On 7 May 2025, members of Women Speak Tasmania held a private forum titled “Women’s Rights in the Modern World” at the Devonport RSL.
This event marks a significant milestone for women’s rights advocacy in Australia, as the Devonport RSL, a veterans’ charity, became the first independent venue in the country to stand firm in the face of pressure from anti-free speech activists and not cancel our event.
In contrast, WST forums previously booked in April at the Devonport Library and the Hive Ulverstone were cancelled due to bullying and intimidation from individuals attempting to silence respectful dialogue.
WST’s forum was well attended, drawing a diverse audience that included professionals from the health and education sectors, business owners, and community leaders, notably Burnie Councillor Trent Aitken.
We extend our sincere thanks to the Devonport RSL for standing by the true values of inclusion, viewpoint diversity, and open debate, all of which are essential to a healthy democracy.
Presented below are the speeches delivered during the Forum
Anti Discrimination Laws, the attack on Freedom of Speech and the Hoodwinking of Australians
by Isla MacGregor – Free Speech advocate and member of Women Speak Tasmania
I’d like to thank the Devonport RSL for agreeing to hire this room for WST’s private meeting tonight. The Devonport RSL knows just how important freedom of speech is to the rights of all citizens in Tasmania and to our democracy.
Tonight we want to share with you information we have collated since 2018 about the impacts of sex self ID laws on women, children, parents, families, and in fact the whole community.
We have produced a Dossier of evidence on these impacts which we presented to the Attorney General Guy Barnett at a meeting with him on 20 January this year. This Dossier, available on our website, provides the evidence to justify the repeal of sex self ID laws in Tasmania. While much of the evidence in our Dossier is sourced from Government documents, media reports, medical research, some of our information comes from anonymous contributors who are too scared to speak out because of fear of reprisals.
Later I’ll be speaking about what has happened to the many people in Tasmania who have spoken out about these issues. Speaking out just like many whistleblowers have done in the past to expose wrongdoing, fraud, corruption, threats to public or environmental health.
Many here have asked “how did we get here”? I will summarise the legislative reforms which have led us to this harmful conflict over rights and why the need for open and robust debate has become imperative.
Firstly to the Sex Discrimination Act from AF4W
‘Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act (the Act) was created in 1984 to achieve substantive equality for women and girls, as part of Australia’s treaty obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). It originally prohibited sex-based discrimination and ensured the rights of women and girls to female only spaces, services and opportunities.
In 2013,[under the Julia Gillard Government], that all changed. With the removal of the definition of ‘woman’ and ‘man’ the reality of sex-based protections was dismantled. Additionally, ‘gender identity’ was introduced, which is defined opaquely as ‘gender-related identity’.
The implied presumption behind this definition—and the one that has to date been applied in the courts—is that ‘gender identity’ corresponds to stereotypical views of ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’. Distinctions between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are no longer clear, and the Act’s purpose of providing for sex-based protections for women has been destroyed.
Currently many women’s groups across Australia are campaigning for repeal of the 2013 Amendments, yet none of the major parties will support repeal of the Act.
The hijacking of Tasmanian Marriage Equality laws
In February 2016, the then Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Robin Banks, released an Issues Paper titled ‘Legal recognition of sex and gender diversity in Tasmania: Options for amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999’
After the referendum on same sex marriage on 9 December 2017, changes to the Commonwealth Marriage Act meant that same sex marriage became legal. Therefore state laws had to be brought into line.
In Tasmania, the relevant legislation – the Justice and Related Legislation (Marriage Amendments) Bill (JRLB) – was brought before the Lower House of parliament on 16 October 2018 by the Liberal Government.
On 17 October 2018, the University of Tasmania hosted a forum titled ‘Transforming Tasmania: Legal Reforms for Gender Diverse and Intersex Equality’. Speakers at the forum were only those supportive of sex self ID laws.
WST approached the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute requesting that we have a member on the panel or that they consider an additional forum to put forward alternative legislative proposals. The Institute refused.
On 20 November 2018, the Opposition parties in the Lower House moved nine (9) amendments to the JRLB that amended both the ADA and the BDMRA.
The Liberal government opposed all nine amendments, but they were passed after virtually no substantive debate with the support of Liberal Speaker, Sue Hickey, who as Speaker had the casting vote.
