During Human Rights Week in Tasmania, Women Speak Tasmania representatives Isla MacGregor and Bronwyn Williams were invited to speak at a forum organised by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). Shortly before the scheduled date, the event was cancelled by the organisers following public controversy surrounding the topic of transgender law reform.
Although the forum did not proceed, both speakers chose to publish their prepared remarks in The Tasmanian Times to ensure their contributions remained accessible. The texts below are the original talks prepared for that occasion.
Human Rights Week Address
by Isla MacGregor – Opening Remarks
“If one section of our community want to change the definition of what it is to be a woman, then women rightly have a major stake in this discussion, not only on their own behalf but in the best interests of children.”
At the core of the global controversy on transgender rights lies the most fundamental of all human rights – freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech, no other rights can stand.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) makes this clear:
- Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
- Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this shall include the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any media of choice.
Why I Am Speaking Today
I am here because some women — especially young women and lesbians — are too afraid to speak. Many fear for their jobs, their studies, or their positions in community groups. They cannot attend or speak publicly at forums like this without risking retaliation from the trans rights lobby in Tasmania.
Their freedom of speech and right to participation has been curtailed.
Last week, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) cancelled their Human Rights Week event, where Bronwyn Williams and I had been invited to speak on women’s rights and transgender reforms.
This was not the first time women have been silenced in this debate.
My Experience
In 2015, I spoke at a WILPF Human Rights Week forum on:
“How will Amnesty International’s Sex Trade Policy Impact on Human Rights, Poverty and Violence to Women Globally?”
At that time, I argued that survivors of all forms of violence against women — including in the sex trade — must be heard, not silenced.
Since then, I have seen more and more women silenced for speaking out about women’s human rights.
This silencing comes at a time when the global Me Too movement has given unprecedented voice to women. Yet, ironically, the trans rights debate has become one of the most toxic and aggressive arenas of women’s rights activism.
Abuse and Silencing
Women who speak are routinely subjected to:
- slurs such as TERF, SWERF, transphobe, bigot,
- vilification in the media,
- harassment online,
- and even threats of violence.
This mirrors tactics historically used against whistleblowers and dissidents: spreading rumours, blacklisting, intimidation, mobbing, and censorship.
One of the most common tactics in this debate is the spreading of false claims of “hate speech.”
Dissent Within the Trans Community
Not all transsexual, transgender, lesbian, non-binary, or gay people support the extreme trans rights agenda.
- Debbie Hayton, a UK transsexual, tweeted that 16 transsexual people wrote to The Times to express dismay at the harassment and abuse directed at women in the name of transgender rights.
- Miranda Yardley, another UK transsexual, has observed:
“Transgender activism is men’s rights activism… a wholly negative form of men’s rights activism. It has become a new, socially acceptable form of sexism, misogyny and homophobia.”
This shows that critique of gender reforms is not “hate,” but a legitimate human rights position.
Media Bias and Lack of Balance
In the UK, persistent effort has finally achieved more balanced media coverage of this debate. Publications such as The Spectator and The Times have begun to give space to women’s voices.
In Tasmania, however, the opposite is true.
- The Mercury has given extensive coverage to the trans rights lobby while refusing to publish WST’s perspective.
- Journalist Tim Martain refused to run a women’s rights perspective, saying that “balance in journalism is a myth.”
- Other outlets, such as The Examiner and The Advocate, also declined to cover our views.
This media silence has been compounded by pressure from NGOs and lobby groups aligned with trans activism.
Examples of Silencing in Tasmania
- 2012 – Sheila Jeffreys faced attempts to be “no-platformed” at UTAS events.
- 2015 – Bronwyn Williams and four young women expelled from the UTAS Women’s Collective for questioning trans ideology.
- 2016–2017 – Submissions, meetings, and public forums where women were dismissed, bullied, or excluded from debate.
- 2018 – WST’s proposals for reforms to the Anti-Discrimination Act were ignored while TLRI and Transforming Tasmania co-hosted forums excluding women’s perspectives.
- 2018 – Articles raising concerns were threatened with defamation.
Each of these events demonstrates a systematic effort to silence women.
Human Rights Undermined
Robin Banks, former Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, even lobbied WILPF to cancel today’s Human Rights Week event, describing WST as “hateful” and “denying humanity.”
Meanwhile, groups such as Women’s Legal Service, Engender Equality, Hobart Women’s Shelter, and Women’s Health Tasmania have issued joint statements dismissing our concerns. Their leadership includes individuals closely tied to trans activism.
This is not genuine pluralism — it is exclusion of women’s voices.
Conclusion
We are witnessing a deliberate campaign of intimidation and silencing against women who defend sex-based rights.
As one commentator wrote on Tasmanian Times:
“There is a big difference between asking for tolerance and acceptance, and demanding affirmation and ideological conformity through threat, intimidation, and blackmail… Whatever the case, it should never require women to redefine their own gender, biological autonomy, and legal protections to provide affirmation for a minority group.”
This is the crux of the matter: women’s rights and freedoms should not be sacrificed to an ideology.
Freedom of speech is not negotiable. Without it, women’s rights — and indeed human rights themselves — cannot survive.
by Bronwyn Williams – Opening Remarks
Transgender Law Reform, Tasmanian Style
Introduction
Yesterday, I took a break from attempting to analyse the amendments to the Justice and Related Legislation (Marriage Amendments) Bill 2018 to write this brief talk.
