Dr Sandra Pertot is a clinical psychologist, with 50 years experience in the areas of human sexuality, including sexual dysfunction, sexual orientation and gender diversity. She has worked with children and adults and dangerous sex offenders. Before recently retiring the expert had to defend claims of “transphobia” for questioning “affirmation-only” pathways that presented difficulties in her experience and according to clinical research.

Dr Pertot wrote a submission to the Queensland Parliamentary inquiry into self-identification laws that included a grave warning about the acceptance of these laws. According to her professional opinion, the passing of these laws will grant serious sex-offenders greater opportunities to offend.

“The most disturbing time of my career was working for the Department of Health in the state of N.S.W. during the 1980s, when I was required to assess serious sex offenders for court or for parole.

My experience with sex offenders taught me that they are very good at what they do: they are drawn to places where they can access victims, they will use any ruse to target victims, and they never feel guilt or empathy.

Self-ID gender laws are a gift to sex offenders of any level of seriousness. A man who identifies as a woman is legally allowed access to any female spaces: domestic violence refuges, lesbian groups, change rooms, sports and so on. A woman’s right to complain is denied. If a woman complains about a male-bodied person in a change room, even if that person is watching females young and old undress, or exposing his penis, it is the woman who will be regarded as the problem and may be disqualified from using the service. 

If a criminal of any type wants to change identities, and does so under the proposed legislation, how is this tracked? Have police services been properly consulted about these laws? Will it be more difficult to track and identify offenders of any crime?

There is evidence that male criminals—and it seems mainly those with a history of sexual assault—are already gaining from declaring themselves transwomen.”

Incredibly, during the parliamentary debate, many Queensland politicians claimed there was no evidence trans identified males pose any risk to females in single-sex spaces or services. There were 181 submissions that opposed self-identification laws with many providing evidence of the risk such laws pose to women, including this doctor’s professional expert knowledge. The parliament chose to ignore such warnings and pass the laws. 

The facts were presented from overseas countries where self-id is already law and has been exploited by some sex offenders. Some of these examples were included in a submission by the Women’s Forum Australia. 

It doesn’t take a degree, or even clinical experience, to realise that males self-identifying as females could pose a threat to women and girls. Common sense, decency and history contain enough evidence – that’s why we have single-sex spaces and services in the first place. It is alarming that elected politicians ignore all the warnings and forge ahead with their woke agendas at the expense of women and children. 

Not all transgender people pose a risk. Not all men pose a risk. The problem is, women often don’t know who does pose a risk until the harm is done. That’s why single-sex spaces and services were established – to protect women and children. Decent men have no problem with such dedicated spaces or services; in fact, most respect and advocate for their mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, etc to have safe spaces away from the potential harm of other men.

The push for acceptance of gender identity ideology is not about inclusion or diversity – if it were they would be advocating dedicating trans sports, spaces and services. They don’t want that. They want to colonise women’s spaces and services. It is not a two-way street and we are not seeing a great push to allow women into men’s sports, spaces and services. This is a one-way street that puts women and children in harm’s way. Thanks to ‘progressive’ politicians who care more about appeasing male fetishes and feelings than women’s sex-based rights.