MLC Ruth Forest put forward 20 revisions to the Bill in the Upper House and additional amendments were added from MLCs Ivan Dean, Rosemary Armitage and Tania Rattray. The Bill was often referred to by people inside the Justice Department as a “dog’s breakfast”.
On 10 April 2019 the Tasmanian Parliament passed amendments to the Birth, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. These amendments made Tasmania the first state to allow:
* change of gender on Birth Certificates by a simple statutory declaration
* People 16 or over can apply independently.
* Parents can apply for change of the gender of children of any age.
* Gender can be self-described, and is not limited to certain categories.
* Parents can ask that birth certificates do not include a gender marker
* Persons can ask that their own certificates do not include gender markers.
The Act commenced on 5 September 2019 along with other relevant amendments to the Anti Discrimination Act .
A government Bill to bring Tasmania into line with federal marriage equality laws had effectively been hijacked by Greens and Labor.
Today under the BDMRA Act gender registered in all cases can be either –
- male; or
- female; or
- indeterminate gender; or
- non-binary; or
- a word, or a phrase, that is used to indicate a person’s perception of the person’s self as being neither entirely male nor entirely female and that is prescribed; or
- a word, or a phrase, that is used to indicate a person’s perception of the person’s self as being neither entirely male nor entirely female
Because discussion in the Tasmanian Parliament was suppressed, including an alternative Bill put forward by Ivan Dean in the Leg Co, because there was no widespread stakeholder consultation or understanding of the adverse implications of these laws, and finally because media had been captured and would not report on opposition to the laws – these laws were passed in Tasmania like a trojan horse.
Today, 6 years later we have had no review of the laws to ascertain whether they are fit for purpose or if any adverse impacts have eventuated as we had warned.
Today, the Anti Discrimination Act continues to have a chilling effect on Tasmanians wanting to speak out about the adverse effect of these laws. Many of you here today will have experienced the difficulties in expressing your opinion on these issues and recognise how you have come to self censor. Increasingly we are witnessing a culture riven by fear and intimidation, coercion to comply and conform to an ideology, an ideology now entrenched as if it is a quasi state religion.
Many have experienced adverse effects: doxing, harassed, defamed, bullied, threatened, property damage, sent to re-education at trans lobby group Working It Out for wrong thinking, or, even assaulted. These are the typical methods used to attack whistleblowers or dissidents all too common in totalitarian regimes.
So what do Tasmanian Anti Discrimination laws have to say about sex and gender.
From the Anti Discrimination Commission website:
Your gender. Your reality. Your rights
It is gender identity discrimination to treat a person unfairly, or for them to be denied the same opportunities as others, because of their gender identity. This includes a person’s appearance or mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics, including gender expression. This includes people who identify as transgender or transsexual.
We all have a gender identity. For many, however, the gender they identify with is different from that assigned at birth.
A person’s designated sex at birth is irrelevant. Nor does it matter what label they choose to describe themselves. Everyone has a right to express their own gender as they wish and to live and behave in accordance with their gender identity.
Relatives, friends and co-workers sometimes experience discrimination because of their relationship with another person, because of that other person’s gender identity (or assumptions about that other person’s gender identity). The law protects them too.
In a nutshell, the Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Act has:
instructed us that we all have a ‘gender identity’
conflated sex and gender
given no precise definition of gender identity or sex or sexual orientation
given protections to anyone claiming to have any gender identity over and above any other protections including on the grounds of political opinion or sexual orientation
removed our rights to protections for political opinion
The Anti Discrimination Act as it stands today, has paved the way for the social engineering project of gender identity ideology becoming entrenched in our schools, our public and private sectors, our institutions, our media and our language. It is how a small minority have, by stealth, contrived to have laws implemented to privilege their own rights over and above those of children, girls and women, parents, LGB people, health and education professionals, in fact, our whole community.
Before Dr Caballero outlines some of the impacts of sex self-ID laws I’d like to mention briefly recent medico/legal developments internationally and in Australia:
1. In April 2024 the Independent Cass Review was released into gender identity services for children and young people in England after over 5 whistleblowers went public about the fast tracking of young people with gender distress with harmful medical interventions. As a result of the Cass recommendations, the care for <18s in England will no longer be based on the “gender-affirming” model of care but instead will treat youth with gender distress similarly to how it treats youth with other developmental struggles. The push in Australia from medical experts for such an inquiry had been ongoing since 2020. Following WST communications last year with then Tasmanian Health Minister Guy Barnett, the AG wrote to the Federal Health Minister Mark Butler requesting that he consider a federal enquiry into Guidelines used in Australian gender clinics. In March this year Mark Butler announced that he had asked the National Health and Medical Research Council to conduct such an Inquiry and to report in 3 years. It is of note that the Tasmanian Gender Service currently uses the discredited affirmative care approach for gender distressed young people, has no ongoing monitoring of outcomes of treatments, and is prescribing puberty blockers that are now banned in several countries (information obtained under RTI).