The amendments – nine in number and almost 14 pages of text – have turned what was a relatively simple procedural bill into a nightmare.
The Context
As you know, the government was required to remove the “forced divorce” provision in the Tasmanian Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act (BDMRA) in order to align state law with the Commonwealth Marriage Act after same-sex marriage was legalised.
Previously, a person applying to change the sex marker on their birth certificate under Part 4A of the BDMRA had to be unmarried. This was to prevent the legalisation of same-sex marriages, which were then unlawful.
Once same-sex marriage was legal, this requirement no longer applied.
All that was needed was a simple repeal of two sections in Part 4A.
What Happened Instead
Instead, Labor and the Greens proposed a suite of sweeping amendments. These amendments were tabled at the last minute, against parliamentary convention, leaving the Attorney-General unable to properly debate them.
They were passed in quick succession, supported by the Opposition and Speaker Sue Hickey, who had already broken ranks with her government.
Problems with the Amendments
1. Confusion of Terms
The amendments use the terms sex and gender interchangeably and inconsistently.
They also introduced gender expression, including “names and personal references,” as a protected attribute under the Anti-Discrimination Act.
This means that using the wrong pronoun or a person’s “dead name” could now be grounds for an anti-discrimination claim.
It raises the question: how can we have meaningful public debate on this issue if describing biological reality is unlawful?
2. Redefining Gender
The new definition of “gender” in the BDMRA reads:
- “the apparent sex of an infant specified by the parent”; or
- “the gender of the person as specified on a gender affirmation declaration.”
This opens a raft of problems:
- Can one parent decide, or must both agree?
- Can parents record a sex contrary to biological reality?
- What if their choice contradicts the doctor’s record?
- A “gender affirmation declaration” is simply a statutory declaration of one’s chosen identity – effectively, self-ID at the stroke of a pen.
No limits are given on how many times this can be done. Once a year? Every six months? There are no answers.
This produces a circular mess of terms: apparent sex, gender, gender identity — none of them clearly defined. Legislation is meant to be precise. Here, it is not.
3. Undermining Exemptions
Under the Anti-Discrimination Act, sex-based exemptions — for example, single-sex schools — were protected.
Now, with the new definition of “gender,” those exemptions are meaningless. “Gender” could mean either parental choice at birth or personal self-ID.
This effectively removes the ability to maintain women-only protections.
Consequences Beyond Tasmania
Other states made simple, measured changes to comply with federal law.
- Northern Territory: added categories of “unspecified” and “intersex” to birth registration, and removed the requirement for surgery before sex marker changes — replacing it with “appropriate clinical treatment” certified by a practitioner.
- Western Australia: refused to alter its birth registration process beyond what was strictly necessary.
By contrast, Tasmania is out on its own — with radical, untested, and poorly drafted reforms that even the Attorney-General warned could have unintended consequences.
Silencing of Critics
Those who question trans ideology are vilified, silenced, and threatened.
This includes scholars and medical professionals concerned about:
- the trend toward “gender affirmation” treatments for children,
- the explosion of children presenting at gender clinics (some as young as three),
- and the lack of robust scientific evidence.
International Examples of Suppression
- Dr Kenneth Zucker (Canada): removed from his clinic for not immediately affirming children’s trans identities, despite evidence that 80–85% of gender dysphoric children reconcile with their sex during puberty. He was later awarded damages after false accusations.
- Dr Lisa Littman (USA): published research on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria suggesting a social contagion effect. After activist backlash, her university removed references to her work, and her peer-reviewed paper was reviewed under pressure.
- James Caspian (UK): denied permission to research detransitioners by Bath Spa University because the study was “politically incorrect” and might offend.
Detransitioners
Detransitioners are people who undergo medical transition and later regret it. Their stories contradict the narrative that transitioning always brings resolution.
Yet, trans activists seek to erase their voices, dismissing them as “never truly trans.”
One detransitioner, Jeremy Bate, told the Sydney Morning Herald that trans groups abandoned him when he detransitioned:
“They’d rather think I was never a proper trans in the first place, because they can’t stand the idea. If you can turn away from it, it cancels their argument.”
Growing Pushback in Medicine
Recently, medical professionals have begun to raise the alarm.
A letter in the Lancet titled “Gender-questioning children deserve better science” criticised current treatment guidelines for children as based on “imprecise language and overplayed evidence.”
The authors called for rigorous research, careful treatment pathways, and open debate.
A Glimmer of Hope
Stephanie Davies-Arai, founder of Transgender Trend, was shortlisted for the 2018 John Maddox Prize for promoting evidence-based science despite hostility.
Her group provides research on gender dysphoria, desistance rates, and the correlation between childhood gender nonconformity and later homosexuality.
Her nomination reminds us:
we must continue to speak out — for women’s rights, and for children.
Closing
Tasmania has rushed headlong into radical reforms without due process, clear definitions, or safeguards.
The result is confusion in law, risk for children, and the silencing of women’s voices.
We cannot allow ideology to replace evidence. We cannot allow women’s sex-based rights — or children’s welfare — to be casualties of political opportunism.