that would be fine in my opinion, but these proposals will allow people to legally enforce themselves as a sex they are not. that has detrimental effect for women and is a whole other kettle of fish

    • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

      March 17, 2019 at 10:34 am

      Lee-Gwen, the driving force behind everything you say is underpinned by the notion that if the truth is inconvenient, then it is the right of the inconvenienced to remove it at will. What is more, you expect the rest of us to collaborate with the lie thus created & indulge the liar on pain of the modern equivalent of excommunication.

      In the Kafkaesque world that you occupy Lee-Gwen, the dog can wag the tail & microscopic minorities are so ‘equal’ & ‘included’ they become the arbiters of what the correct reality has to be

      Only in a totally trashed architecture of discourse is it possible to reconstruct reality on demand. That kind of fantasythink was once the sole province of children’s books, but now we are threatened with not being readers of such books but forced to become characters inside them.

      Move over Alice. Hello Queen of Hearts. As she says, ” a thing is what I mean it to be; no more, no less. And if you contradictions me, I will cut off your heads’..

      This the postmodernist rabbit hole you want to take us down Lee-Gwen.

      Over my dead body you will

      • Lee-Gwen Booth

        March 19, 2019 at 9:32 am

        I realise that this is hardly the point but just FYI, while it is the Queen of Hearts who has a fetish for removing people’s heads, it is Humpty Dumpty who claims a mastery over meanings:
        ‘“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”’
        ‘The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. ‘Off with his head!’ she said, without even looking round.’

    • joannapink

      March 19, 2019 at 8:23 pm

      Withe the same compassion take position of women who have build a women’s rights movement on the analysis that they have been oppressed by men in a male dominated culture due to the fact that they were born FEMALE. Many would have loved to identify themselves out of femaleness due to all the crap they have to put up in this society, guess what they can’t.

      Now, you are telling them that sex doesn’t matter and that a male can become legally female and that this makes him the same as a person who was born female.

      By all means identify people as trans. They should own this identity. But don’t conflate gender with sex. It is a legal fiction.

  13. Isla MacGregor

    March 16, 2019 at 7:27 am

    Let’s hear from trans man Miranda Yardley….

    ‘I have made the observation many times that transgender activism is men’s rights activism, and a wholly negative form of men’s rights activism it is, having itself become the new, socially acceptable form of sexism, misogyny and homophobia. This is a huge step backwards; when I recall the political landscape of the 1980s when young people rallied against sexism, homophobia and misogyny, a reaction against regressive attitudes embedded in society and, in the UK, a reactionary government that in 1988 enacted Section 28, it breaks my heart to see exactly the same sort of attitudes shown by that era’s moral dinosaurs re-emerge under the cloak of transgenderism: virulent homophobia, Victorian beliefs about female brains claiming the biological essentialism of innate gender, and po-faced complaints about ‘sexism against men’ while telling women to shut up and do as they are told.

    Transgenderism never addresses the real problem, that it is the system of gender itself which causes real-life problems for transsexuals and transgender individuals, whether through the effect of homophobic attacks by males, street harassment or cultural obstacles to self expression. The perpetrators of such inequities are not women or those of us who are trans and speak out against transgender culture and suffer so much abuse and lateral violence from the transgender community (because when you have no coherent argument to make, violence and abuse are the only weapons you have left). If we are going to address the issues that really cause us difficulties in real-life, we need to name the problem.

    Transgender Male Violence
    Of course, it doesn’t have to be like this. We don’t have to feel threatened by being able to admit to ourselves and others what we are, and we can ally and support women if we are honest. If we are to view trans rights as civil rights, these can be sustainable only if our claim to these rights are based upon reality, and we are ignoring reality if we are insisting that others see us as something we are not: in the attributed words of Abraham Lincoln, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. These last few weeks I have been reflecting on ‘LGBT Pride’, having seen much controversy again centered around transgender activists. To my mind the abuse, threats, cultural violence and denial of material reality are the antithesis of what it is to have ‘pride’.

    If we are going to be able to claim ‘Pride’ of any sort, we need to do so on the basis of material reality and our achievements, not claims to victimhood, magical thinking or sustaining cultural violence. And while we’re at it, we need to regain our sense of humour: lighten up, trannies, this used to be fun and now you’re spoiling it for everyone.’

  14. Russell

    March 15, 2019 at 8:11 pm

    You just don’t get it do you?

    The right for homosexuals to marry etc. isn’t a problem, Rodney.

    BUT you do NOT have a right to demand the removal of the compulsory recording of the natural sex of all children at birth on their birth certificates.

    It is a STUPID and illogical demand requested by an incredibly tiny and aggressive minority, most of whom are MALES trying to demand they be called females – and from what I have seen they are doing so in order to infiltrate and dominate women’s groups.

    Why don’t you ask for the matter to be put to a plebiscite where the majority will have the final say – AS IT SHOULD?

    • Lee-Gwen Booth

      March 16, 2019 at 12:15 pm

      This legislation will not remove “the compulsory recording of the natural sex of all children at birth”. It simply allows the birth certificate drawn from the records to list no sex or to list the person’s self-identification of their sex.
      A birth certificate is just a primary ID document and it is vanishingly rare that a person needs to prove their sex at the same time as they are proving their ID.
      In my experience, most trans people are simply interested in living their lives. This is not about “infiltrating and dominating” anything.
      As for the idea that we should have a plebiscite on this issue? Seriously! This is NOT the way our parliamentary system works.

      • mctessa

        March 16, 2019 at 8:31 pm

        the propsals will also ensure all people are treated as the sex listed on their certificate for all legal purposes. that has a wider effect, including removing the ability of women to say no to males seeking access to their spaces, sports, female-only positions etc

      • Russell

        March 17, 2019 at 7:10 am

        “A birth certificate is just a primary ID document and it is vanishingly rare that a person needs to prove their sex at the same time as they are proving their ID.”

        Absolute RUBBISH!

        In EVERY legal document which you are required to supply forms of ID, the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is ALWAYS asked for and carries the HIGHEST number of ID points. You are deluded.

        “In my experience, most trans people are simply interested in living their lives. This is not about “infiltrating and dominating” anything.”

        If you bother to go back through all the trans comments on TT you will find that they are demanding to be let into Girl Scouts, girl’s changing rooms, women’s prisons and every other FEMALE institution even though they are still biologically MALE. Why don’t you be happy and have your own little clubs and instituions and STOP forcing yourselves and your deluded opinions onto others?

        “As for the idea that we should have a plebiscite on this issue? Seriously! This is NOT the way our parliamentary system works.”

        No it increasingly isn’t BUT this is the way DEMOCRACY works. You are describing a parliamentary system of DICTATORSHIP.

        • Lee-Gwen Booth

          March 17, 2019 at 9:54 am

          “In EVERY legal document which you are required to supply forms of ID, the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is ALWAYS asked for and carries the HIGHEST number of ID points.”
          Yes, I know and I didn’t say anything that suggested that I did not – that’s pretty much the definition of “primary ID document”, in fact. However, it is very rare that a person needs to prove their sex at the same time as they prove their identity, which is what I said. The very fact that it IS a primary ID is the reason that people should have control over how this document represents them. A trans person who is using their birth certificate as part of applying for a job, for example, does not need that birth certificate to “out” them to the potential employer. It is the business of very few people that an individual is transgendered.
          “If you bother to go back through all the trans comments on TT you will find that they are demanding to be let into Girl Scouts, girl’s changing rooms, women’s prisons and every other FEMALE institution even though they are still biologically MALE.”
          Because transwmen are women and these are women’s spaces – just as transmen are men and need to be treated as men.
          “No it increasingly isn’t”
          No, in Australia it has NEVER been. This is why we have had so few plebiscites since Federation. They are a rare event – and even the marriage equality survey was not an actual plebiscite (although it is what the opponents of marriage equality had in mind).
          “BUT this is the way DEMOCRACY works.”
          That is simply not the case.

          • Russell

            March 18, 2019 at 8:10 am

            “However, it is very rare that a person needs to prove their sex at the same time as they prove their identity”

            You are doing that by providing your birth certificate.

            “Because transwmen are women and these are women’s spaces”

            No they are not. They are actors.

            “This is why we have had so few plebiscites since Federation. They are a rare event – and even the marriage equality survey was not an actual plebiscite”

            We have had so few plebiscites because Common Law has been developed over thousands of years and it is extremely rare that it needs to be changed. A compulsory vote on anything to change this IS a plebiscite.

            ““BUT this is the way DEMOCRACY works.” That is simply not the case.”

            Democracy:
            1. The political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives
            2. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

            I’m afraid it seems that you are a delusional compulsive liar.. You people should be called transword or transmeaning.

