Anti-discrimination acts are discriminatory

Melton City councillor Moira Deeming has asked every council in Victoria questions we all deserve to have answers for.

Is it legal to put a sign on public toilets declaring that one is for “biological males”, one is for “biological females” and one is for people with “transgender identities”? “If not, why not?”

Instead of direct answers, most referred to anti-discrimination laws that prefer the rights of people who think they are the opposite sex, rather than scientifically evidenced sex-based rights.

An increasing number of people are challenging the discriminatory nature of the anti-discrimination acts around the country.

In addition to Deeming, others are starting to speak out. Last year the McIver’s Ladies Baths attempted to limit entry to women, children and transgender women who had undergone gender confirmation surgery.

Tasmanian Jessica Hoyle wanted an exemption to exclude “biological men” from lesbian-only events in Launceston. She was denied. Hoyle is currently appealing a decision to deny lesbians the right to sex-based spaces and events.

University of Melbourne academic Holly Lawford-Smith made news after exposing the divide between sex-based rights and the advancement of a political ideology. She started a website and made comments that angered some at the university.

“We’re worried about the impacts on women of men using women-only spaces, including but not limited to: changing rooms, fitting rooms, bathrooms, shelters, rape and domestic violence refuges, gyms, spas, sports, schools, accommodations, hospital wards, shortlists, prizes, quotas, political groups, prisons, clubs, events, festivals, dating apps and language.

“Women are taught how to keep themselves safe, and then activists take away their ability to do that by saying any man who wants to include himself in any women-only space is allowed to. There don’t have to be rapes or assaults for there to be a conflict of interests.”

Binary spokeswoman, Kirralie Smith, said trans extremism must be continually challenged.

“This is not a matter of bigotry or phobias,” she said.

“This is a matter of evidence-based, scientific reality versus a radical political ideology. Sex-based differences must result in sex-based outcomes for some spaces, services and events.

“It is a matter of fairness, justice and safety. Feelings are too varied, too subjective and too unreliable to make public policy. Facts, evidence and science are the only consistent and reliable way to protect civility and safety.”