NSW Labor leader and Premier Chris Minns has come out in support of sex based protections in law. Kind of.

In an attempt to recognise the reality of sex based differences the Premier said biological differences between males and females “must” be reflected in the law and in female sport.

But when pressed his comments just don’t make sense.

Mr Minns would not back Mr Taylor’s proposal on Tuesday, but the Premier did insist that NSW must recognise the “biological between people who were born male and people who were born female”.

“That needs to be reflected in the law,” he said.

He said the NSW law will uphold those differences in prisons, and in “female sport”.

“If you’re born biologically male and you change your government certificates to be female, it will not mean that you can change from a male prison to a female prison,” he said.

At the same time he allows people to change the facts on their birth certificate to be whatever a person feels like at the time.

After saying he would protect female sport he also said he would not change the law because it is up to individual codes to write their policies.

“There are distinctions in the law in NSW that we must uphold, because we think that they’re important, notwithstanding the changes that we’ve made to birth certificates for transgender members of our community,” he said.

This is nonsensical. How can a man be a woman in some circumstances but not others? How can he be considered a woman in law on his birth certificate but not if he is in prison or playing professional sport or representative sport?

Basically Minns is saying sometimes he is a man, sometimes he is a woman under law and we all have to know when he is or not. It is a bizarre word salad that makes no sense and provides no protections for women’s sex based rights.

Earlier this week, the state’s minister for women has refused to provide a definition of the word “woman”, despite the term being in her job title.

Asked her position on “the definition of a woman”, Labor frontbencher Jodie Harrison ducked the question, saying: “As this matter may be subject to further legal processes, it would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of the case.”

Rather than offer a definition along the lines of the widely accepted “adult human female”, Ms Harrison avoided the question.

“This matter was considered by the Federal Court under Commonwealth anti-discrimination law, and questions about the legal framework are ultimately matters for the federal government,” she said.

“The NSW government’s position is clear: women and girls should be safe and feel safe in all settings, including schools, hospitals, changerooms and sporting environments.”

How can a woman feel safe in any sex based setting when Sall Grover is found guilty of direct discrimination and punished with $20,000 and astronomically court fees for excluding a man from her female only app?

How can anyone feel safe when people like me are ordered to pay $95,000 in damages for identifying males in female sport and being found guilty of vilification?

How can women feel safe when people like breastfeeding expert Jasmine Sussex has to go to court to argue men can’t breastfeed?

Minns and Harrison are utterly deluded if they believe the law protects women. The word woman is not even defined in law!

State opposition leader Kellie Sloane at least took a different tack.

“A woman is an adult biological female. Gender identity may be something different,” she said

Asked about the danger to women-only spaces created by last week’s court ruling, Ms Sloane said “women’s spaces exist for a reason”.

“We have fought for decades for the right to safety and privacy, and those rights deserve to be protected, not eroded,” she said

“We can be compassionate and supportive of transgender individuals without eroding those rights.”

What the opposition will do about it is yet to be seen.

This week it is trendy for them all to comment because Sall’s case made headline news and embarrassed Australia internationally. Whether or not these politicians follow through with their commitments is another thing altogether.