            Are you little people so afraid of losing to put it to a plebiscite?

          • Barbara Mitchell

            March 19, 2019 at 12:00 am

            Lee-Gwen, you say ‘a trans person who is using their birth certificate as part of applying for a job, for example, does not need that birth certificate to “out” them to the potential employer’. I have applied for many, many jobs over the years and have NEVER been asked for a birth certificate.

            If a young person applies for a job they may be asked to provide proof of age, given there are strict rules governing the employment of minor children. In Tasmania, this requirement can be satisfied by a Tasmanian Personal Information Card – a photo ID card that shows date of birth, but not sex. The card is readily obtainable from Service Tasmania for a very modest fee. Why would a transgender young person use a birth certificate that ‘outed’ them when there’s a simple, cheap alternative that doesn’t reveal their birth sex?

            If this is a rationale for allowing transgender persons to change their registered sex by statutory declaration alone then, I’m sorry, but it’s indefensible nonsense.

          • Lee-Gwen Booth

            March 19, 2019 at 4:55 am

            Barbara, you said: “I have applied for many, many jobs over the years and have NEVER been asked for a birth certificate.”
            I have no idea why that would be the case. Legally, you should have been regardless of when you were born. Because I was born before 1986, I have managed to escape needing a photo ID (I don’t have one), but even that has caused ructions. I have never been able to not provide my birth certificate because that is a legal requirement regardless of when one was born.
            “Why would a transgender young person use a birth certificate that ‘outed’ them when there’s a simple, cheap alternative that doesn’t reveal their birth sex?”
            Because this isn’t about their age and a proof of age card will not resolve the issue. A birth certificate is used to prove that the individual has the right to work in Australia.
            ‘Confirming your Australian Citizenship or Permanent Australian Residency
            ‘If you were born in Australia before 20 August 1986
            ‘your full birth certificate issued by an Australian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (RBDM) will suffice to confirm your citizenship, provided your parents were not in Australia as foreign diplomats or consular officers at the time of your birth.
            ‘Changes to Australian citizenship laws that came into effect on 20 August 1986 mean that persons born in Australia on or after that date need to provide their birth certificate and additional documentation to confirm their citizenship. The website of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection provides detailed information on what evidence you need to provide to demonstrate that you are an Australian citizen.’
            Please note that, although this information comes from the NSW Police Recruitment page, it is referring to the legal requirements for all those applying for work in Australia.
            In Tasmania at present, that birth certificate “outs” a trans person the moment it is presented. Even if a person has legally changed their sex (which they can only do at present following expensive surgery which cannot be performed on people under 18), the birth certificate that they present will note the change. If they have changed their name, this, too, will be obvious when they present their documentation and this can also “out” the individual.
            https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/application_process/confirming_your_australian_citizenship

          • Russell

            March 20, 2019 at 12:56 pm

            Do you drive a car or ride a motorbike, Lee-Gwen Booth?

          • Lee-Gwen Booth

            March 20, 2019 at 3:48 pm

            Russell, if I drove or rode a motorbike, I would have a photo ID. As I have already said that I don’t have a photo ID, I would have thought the answer was obvious. I do not drive, I do not ride a bike, motorised or otherwise. It’s “shank’s pony”, public transport, and taxis for me.
            My mother tried to teach me to drive when I was 16 but it never took. When the car was stolen and my learners licence was in the car, I never bothered to get it renewed. Not having photo ID has caused some issues over the last 3o+ years but, generally, I’ve managed without quite well.

          • Russell

            March 21, 2019 at 8:07 am

            So you don’t have a passport either? You are going to have real problems proving your ID or getting a passport if you think a Birth Certificate is such an increasingly irrelevant document then.

            Put your proposed changes to a plebiscite so that the majority of people can have their say in true democratic fashion, rather than lobby corrupt politicians. You do know that politicians are the second least trusted ‘professionals’ in world democracies? Mainly because they are largely corrupt.

            Or is that your problem? You know you can’t get your aims realised by going directly to the public opinion?

          • Lee-Gwen Booth

            March 21, 2019 at 1:31 pm

            Russell said: So you don’t have a passport either?
            I respond: Well, obviously. A passport is a photo ID and I have already pointed out that I do not have one.
            Russell said: You are going to have real problems proving your ID or getting a passport if you think a Birth Certificate is such an increasingly irrelevant document then.
            I respond: At no point have I said or implied that a passport is “increasingly irrelevant”. Distinctly the opposite, in fact, particularly since my birth certificate is my primary form of ID.
            If I thought it was irrelevant, this discussion would not be happening. If I thought it was irrelevant, I would not care if these Tasmanian reforms passed. Birth certificates are very important indeed and that is why I consider these changes so very important. I don’t want my trans friends to have to “out” themselves every time they present their birth certificate as a primary form of ID.
            Russell said: Put your proposed changes to a plebiscite so that the majority of people can have their say in true democratic fashion …
            I respond: Again, this is not the way our parliamentary democracy works. This is why there have been so few plebiscites in Australia’s parliamentary history. Further, they are non-binding regardless of the outcome and are, essentially, nothing more than a very expensive opinion poll.
            As to whether a plebiscite would come out in favour of or against these changes, I truly have no idea.

          • Russell

            March 23, 2019 at 2:34 pm

            “Again, this is not the way our parliamentary democracy works. This is why there have been so few plebiscites in Australia’s parliamentary history. Further, they are non-binding regardless of the outcome and are, essentially, nothing more than a very expensive opinion poll.”

            You are factually incorrect. It IS the way democracy should work, but it is increasingly NOT because it has been corrupted by weak career parliamentarians and lobby groups. Re-read my earlier reply March 18, 2019 at 8:10 am. A Referendum is a plebiscite and IS binding.

            Referendum: A popular vote by the electorate whether to approve a specific legislative act.

            Plebiscite: A vote by the electorate determining public opinion on a question of national importance.
            .
            “As to whether a plebiscite would come out in favour of or against these changes, I truly have no idea.”

            I have a fair idea.

            If you are so sure the public will back you, what have you got to lose? Ask for a Referendum rather than try to sneak in the back door unnoticed. You’ve been noticed.

          • Lee-Gwen Booth

            March 24, 2019 at 1:07 am

            Russell said: You are factually incorrect.
            I respond: No, I’m really not. You may WANT to see a system with plebiscites held every other week but you may have noticed that there have been very few plebiscites in Australia since Federation (to be precise, 3 and a postal survey which was NOT a plebiscite). In fact, the concept is not even defined in the constitution. (https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/referendums-and-plebiscites.html)

            Russell said: It IS the way democracy should work,
            I respond: And you are welcome to that view. However, that doesn’t alter the fact that it is NOT the way our parliamentary democracy works.

            Russell said: it is increasingly NOT because it has been corrupted by weak career parliamentarians and lobby groups.
            I respond: If this were accurate, we’d have had a heck of a lot more plebiscites since Federation.

            Russell said: Re-read my earlier reply March 18, 2019 at 8:10 am. A Referendum is a plebiscite and IS binding.
            I respond: Actually, no. A referendum is required to change the Constitution and is binding. There have been quite a few of these. A plebiscite may also be called an “advisory referendum”. It is not binding.
            Now, to be fair, this isn’t entirely accurate on a state-based level and I had not previously realised that. States do hold referenda on issues of public policy – but there have only been 3 in Tasmania’s history so, again, I must point out that this is not the way our parliamentary democracy works. (http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/InfoSheets/referendums.htm)

            Russell said: If you are so sure the public will back you
            I respond: Actually, you may have noticed that I said I did not know how a plebiscite would go. Nor do I know how a state-based referendum would be decided. However, as I have said, I oppose these options because this is not the way our system works or is designed to work. I certainly hope that these changes would be welcomed – and I am sure that, once they go through, they will be accepted without much difficulty at all. Much like the passage of marriage equality, the passage of this legislation will not cause the sky to fall.

          • Russell

            March 24, 2019 at 9:40 am

            You are not only factually incorrect but in my view you are a compulsive liar also, something which seems to be one of the major traits of transgender people – the main one being that they lie about their sex.

            There have been 44 Referendums to date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia

            Our current system which is NOT a democracy doesn’t work because we have governments:

            1. Deliberately destroying our planet with their complete inaction on climate change,
            2. Deliberately enabling the polluting of the environment by allowing non-recyclable rubbish to proliferate and be discarded finding its way over every single square centimetre of the planet,

            3. Deliberately allowing our major river systems to be drained and polluted,

            4. Deliberately allowing the denuding of the landscape replacing it sometimes with exotic weeds which cause wildfires like the ones that ran uncontrollably for over six weeks recently in Tasmania, without the government making the funding available to fight the fires properly when they first occured,

            5. Deliberately taking our country to illegal wars and occupations.

            6. Deliberately giving control of ports and land to foreign companies and governments,

            7. Deliberately continuing to keep the Indigenous people and real owners of this land in poverty and exclusion.

            All these corruptions were at the beckoning of little lobby groups like yours, and mainly foreign owned companies and governments.

            You’re living in a delusional little false dream world .. which is more like a living nightmare.

            In my view you are such a compulsive liar that you have the perfect qualifications to stand for parliament .. given the poor quality of the current crop of corruptibles.

            But you still won’t ask for your pathetic cause to be put to any sort of public plebiscite, will you?

            In my opinion you are spineless.

    • Lee-Gwen Booth

      March 24, 2019 at 2:23 pm

      Russell said: “You are not only factually incorrect but in my view you are a compulsive liar.”

      I respond: Your views are factually wrong.

      Russell said: “There have been 44 Referendums to date.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia

      I respond: Yes, there have been 44 federal referenda but REFERENDA are not PLEBISCITES. These are two different things. Federal referenda are held to change the constitution. They are compulsory and the result is binding on government. They cannot be held for non-constitutional matters (and this includes marriage and birth registration/certificates).

      Now, as I also said, to complicate matters slightly, it turns out that Tasmania COULD hold a referendum (not a plebiscite – these don’t appear to exist on the state level) on a non-constitutional matter. However, as there have only been 3 referenda in the history of the state, this is distinctly NOT the way our parliamentary democracy works.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Lee-Gwen, when quoting a person’s uttered words verbatim, please use quotation marks.

      — Moderator

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      When to Use Quotation Marks

      https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/

      Quotation marks are for when you want to use someone else’s words in your writing. Let’s say you want to write about something you heard your friend say. You could do it like this:

      John said, “I really hate when it’s hot outside.”

  15. Isla MacGregor

    March 15, 2019 at 7:27 pm

    A global campaign and Declaration from women across the globe has been delivered to the UN Commission on Status of Women meeting underway in New York:

    read: https://www.womensdeclaration.com/?fbclid=IwAR3VZtlIrSY-b9ZbGG009ivDNAfEe2koSM4h8FRBRr_ftBFzfiYNPLxk2qw

  16. Lola Moth

    March 15, 2019 at 4:30 pm

    Mr Croome, this issue of changing birth certificates and allowing biological men to legally become women is not what the SSM vote was about.

    I had many conversations with people about SSM and always answered any question they had regarding it with respect. I went out of my way to reassure people that SSM would not effect anyone in a negative way. When people brought up fears of how it may have an impact on their own lives and asked , “but what if …” I would show them how it would work and how all the legal implications had been deeply investigated. I allayed their fears through reasoned conversation and respectful open debate.

    The transgender lobby has grabbed onto the coat-tails of the SSM vote and even you have linked the two issues as if they were one and the same. They are not. This subject has had no debate and no investigation into the legal ramifications of basically abolishing human biological sex and replacing it with a fantasy based on lies.

    These days anything pertaining to LGQBTIALPHABET is seen as a minority issue and people think they are being politically correct in trying to improve the rights of minorities, but they don’t realise that in this instance the rights of 51% of the population will be directly impacted by this proposal to change birth certificates on a whim.

    You personally may not have de-platformed WST but those who you profess to speak for certainly have. Anyone who even questions this proposed change to our laws is called TERF and transphobic. The most vile verbal attacks and threats have been coming from the trans lobby and it makes me ashamed of having fought for, and defended, their rights to free speech because they now try to silence any dissenting views to their own.

    People have been asking the proponents of this issue the same questions over and over again, but they never receive answers. Their concerns are met with silence. Their fears are met with vilification. If you are a spokesman for the trans lobby please have the courtesy of providing answers to the many questions that have been asked since this issue became public.

    • Rodney Croome

      March 15, 2019 at 11:19 pm

      My point about the postal survey is simply this…The No campaign tried to win the postal survey by fear mongering about “gender fluidity”. That failed because most people are not threatened by transgender people and their rights.

      • Lola Moth

        March 16, 2019 at 8:11 am

        I don’t feel threatened by ‘transgender people and their rights’, Mr Croome. I feel threatened by biological men being given the legal right to be in women’s only safe spaces like changerooms, prisons and refuges.

        I don’t mean to be rude, but you are a man and have never experienced the very real and logical fear of men that girls acquire seemingly at birth. Being gay and having a fear of being bashed by men for that inclination is nothing like it so don’t even go there. By trying to give certain rights to a tiny number of biological men who say they ‘feel’ female’ (whatever that means), you are trying to give that right to all men.

        It must wound you deeply when people call you a misogynist because of your stance on this issue, but fighting to allow men into women’s only sport and safe spaces is misogynistic. Giving away the biological identity of being female to any man who asks for it is the height of sexism. It is a pity you cannot see this simple truth.

        • Lola Moth

          March 16, 2019 at 11:31 am

          May I also add that you have again not addressed the questions being asked about how the rights of biological females will be protected if these proposals become law.

          I think it is time, Mr Croome, for you to lose the privilege of being a spokesperson for the LGBTI community. Lesbians are female first and same-sex attracted second. You do not represent lesbians on this issue, in fact you are giving away the rights they have fought hard for. Let us now refer to you as being the representative spokesperson of the QIBGT community – Queer Identity Before Genuine Truth. It is a fitting title.

          • A. Murphy

            March 19, 2019 at 9:48 pm

            Bravo, Lola!

          • mctessa

            March 21, 2019 at 7:54 am

            Such a great acronym Lola, very fitting.

        • Lee-Gwen Booth

          March 16, 2019 at 1:03 pm

          I was designated female at birth and I identify as female now. I am definitely not misogynistic. I also fully support the rights of transpeople to BE the sex they know themselves to be and to have identity documents that record their true sex rather than the sex they were assigned at birth.

          • Lola Moth

            March 16, 2019 at 1:48 pm

            Nobody is ‘assigned’ a sex at birth. Their obvious biological sex is recorded. A transgender person’s ‘true sex’ is their biological sex. Transpeople already have the right to be the sex they know themselves to be because that sex is the biological sex recorded on their certificate of birth. They do not have the right to pretend to be a sex that is not their biological sex, but then neither does anyone else. Gender identity is not biological sex. What is it that is tripping you up on this issue?

          • Simon Warriner

            March 16, 2019 at 5:27 pm

            The real issue is the writing and promotion of legislation that serves the wishes of a fraction of a percent of the population at considerable cost to the rights and safety of slightly more than 50 % of the population. All the PC wanker words known to humanity won’t alter that reality.

          • mctessa

            March 16, 2019 at 8:35 pm

            what does it mean to be of the female sex, if you do not have female anatomy? A female brain? A female soul?

          • Alanna Kennedy

            March 19, 2019 at 10:56 pm

            How can people be so brainwashed? This is becoming very alarming.

            How can you be taught for over 12 years to evaluate the world around you, and then swallow this nonsense? Have we collectively lost our critical thinking skills?

            The world is going to hell in a hand basket …

      • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

        March 16, 2019 at 1:17 pm

        ‘Fearmongering about gender fluidity’ Rodney? You have a lot of front to imagine that such ideological drivel could cause anything but intellectual contempt and derision!

        My only fear is that our architecture of discourse is so damaged by highly successful deregulatory and privatization postmodernist attacks on critical reason and existentially anchored axioms, rules based behavior and defensible boundaries, that it is now susceptible to any opportunistic ideological shit at all, whether it is white supremacism or the pretentious and overblown schlock that you are trying to palm off.

        Like the ideological junk bond salesman you are, you never try to justify or defend the idiocies you keep repeating, because you know, like any good propagandist, that all you have to do in a culture as vulnerable and depleted as ours has become, is just keep on keeping on-saying-after-me-children, ‘gender fluidity’, ad nauseam…until it has been mindlessly drilled into the lexicon.

        ‘Gender Fluidity’ is a flimsy and miserable piece of publicrelationsmarketspeak pushed straight out ot the tobacco lobby playbook. And you Rodney will not enter into debate about that, but because you know perfectly well what will happen if you do.

        Oh dear, I can already pick up on the radar a battle fleet of cliche, stereotype and obfuscation bombers are already on the way…..heading for cover….

  17. Caddy

    March 15, 2019 at 1:00 pm

    Rodney, you state ‘words used against LGB people to marginalise and devalue us. Taking the language of exclusion we have suffered and turning it on transgender people is the height of hypocrisy. LGB identities are not so fragile that we must put other people down to validate ourselves.’ is a spurious statement indeed.

    You have remained silent over the put downs, slurs, ‘TERF and transphobes’, and have used the normal tactics of adversarial politics utilising the language of PR machines to attack anyone who questions trans extremism. You have utilised the social and political capital of the gay law reform lobby to exclude women’s very real and evidenced based concerns about transgender law reforms.

    You remain silent about all the case material reported from court hearings in numerous jurisdictions – you have pulled the shutters down on the truth.

    You have actively engaged in shafting women’s concerns to the ‘outside’ of this debate. Failed to answer to legitimate questions about your false allegations of ‘anti transgender’ flyers distributed by a group you won’t even name while everyone knows that group is Women Speak Tasmania.

    Rodney – you may well have fought a long and hard campaign for gay law reform but you have lost all credibility as a result of your irrational attack against women who are organising to protect women’s rights from trans extremist laws.

    It is time for some introspection Rodney on what constitutes misogyny because in my book ignoring, silencing and gas lighting women is what defines misogyny and in this debate you have exposed yourself.

    • Rodney Croome

      March 15, 2019 at 3:16 pm

      I have never attacked or silenced anyone. When I disagree I have expressed this as respectfully as I can. What I have seen in this debate is a lot of people saying they respect transgender people but then invalidating them at the deepest level. Perhaps it’s these people who need to engage in some introspection. As for me, in comments in this page I have been referred to as a “destroyer of worlds”. Do you think that’s appropriate?

      • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

        March 16, 2019 at 2:52 pm

        Rodney, you are an apologist that is absolutely notorious for trying to silence people. And we have repeatedly counted the way that your lot have been and are doing it.

        We are not ‘invalidating’ transgendered people or making light of the blight that afflicts them, anymore than one would for any other disablement, disfiguration, or psychiatric disorder…like the very closely related one to gender dysphoria, which is body dysmorphia, whereby victims want various parts of their body removed because the offending and ‘alien’ part cause them ‘identity distress’.

        Orthopedic surgeons politely refuse to amputate because lobbyist haven’t got into the orthopedic peak bodies and jawboned/sold them with identitarian bullshit into needlessly quick fix mutilating their patients and breaking their hippocratic oath to do no harm….and thus confronting their patients with the truth about themselves, and the need to confront their condition as a disorder, and do the hard yards to work through and around it over a long period of time; i.e., to do the necessary reconciliations with and adjustments to reality; fucking reality Rodney! Not identitarian bullshit!

        We are invalidating the flimsy garbage that you are leading, using gender dysphoria victims as pawns, in order to bolster your own credibility as an ideological junk bond salesman for a product whose underlying assets are pure bluff, jawboning and absurdly inflated claims.

        These claims have been puffed up to hell by a pile of excruciatingly sexistentialist identitarian baloney dressed up in pretentious pseudo scientism and corruption of medical peak bodies, who have been conned into Alice-in-Wonderland reversals of cause and effect, by ideologically bullying them into undermining and bypassing reality therapy, unconscionably forcing third parties to collaborate with psychiatric identity delusionalism, promoting the ‘progressive’ takeover of treatment by hormone replacement and surgery as cosmetic drag, and rebranding the resultant mutilations with the publicrelationspeak big lie, as ‘sex change’.

        Plastic surgery no more changes anyone’s sex than it does their age. It can fix physical disfigurement. It can pander to human vanity and insecurities, like needing bigger tits to attract men. But to pretend that they can change the fundamental nature of what we came into the world with, is the sort of junk you would expect to hear in a toothpaste commercial…and the very worst kind of existential bastardry and falsification by people who do not have the best interests of their very vulnerable clients at heart; just their own.

        The only silence I am into Rodney is shaming the likes of you into the silence of cringing embarrassment at the folly that you have so cavalierly spread around, into a society that has itself become so vulnerable to predation and the baleful voices of postmodernist junk, publicrelationsmarketpeak and junk bond sales people, it can no longer defend itself from anything, whether identitarian white supremacism (ugghhh!!!) or the identitarian ‘gender fluidism’ (ugghhh!!!) that you are peddling, Rodney.

        • Rodney Croome

          March 16, 2019 at 11:45 pm

          Your world view seems well set. To reinforce it you need “post modern, gender fluid identitarians” to get angry at. I am none of those things. But because you desperately need me to be, you ignore reality and make me your demon. How sad that your eyes are so clouded with ideology you can’t see what’s right in front of your face.

          • Isla MacGregor

            March 17, 2019 at 12:09 am

            Rodney is it at all possible for you to respond to Miranda?

            ‘More and more trans people are dissenting from trans ideology. Their message is best summed up by Miranda Yardley…
            ‘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 upsed 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.’

        • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

          March 17, 2019 at 3:00 pm

          You are such an inveterate salesman Rodney. I admire your style. I really do. Respect.

          You never make the mistake of actually engaging in real debate with ‘customer objections’ or ‘negative market perceptions’. That is smart politics. Deflect deflect deflect.

          And if some disgruntled customer or a hostile audience who have just slashed your poor product and poor behaviour to ribbons, you know exactly what to do; i.e., behave with injured innocence, as though nothing has happened and you gracefully crib, fudge, slip, slide ‘n bluff yourself off into the distance, vanishing into an elegant cloud of slogans, keywords, euphemisms, dysphemisms and the rest of the armamentarium of corporate publicrelationsmarketspeak.

          You are an expert mate; a real piece of work.

          If I were running some shonky little insurance scam, I would want the likes of you on board. Not a shadow of a doubt about it. We could even be friends.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Christopher, you very rapidly forgot TT’s Code of Conduct and resorted to vulgarity, ideally a taboo here.

          Your two shits have been replaced.

          — Moderator

      • rainsinger

        March 18, 2019 at 11:10 pm

        Rodney – please stop speaking for lesbians. Will you ever understand how insulting it is? How offensive your words are? When I heard about the UK group ” Get the ‘L” Out” I cheered for the first time in 20+ years. Then there was the gay Canadian dude who called out to “Drop the T” movement.

        Bad enough our gay brothers threw us under the bus, but allying with the T was the last for me. I have been re-closeted since around 2004ish – its dangerous even in our supposed ‘liberal’ western countries to out yourself lesbian these days. I re-closeted because the males-in-drag invading lesbian spaces, like cafes, bars, dances, events etc became too numerous and too insistent, too dangerous and too determined to get us sacked from our jobs, to take us to court for ‘discrimination’ etc and to beat the crap out of us, rape us and then brag about it –
        They won back in the 1990s, many lesbians are back in the closet and young lesbians are transitioning in alarming numbers – 4-5 times as many teen girls are seeking transition than boys are? Why? Because its much better to be trans than gay. Many of us lesbians tried to tell our straight feminist sisteren and our gay brothers back in the 90s, that we lesbians were the canary-in-the-coalmine signalling danger, danger – but we were told we were “exaggerating” and “over-reacting”.

        Tell that to the 3 lesbian women I know who have recently lost their jobs in Australia in the last year, because trans-activists targeted them, at home, at work, on the street, in their families, targeting their kids, stalking on and off-line, then playing the poor trans victim if the woman tried to report them for criminal behaviour. When males can just tick a box and claim they are “female”.

    • mctessa

      March 15, 2019 at 3:52 pm

      Thanks Caddy, for naming Rodneys active collusion in this mass gaslighting-which is targetted primarily at women.

  18. Geoff Holloway

    March 13, 2019 at 10:14 pm

    One of the major criticisms of Tasmanian politics is corruption and it is normally assumed that this means economic or political corruption. Whereas, in reality, most of the corruption in Tasmania is what I call ‘social corruption’. I could give examples, but I suspect that you know what I mean Rodney. Just as, when I pointed out social corruption as a very evident feature of Tasmania to the then newly appointed Children’s Commissioner, David Fanning (2006), Julian Punch who was sitting at the same table agreed with me totally. You do not have to look far to see social corruption operating in Tasmania – it is what is referred to as ‘the Tasmanian Way’!

    • Kate

      March 15, 2019 at 10:34 am

      I thought the whole point is that a controversial bill has passed the Lower House and the goal now, is to either come up with arguments to persuade members to block (not pass) the bill or alternatively, argue for specific amendments so the legislation cannot be inappropriately used/abused.

      • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

        March 15, 2019 at 4:52 pm

        You are absolutely right Kate.

        But we can scratch ourselves and chew gum at the same time, can’t we?.

        Isla and Bronwyn are the experts on the legislative side and are quietly working on it as we speak.

        But if one only does that, that leaves the entire transgen master agenda completely untouched. And it is going to much more difficult to cut off the roll out of their legislative agenda if one does not go after the bogus ideas and assumptions that underpin it.

        They have a lot of credibility and momentum behind them, driven by last year’s plebiscite vote, the very long campaign that led to it, and the final answer that it delivered. It is a big ask to say to the people who voted yes to same sex marriage not to say no to the transgen people, particularly as many of the arguments that are presently being run are unpalatably similar to the ones led against same sex marriage. It is pretty easy to transfer the homophobe label into a transphobe one.

        The only difference now is the transgen lobby, despite its notorious behaviour, is not nearly as powerful as its much broad front predecessor. And this time, the transgens have smacked headlong into a feminist constituency which is not a particularly cool target for the usual ideological epithets, and which really does have some serious problems with them, that completely inadvertently go right to the heart of the authenticity of ideologically pivotal identity politics.

        I do not think anyone saw it coming until feminists took a hard look at it and had that proverbial OMG moment when they saw the transgens start to run over them.

        It is a uniquely awkward moment. The feminist objections to the transgen lobby agenda are taking us all into very unfamiliar territory. I have never seen anything like it. Nor have I ever seen the dominant ideological social regime paradigm suddenly look so terribly exposed….and vulnerable, because I suspect we are standing at some kind of crossroad, in much the same way as we are with the environment and our corporate ‘friends’.

        I think one one would have to go back to the assassination of the Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914 to get a similar sense of what seems on the face of it a rock solid ancien regime, suddenly looking very rocky…..maybe. No one saw that one coming, except perhaps the German High Command. And that would have been entirely opportunistic; literally a ‘that’s it’ spur of the moment decision to go to war, that had been in contemplation for some time.

        I would theorize that this phenomenon represents a much more general break up of the post WW2 democratic consensus and the larger decline of the ‘old’ affluent consumer ‘democracies’ that emerged fifty to sixty years ago, as Indulgence Capitalism rolled out.

        It could very easily be that Isla and Bronwyn have tripped over something bigger than they bargained for. It is a bit like when an obscure character called Martin Luther put his theses against the then church practice of selling Indulgences, up onto the door of his equally obscure South German cathedral church of Wittenberg, in 1517. It was as if he were driving an axe into the end grain of what he thought was a limited corruption issue within the then still Medieval World, and instead of the axe head burying itself and getting stuck in the still robust timber, the damned thing split the whole edifice from top to bottom.

        He never saw it coming either. The Pope had to get a map to find out where Wittenberg was. Father Tetzel, who was the then local Rodney Croome lookalike, and in charge of the Indulgences sales campaign in South Germany, just saw Luther as another bloody minded North of the Alps trouble maker and heretic….who could and would be ‘dealt with’ in the usual way; i.e., recanting or the stake..

        With the big stuff, we usually don’t ‘get it’ until we actually eyeball the new game on the block. Maybe not this time, but if you sniff, you can smell it in the air. I can almost touch it.

        Where the hell is Tasmania? What birth certificate legislation? What on earth are they on about?

  19. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    March 13, 2019 at 10:06 pm

    Rodney, nobody is ‘politicising prejudice against LGBTI people’. That is pure fantasy on your part and a way of deflecting and waffling out of the real arguments about particular transgender lobby agenda, which have been amply shown in these columns to have very noxious knock on effects for women.

    The only problem with the notion of ‘hatespeech’ is that it is in effect a secular jargon for ‘heresy’ or more recently, ‘political deviationism’, that challenges or disputes certain sexual lobby agendas whatever they are motivated by, whether ‘hate’ (whatever that is, which seems to be very ‘generously’ interpreted, assigned or inferred) or anything else. The use of the word is now code for shutting down critical discourse altogether by spoof asserting that the final word of history is now ‘in’ and can no longer be legitimately disputed and is effectively illegal.

    Bye bye free speech and hello sexual minorities as ideological hegemons who are now effectively ‘more pig equal than others’, especially when it comes to the politics of ‘inclusion’, where the rights of a microscopic demographic minority of gender dysphoria sufferers trump those of biological women in shelters, prisons, toilet/bathrooms, women’s affirmative action programs and sport.

    Rodney we are not going to go along with your totally fudged idea of ‘gender’, when what we are really talking about is either ‘sexuality’ or biological birth sex,assignment; i.e., imagined sexual identification based on the sexual fantasies and feeling that make up ‘sexuality’ or the male or female genitalia that fundamentally define our sex. ‘Gender’ is about sex role stereotypes and power allocations between them and is only tangentially related to either sex or sexuality. because it not so much about feeling or identification, but about the politics of sex.

    I would be much obliged if you stopped confusing and fudging sex related terms that actually allow intellectual clarity and honest discourse about genuine categories.

    With respect, it is the government’s role and right to determine birth sex on the basis of the procreation equipment a person is born with. Birth sex assignment is not a consumer choice, but an objective and certifiable biological fact, unless someone is suffering from an androgynous chromozone disorder that makes their organs ambiguous.

    The right to amend one’s imagined sexual orientation later on the basis of sexuality is fine, as long as it does not pretend to being more than sexual facsimile. The rest of us are not here to indulge sexually delusional and obsessional fantasists that their attempts at facsimile are any more real than those of drag queens. The surgery and and hormones are nothing more than the bells and whistle refinements of the drag paradigm, except the dragsters spare us the the mountains of pretentious ideological baloney that come with ‘facsimilist’ ideological fakery.

    Now as to the poll as reported by the ‘The Advocate’ newspaper, let me quote the following:

    Polling done for the Liberal Party by EMRS showed strong majority opposition to the birth certificate move in every voter group except for Greens voters.

    They strongly favoured it.

    Even Labor supporters were strongly against the change.

    The change had net support of negative 38 per cent among Labor voters, meaning the total percentage of Labor voters opposing it exceeded the percentage supporting it by 38 percentage points.

    Of all voters, 71 per cent opposed the policy, 21 per cent supported it and 8 per cent were unsure.

    EMRS polled 1000 Tasmanian adults from December 15-17.

    More….’The polling found net opposition in every Tasmanian electorate and region, among every adult age group, among males, among females and among those who did not vote for the Liberals, Labor or the Greens.’

    Now sure, there are polls and there are polls, but there is more than enough n this one bucko, where you are going to have do more than just wriggle your way out like some climate change denialist faced with a climatological ‘j’ curve.

    Anyone who hasn’t been run through the postmodernist ideological schlock coming out of university humanities department over the last few decades and who still has some independent critical faculties left is going to instantly recognize your agenda as colonization by a cabal of self serving ideological daleks, because ‘discrimination’ is actually the application of critical judgement and clear thinking in the deconstruction and analysis of elaborate baloney. And ‘prejudice’ is just the name for beliefs and opinions that you don’t like, can’t find a way to honestly intellectually confront and so you smear and negatively label them with stereotypes instead. I can already feel a ‘bigotry barrage’ incoming….heading for cover….Crrrump..Blam..

    As to the ‘invasive, expensive and dangerous surgery before they can change their birth certificate’, why would anyone countenance a lower standard, anymore than you would for some delusional character who suffered from body dysmorphia, and who wanted status as an amputee, but without actually cutting off their offending limb. Would you recognize someone as the second coming of David Bowie if he couldn’t fill an auditorium of fans looking for more than a home bathroom tribute performance.to the great man? I don’t think so.

    And when they do issue the gender dysphoric character with some certified recognition of transgender status, it is just that; transgender recognition of an identity disorder that the rest of us are willing work around compassionately and respectfully, in order that they be as comfortable as possible, in the same way as you would with any other injury, disablement or disfigurement. If they want to be Mx rather than a Ms or Mr, that is just fine by me. We can still be friends as long as they spare me the sexistentialist bullshit.

    You Rodney really thought that you could just ride in on the coattails of the same sex marriage stuff. And I so do understand. The only trouble is, the implications of same sex marriage won’t really be felt for a generation, whereas the implication of your agenda runs right smack into the middle of the viscerally immediate interests of fifty percent of the population. Not bad for a miscalculation….

    You didn’t see that one coming? Of course you didn’t, because the kind of ideological narcissism you represent doesn’t think about anything other than the immediate self and its rights, in all their fluffy glory, where only your ‘equality’ and ‘inclusion’ matter and everyone else’s can get stuffed, because other people not in your golden ideological inner circle don’t matter. They are just pawns to be knocked down for your greater good.

    And you really do expect everyone else to just suck it up, like the stupid women who keep losing to male athletes in drag, and who are supposed to dutifully applaud as the ring-ins cart off all the prizes, the endorsements, scholarships the glory and the credibility, in the way women have always done for men.

    You really are such a little ‘progressive’ Rodney, in a sort of back to the future kind of way….

    • Geoff Holloway

      March 14, 2019 at 2:40 pm

      Excellent, impeccably logical commentary Christopher!

    • Lee-Gwen Booth

      March 16, 2019 at 6:29 pm

      ‘As to the ‘invasive, expensive and dangerous surgery before they can change their birth certificate’, why would anyone countenance a lower standard …’
      There are a number of very good reasons for allowing people to change their birth certificate without having had surgery. Birth certificates are a standard piece of ID and having a document which does not match one’s presentation leads to discrimination and pain.
      For example, a child who is socially transitioning may find it useful to have a birth certificate that does not mention their birth sex when they enrol in school or when they join a club. A 14 year old may find it useful to have one of these birth certificates when they apply for their first job. A 16 year old may find it useful when they apply for a drivers’ licence. A 20 year old may find it useful …
      Why should these people have to “out” themselves every time they present their documentation?

      • mctessa

        March 16, 2019 at 9:24 pm

        That issue can be resolved without allowing people to be legally recognised as a sex that they are not.

  20. Rodney Croome

    March 13, 2019 at 9:23 pm

    “Dreamt up”…”who they think they are”…”predilections”…they are just the words used against LGB people to marginalise and devalue us. Taking the language of exclusion we have suffered and turning it on transgender people is the height of hypocrisy. LGB identities are not so fragile that we must put other people down to validate ourselves.

    • mctessa

      March 14, 2019 at 12:02 pm

      Claiming to be a sex you are not is quite different to having a sexual orientation. Sex is a physical fact, objectively determinable. Sexual orientation is an internal phenomenon which cannot be objectively determined by others. You are attempting to conflate this inner experience some call ‘gender identity’ with sex, which is objectionable to women because it is sex segregation we require in certain circumstances, not ‘gender identity’ segregation. I note you have avoided addressing the cotton ceiling again.

    • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

      March 14, 2019 at 4:35 pm

      Nobody wants to marginalize and devalue you, unless honestly acknowledging your sexistentialist baloney free real place in the world is what you feel that to be. I make no apologies for not indulging your cliche encrusted and stereotyped sexistential fluff ups as if they were some kind of state of grace to which the rest of us have genuflect.

      I suffer from mild personality and sexual disorders, and I do not expect other people to indulge me or pretend that they are some kind of higher order of ‘beingness’. They aren’t and they shouldn’t be. But I could easily work myself up into an ideological lather about it, turn into a sexual sociopath, make a colossal virtue out of my deficits and turn them into a bondage and discipline temple for what used to be dysfunctionally autistic personalities, but now ‘priests’, in the brave new postmodernist world order…and turn up to midday TV interview in the full monte leathers and pronounce the ‘New Paradigm’; you know, that sort of thing….

      Get a grip Rodney. You are not a ‘poor thing’ and a helpless ‘victim of history, and neither are the pawns that you represent, and who legitimize your power and pretensions.

      Being on the edge and an outsider is always tough and working round that and adapting towards the centre, whether as a personality or sexually, enough to be accepted for what you are, is hard work and has risks attached. Get used to it. People who are fearlessly honest can win the love and respect of others, no matter who or what they are. But you cannot force other people into that space, which is what you are doing, by pretending that we all live in Alice-in Wonderland Queen of Hearts card world where it is all whatever you mean it to be, just because you can, and there are armies of card conformity police for those who do not see it ‘correctly’.

      This makes all your language of pathetic victimological ‘exclusion’ and ‘suffering’ such breathtaking ballsache, when right alongside that you very aggressively exclude and ‘disequalize’ anyone who disagrees with you, or who has the misfortune to be run over by your agenda, like your sisters are being, as we speak. And you expect them to just suck it up because ‘inclusion’ and ‘equality’ is all about you, your solipsistic world world view, and nobody and nothing else at all.

      Nobody is trying to disemploy you, or deplatform you, or shout you down or attack you when you are speaking, or otherwise disrupt your meetings, like prevailing on the owners of your meeting places to withdraw your use of the building. Nobody is having you thrown out of the Salamanca market for distributing your leaflets. Nobody is defaming you as a psychopathic hater, vilifier or being phobically disturbed. Nobody throws you out their organization and socially excludes you because you do not concur with its official line.

      For someone who comes from a movement that is absolutely notorious for that sort of thing, you have to have a lot of hide to accuse others for things you routinely do to others. You are totally shameless Rodney Croome. I can’t describe your behavior has ‘hypocrisy’ because at least they do have enough of a sense of shame to want to hide behind the hypocrite’s facade of respectability.

      You don’t. And you are not benign.

      • Rodney Croome

        March 14, 2019 at 6:23 pm

        I haven’t done any of the things you accuse me of. I’m simply standing up for members of the LGBTI community who are stigmatised and discriminated against. I don’t see why you feel that is so awful you have to accuse me of all those things.

        • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

          March 14, 2019 at 9:13 pm

          No Rodney, I am just giving you the awful truth.

          You are shamelessly hijacking the language of disadvantage and stigmatization as leverage for the appalling behaviour of the lobby you represent.

          If I had the misfortune to have my life blighted by gender dysphoria, I would find what you and your peers are doing to be extremely compromising, not to mention a cringing embarrassment…on top of the concern that I would have that your work might eventually blow up in my face!

          At a more dispassionate level, I would regard your political labours as a Leninist style infantile disorder driven by fruitcake adventurists who are incapable of any kind of self reflection that might warn them that they have become little more than ideological junk bond sales people, who speak in overhyped sales and marketing patter, in order to palm off absurdly over-leveraged product, backed by degraded and grossly overvalued underlying ideological assets….

          It is not as if we are unsympathetic towards transgender people. But the politics now go far beyond them into a much larger opportunistic grab for power across the entire social system that you are trying to blather and fluff sell so called ‘gender fluidity’ into.

          The worst thing about that, is that the infrastructure of our social system and the intellectual fabric that informs it, is so broken down and colonized by PRmarketingthink and postmodernist schlock, that it can no longer defend itself against mosquitoes, let alone something vaguely serious, like pack attacks by ideological mongrels hungry for easy creds, vulnerable constituencies, and lording it over a mass constituency that is almost as paralysed as it comatose.

          And at some point, this just has to stop, because it is no more sustainable than what the other wing of Indulgence Capitalism is doing, that is equally busy destroying life-as-we-know-it; you know, your corporate mates across the way whose totally unscrupulous methods and communication style you so sedulously copy, because Rodney Croome, you too are a regime apparatchik, a deregulator, a privatizer and a destroyer of worlds!

          • Rodney Croome

            March 15, 2019 at 7:20 am

            You say you’re not unsympathetic to transgender people, yet you call them facsimiles. You say I’m a Leninist, and a deregulatory and privatiser. Clearly, you have a pre-ordained view of the world into which you just slot people like jigsaw pieces without any regard to what they actually do or think. Clearly, you enjoy throwing insults at people without any regard to those insults being consistent.

      • Isla MacGregor

        March 14, 2019 at 6:26 pm

        Superb!

        • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

          March 15, 2019 at 11:49 am

          Thanks Isla……Rodney, Rodney, Rodney….You are such a shameless salesman. If I were running a sales team, I would love to have you on board. You never meet criticism. You only engage ‘negative perception’ and customer objection by always resorting to the arguable and deniable in a world where the sometimes awful truth about your product has to be reshaped back into a positives, by constantly reaffirming in every way possible the product mantras, because even if the product objector cannot be won over, the spouse or the larger audience you you are aiming at will only remember the keywords and the slogans.

          Detailed argument never beats a slogan in propagandaworld. And you Rodney are good at the genre. You would be one of those twenty percent of salespeople who earn eighty percent of the income.

          You and your spiel have been systematically and repeatedly subjected to the equivalent of thousand bomber raids. The entire bogus structure of ideological claims that you are making for your clients/pawns, including the arguments about your/their product authenticity, has been shredded, pulverized and then ploughed into the now flattened ideological landscape that you occupy.

          And like any true salesman, you come out of your bunker, see the awful truth spattered all over its reinforced steel door, survey the flattened structure of your ideological ideas all around you……and effect this innocent and slightly injured moral indignation, as if nothing has happened, as if your your claims are still in pristine condition.

          As you look up into the sky and mentally reconstruct the flattened city around you, you rhetorically ask how anyone could possibly believe that your claims on behalf of clients weren’t real. And because in this still pristine imaginary confabulation of yours there can’t possibly be any question about the legitimacy of your claims for your clients, then anyone who questions them has to be, by definition, ‘prejudiced’ against them. Ergo, how could they possibly have any real sympathy for them. I mean he couldn’t possibly….could he…..?

          ‘We know that Christopher Nagle is an incorrigibly unempathetic villain who just can’t ‘feel the vibes’, don’t we children?”

          “Yes Miss.”

          That is beautiful. I have to hand it to you. You are a real piece of work mate. Salesman of the year! You just glide it to leg and pretend that thousands of words that have torn your claims to pieces never happened.

          And no I never said you were a Leninist. What I did say Rodney, is that you are exactly the same as the left wing adventurists who Lenin attacked in a book he published in 1920, as suffering from what he called ‘an infantile disorder’. And the reason he made that claim was that he felt that they were wet-behind-the-ears petty bourgeois idealists who simply did not base their ideas and work on any sort of concrete reality.

          He could have been just as easily been talking about the postmodernist schlock coming out of humanities departments all over the world right now.

          And you are right in that space Rodney. It is all delusional bullshit that can only be held together by pissfarting from one end and snarling and biting your opponents as hard and as often as you can with a view to injuring them, with the other. It is not nice, but boy oh boy, it works.

          And now that you have infallibly extracted me out of the world of legitimate and overwhelming criticism of your position, smoothed those criticisms into mere ‘negative perceptions’, then tipped me into the barrel of ‘blind and wilful ‘prejudice’…as in ‘ a pre-ordained view of the world into which you just slot people like jigsaw pieces without any regard to what they actually do or think’….and voila….job done!

          I really have to admire your work….a master of your genre….of the ideological junk bond salesman who will go on flogging his shit until eventually, as with all junk product and ideas, it eventually hits the wall.

          I am really looking forward to attending your ideological funeral Rodney. Nothing personal mate. But if you ever want a job selling insurance…..

  21. Lola Moth

    March 13, 2019 at 1:16 pm

    I have read quite a few papers recently dispelling the myth of there being a male or female brain. Human brains are the same but it is the differences in how children are taught that steer them towards traditional masculine or feminine studies and social roles.

    It is a fact that there are only two biological sexes. You are born male or female. Hermaphroditism is a deformity. There are, however, over 6 billion genders because we all have different gender identities. Every biological female has a different gender identity to mine.There is no gender template that humans must conform to. There are only biological sex templates that have no bearing on our individual gender.

    Recently, we have tried to undo all the harm that separating the sexes into social roles has done to us for millennia. We have done it so quickly that our social roles and self-identities have been left behind, causing some people to believe they no longer fit the template of a man or woman. This is understandable but they have forgotten that biological sex and gender identity are two completely different things. I don’t dye and style my hair, wear makeup, have long nails, have or want children, or do all the other things that females are socialised to do, but that doesn’t cause me to wonder whether I am actually male instead. I don’t feel female but one look in the mirror tells me that is only my biological sex. My gender or gender identity has nothing to do with my reproductive system.

    We have rid ourselves of the constricting bonds of sexism so that we all have equal opportunity, but there will always be advantages and disadvantages between males and females for biological reasons. Men are physically bigger, faster, mightier, and overtly sexually motivated because of their biology. Women are physically smaller and weaker than men so they will always be at a disadvantage in any conflict with men.

    I think gender dysphoria is a psycho-social problem where people feel they don’t fit the template of what society, and their own minds, consider to be male or female. Men who may like makeup and traditional girly things are no less male for these inclinations. People should be able to dress and act in any way that makes them comfortable. At the moment our society hasn’t evolved enough for this to be done without comment and discrimination but the way to change social attitudes is to challenge them.

    Medical intervention does not change biology, but this is not a biological issue we are dealing with. It is a social issue and needs to be treated via social change. Pretending that biological men were born biologically female by changing their status on a piece of paper is not going to help this problem. It creates huge legal black-holes that logic and reason will be sucked into. Change society and how it views what men and women can do with their lives if you want end gender and sex discrimination.

    Other animals don’t have social sex or gender roles. They have only reproductive roles and they seem quite happy with that biological fact. We should be more like them.

    • Geoff Holloway

      March 13, 2019 at 3:19 pm

      Yes Lola, you summed it up with “gender dysphoria is a psycho-social problem where people feel they don’t fit the template of what society, and their own minds, consider to be male or female” – you are absolutely correct and the more I look into the medical research (and attempts to quash any such research) the more convinced I am that we have an increasingly serious problem here, especially for children and adolescents, which is why I raised the issue with the Children’s Commissioner’s office last year (and again with WST this year).

    • Rodney Croome

      March 13, 2019 at 8:11 pm

      A birth certificate is an identity document. When your identity doesn’t match what’s on your birth certificate it can cause significant problems, including discrimination. That is why, a few years ago, passports were reformed to allow gender to be changed without surgery. The same should happen with birth certificates now. Discussions about biology and society are all well and good, but we have to address the issue before us.

      • Lola Moth

        March 13, 2019 at 9:44 pm

        “When your identity doesn’t match what’s on your birth certificate…”

        Your identity always matches your birth certificate. Your birth certificate states when you were born and what was your biological sex. It also states who your biological parents are. I will always be the female child of Peter and Nikki who was born on a particular date. I can deny my parentage all I want but it does not change the biological facts of my birth.

        If you are unfortunate enough to be detained in order for your identity to be confirmed, surely you want your biological sex to match your birth certificate? If your birth certificate states you were born ‘female’ but a quick check determines you have a penis, you are causing yourself a lot of problems.

        If I went to buy a cow but was given a bull instead and was told that sex is a social construct so I couldn’t get my money back, I would think I had entered a different universe.

        Mr Croome, you have such a respected history in Tasmania when it comes to human rights, but I feel on this particular subject you have disregarded the rights of 51% of the population in order to pander to a needy minority who seek validation.

        • mctessa

          March 14, 2019 at 2:51 pm

          Indeed. The term ‘identity’ in relation to identity documents refers to empirical facts about a person, not a person’s subjective self-image.

      • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

        March 14, 2019 at 1:54 pm

        Rodney, being sexually off message is inconvenient and awkward all round, particularly if it gets a tight enough grip to cause day to day problems in the real world. Most of us who have to live with such sexual kinks work around them in as many adaptive and dysfunction minimizing ways as possible. We suck it up and don’t make absurd marginalist demands on others and the larger reproductive centre, for problems that are our own.

        If one goes to an international airport passport check, one dresses appropriately for one’s real sex at least to the extent that one doesn’t cause the airport officials an identity crisis, as well. It really shouldn’t be that hard in a world of androgynous wardrobes darling. And as long as one’s face looks the same as that in the photograph, one shouldn’t have a problem.

        If that is too ‘difficult’ and one has totally succumbed to the delusion that one really is a woman in disguise, than it’s hormones, sterilization and plastic surgery to go, and one can walk into airports anywhere armed with nothing but one’s transgender female ID, stockings and suspenders, and one certainly won’t have any problem at all getting past the passport people….or the cheering crowds….

        And I mean by transgender ID, that doesn’t mean one is a genuine woman, but one has a right to be treated as if one is neither a man nor a woman, but a legitimate female end spectrum ‘identity’, as all facsimiles are, no matter how good they are. And that means that the rest of us recognize the category to the point that public provision, infrastructure and social support must be made available for that entity.

        One can buy today facsimiles of Old Master paintings that are so good, one needs a microscope and chemical analysis to tell the difference from the original. But they are still facsimiles, albeit very good ones, and to try and pass them off as real is fraud.

        The reason for such insistence are morally profound and personal. If I am a man who meets someone who I think is a woman, and fall in love with her and want to marry and have children with her, only to find out when I am emotionally over my head that the woman I want to marry is a trans-sexual, I have been manipulated and lied to in ways that are totally and shamelessly unconscionable. And that would still apply, even if ‘she’ had had an ovaries transplant. Truth is more than just the sum of its parts.

        I have a moral right to know who and what I am dealing with before I enter into intimacy and emotional involvement. And the same thing applies in the public realm. It is called honesty and sometimes honesty can be be very hard and adversely consequential, but that does not absolve us from its demands for a fundamental integrity in our culture and the personal conduct that goes on inside it.

        I think it says something about the extent of the damage that has already been done to that standard that we are even having this conversation.

        Trans-gender identity is an honest representation of the fundamental facts of life stripped of all the sexistentialist baloney that is presently floating around. To pretend otherwise is to further immerse our culture in the corrupt postmodernist lies that we are already drowning in.

  22. Peter Barrington

    March 13, 2019 at 12:59 pm

    It must be very difficult to hang your hat up after so many years campaigning for gay law reform Rodney. These amendments being pushed by the ALP/Greens having nothing to do with LGB rights and you know this. But, running on auto pilot and using the same political rhetoric on trans reform is disingenuous. At least in the gay law reform movement you could base your campaign on evidence, but from what you write, there is not a bit of evidence to back your claims about hate speech in any information flyer, let alone using this issue to attack the Liberals. As we all know the Liberal Party have been gagged from speaking on this issue by Sue Hickey since Parliament rose last year.

    It would be more significant if a conscience vote was given to Labor party members, because if this was to happen the proposed ALP/Green bill would be chucked out of the Leg Co faster than a rat going down a drain pipe.

    The only ‘gathering hate campaigns’ being spun here Rodney are the ones you persist in promoting to attack women and others in the community who you wish to deny any right to participate in this debate.

    It is noticeable that not once do you mention women and girls in your article but it is girls and women who are campaigning globally against sex self ID. It is girls and women’s human rights that have been adversely affected by the campaign for sex self ID.

    Let’s keep ‘moving forward to a Tasmania’ that girls and women’s hard won rights will never be put at risk again.

    • Kate

      March 13, 2019 at 4:54 pm

      “It would be more significant if a conscience vote was given to Labor party members, because if this was to happen the proposed ALP/Green bill would be chucked out of the Leg Co faster than a rat going down a drain pipe”.

      Peter,
      I agree, in large part I think the “hijacking” was a brag by Bec White, to demonstrate her ability to manipulate the “intellectually frail one” (Hickey). Mr Croome has cleverly come up with a strawman with this article!

    • Rodney Croome

      March 13, 2019 at 8:18 pm

      I have never denied the right of opponents of transgender legal equality to participate in this debate. It seems like some of them would like me to so they can play the victim. But I won’t oblige because I believe in free speech. As for the links between LGB and T issues, there are many. One link, relevant to this thread, is that we all suffer from the same sexual stereotyping and biological reductionism that says men and women must always behave certain ways.

  23. Kate

    March 13, 2019 at 10:49 am

    Is anyone up with any of the proposed amendments to this bill which is due to be debated in the Upper House later this month?

  24. Melissa

    March 13, 2019 at 10:37 am

    What a dishonest, misleading bit of propaganda you have attempted to sell here Rodney. This legislation is a trojan horse for self-ID, a blight on the LGB movement, and erodes the social contract and trust that saw same-sex marriage passed into law. Only a paid shill could promote this rubbish with a straight face.

    • Rodney Croome

      March 13, 2019 at 8:24 pm

      Trust? Social contract? Are you saying Australians only voted Yes so long as transgender people weren’t treated equally? The fact Australians voted Yes despite the trans fear campaign shows we accept trans people and want them treated with dignity and respect.

      • Melissa

        March 15, 2019 at 2:46 pm

        No Rodney. You and I both know that the conflation of trans propoganda in schools with same-sex marriage legislation almost lost us the plebiscite. Especially painful, considering that any old bloke who wants to call himself a lesbian has never faced a single legal barrier to stop him from marrying his girlfriend. Face it Rodney, you lot have handed our movement to bored straight narcissists and alienated anyone with half a brain, all because the gravy train was grinding to a halt. Great work mate, I hope you’re proud of yourself.

  25. Tessa

    March 13, 2019 at 8:35 am

    No one is being forced to have surgery. There is nothing brutal about a law that requires peoples identification reflect who they are, not some sexist idea they have dreamt up of who they think they are, or want to be. Birth certificates are not a private document, they are a state issued identity document with legal effect. They should reflect the truth, not a persons innermost feelings and predilections.

    I’d just love to see the report on this Banks’ consultation that you keep touting Rodney. Apparently a consultation happened, but 3 years on – there’s still no public report! Have you seen it?

    Also, what exactly is misrepresentative about these flyers that you refer to?

    Finally, this issue has nothing to do with gay and lesbian rights. Again, I ask you to acknowledge and condemn the widespread harassment of lesbian women who refuse to date, have sex with or even include in their definition of ‘lesbian’ males who claim a female ‘gender identity’. The trans mantra ‘transwomen are women’ has encouraged and justified this harassment and few gay men have been willing to stick their necks out for their lesbian sisters. I doubt you will either.

    • Lee-Gwen Booth

      March 16, 2019 at 12:09 pm

      There are very good reasons to allow a person’s birth certificate to record no sex – or to record their sex based on their own understanding of themselves without a surgical requirement.
      A child who is socially transitioning may find it useful to have a birth certificate that does not mention their birth sex when they enrol in school or when they join a club. A 14 year old may find it useful to have one of these birth certificates when they apply for their first job. A 16 year old may find it useful when they apply for a drivers’ licence. A 20 year old may find it useful …
      You get the picture.

      • mctessa

        March 16, 2019 at 8:41 pm

        Indeed. Having a primary identity document noting no sex would resolve those problems and I dont think that alone would create a clash with womens and girls rights. But these proposals go far beyond that.

        • Lee-Gwen Booth

          March 17, 2019 at 10:15 am

          Being able to have a birth certificate which does not note sex at all would help for a number of situations, potentially, but it is not the whole answer. For some people and situations, having a birth certificate which lists no sex would be just as bad as one which identifies the person as having been assigned a different sex at birth.

          • mctessa

            March 21, 2019 at 8:00 am

            Yeah, having no sex noted would prevent men from enforcing access to female spaces, sports, services, jobs etc. That’s a key part of sex self-ID, forcing the entire female population to accept your sexist ideas about what ‘female’ means.

      • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

        March 16, 2019 at 8:45 pm

        Lee-Gwen, you are demanding that the entire society has to kowtow to a microscopic minority that wants us to suspend the indisputable facts of life as registered on a birth certificate, so that people with an identity disorder can later realized their fantasies as if they were real, and then force the rest of us to go along with it on pain of public branding, shaming, defamatory abuse, disemployment, curtailment of their right to honestly speak, deplatforming, devenuing and vexatious and repressive use of the law.

        Only a bunch of totally self absorbed narcissists would have the front to make such an outrageous demand and be so totally ruthless in bulldozing it through a social system that is so down and out it, it will buy anything, no matter how absurd or frivolous or so totally self serving.

        I do not share you dystopian transgendered new world vision of the future. You obviously have no idea how dangerous the ice you are treading really is. I am sure there is no dissuading you from ideological adventurism and the infantile politics of an ideology that does not seem to have real roots in anything except its own post-modernist fantasising

        When Lenin attacked petty bourgeois idealists as representing ‘an infantile disorder’, he was talking about wanky talkfesters who were more interested in baseless ideological purity and esoteric speculation than put some boots on the ground, get their hands dirty and grapple with the actual class conditions that generate the class politics they are so fond waffling on about; in short getting a crash course in reality and their heads out of their petty bourgeois arses.

        Does that ring any bells for you Lee-Gwen?

      • mctessa

        March 16, 2019 at 8:47 pm

        Why would a person require a birth certificate noting their sex as female, when they have male anatomy (or vice versa)? As opposed to having no sex noted?

        • Lee-Gwen Booth

          March 17, 2019 at 11:33 am

          While birth certificates with no sex listed is a good initiative (and would still be opposed by many people who oppose anything that makes trans people’s lives easier), it is not the whole answer. There are those who would find presenting a birth certificate which listed no sex as being just as likely to “out” them as presenting one which proclaims the sex they were assigned at birth. As well, because this is a new idea, it will take time for these birth certificates to be seen as legitimate, particularly outside the country.
          However, using genital configuration as the deciding factor is not, IMO, appropriate. Not everyone who wants it can have surgery to correct this particular situation. Gender confirmation surgery is expensive, is generally not available to people under 18, and can be dangerous (as can any surgery).

          • mctessa

            March 17, 2019 at 8:30 pm

            Okay, I see that you have deeply imbibed the ideology that a person with penis and testes may legitimately call themselves female and impose themselves on female people whenever they see fit. You seem to justify this because you think some cell ambiguity makes a person with penis and testes ‘really female’ – but only if they say so, of course… So really, the cells dont matter, because it always comes back to whatever the person with the penis and testes says, doesnt it? What if you found a person with unambiguous male sexual anatomy that had some ‘female’ cells but identified as male, would he really be a confused non-male to you? No. Because again, the crux if your ideology is that he is whatever he says he is and that’s all the really matters. The cell science is just a tool you are using to gaslight women. Penises are never a female sex organ. It’s psychological, Orwellian abuse to try and force women and girls to accept otherwise.

            Never mind the swathes of actual female people, members of minority cultures, who will be forced out of particpation in sports, and other social activities and spaces by this nonsense because their cultures preclude them from sharing intimate spaces or having body contact with males (however they identify). But who cares about them right?

          • Lola Moth

            March 17, 2019 at 9:57 pm

            I’m sorry Lee-Gwen, but – “gender confirmation surgery” ?!?!?!?!?!?

Leave a Reply

To Top