2. Last month Family Court Justice Andrew Strum released his judgement in the Devin case concerning a mother and father in dispute over gender medicine treatments being provided by the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne for their 12 year old son. Strum found that “The risks posed by medical (and surgical) gender affirming treatment include risks to fertility, sexual function, bone health, brain development, cardiovascular function and carcinogenesis, as well as the risks of being a lifelong medical patient and of later regret.” Also that the RCHM failed to carry out proper psychological assessments stating the RCHM guidelines “did not have the approval or imprimatur of the commonwealth or any state or territory government” and that “Ideology has no place in the application by the courts of the law, and certainly not in the determination by the courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and what is in the child’s best interests.” See The Australian copy on the table here for more on this case.
3. The UK Supreme Court last week released its decision confirming that the definition of sex and woman under the Equality Act is based on biological sex. This decision has been a massive victory for women and girls in restoring their rights to fairness, safety and dignity.
These three major medico/legal decisions, yet the Australian Government continues to put its head in the sand.
Dr Caballero will now take you through some further impacts of these laws.
The Impact of Tasmania’s Gender Law Reforms on Women’s Sports, Facilities, and Opportunities
by Dr. Elizabeth Caballero – retired GP and member of Women Speak Tasmania
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on a subject that is not only sensitive and complex, but one that deeply affects women’s rights, fairness, and safety in Tasmania today.
We are here to talk about how gender law reforms — specifically, those that prioritize gender identity over biological sex — are impacting women’s sports, female-only facilities, and the broader scope of women’s opportunities. While respect for all individuals is a foundational principle, these reforms are creating unintended consequences that many women are afraid to speak about openly, for fear of being labelled intolerant or worse. But it is essential that we speak up — clearly and respectfully — for the protection of women and girls.
Self-Identification Without Safeguards
Under current Tasmanian law and government policy, when a boy identifies as a girl, or a man begins identifying as a woman, their self-declared gender identity must be accepted immediately and without question. This automatic validation grants them access to female-only sports competitions, change rooms, toilets, and services — regardless of their biological sex and without consideration of the real, measurable physical differences between male and female bodies.
Let’s break that down further by looking at sports — a powerful lens through which fairness and physical reality can be clearly observed.
What the Science Says — Before and After Puberty
One common claim used to justify mixed-sex sports participation in childhood is that boys and girls perform equally prior to puberty. But the evidence we have contradicts that.
Studies show that even before puberty, boys consistently outperform girls in areas like muscular strength, endurance, running speed, aerobic fitness, ball throwing, and kicking distance. Girls, on the other hand, tend to do better in flexibility. These aren’t negligible differences — they’re significant enough to affect competitive outcomes, even in primary school.
Here’s a real-world example: At a Tasmanian primary school — which for legal reasons must remain unnamed — a biological boy was allowed to compete with girls in the school sports carnival. Unsurprisingly, he won multiple events. When a concerned parent wrote to Minister Jo Palmer about this, the response was that the Department of Education was simply following the law and its inclusion policies.
Now, let’s look at what happens after puberty, which magnifies these performance gaps even more.
Post-puberty, male bodies develop larger lungs, stronger hearts, more muscle mass, and denser bones. These translate directly into greater speed, strength, and stamina — all essential factors in competitive sports. Even after a man that identifies as a woman begins hormone therapy, these structural advantages are not undone.
A systematic review of 24 studies found that while hormone therapy reduces some muscle mass, strength and muscle area still remain higher than that of biological females, even after three years of treatment. In fact, men identifying as women still retain about 10 to 12% more speed and strength compared to women — a considerable edge in any sporting context. In elite athletics, just a 1% advantage can mean the difference between winning gold and not qualifying at all.
The Lived Impact on Tasmanian Women
This isn’t theoretical. Since these policies have been introduced, women in at least five community sports — including soccer, netball, cycling, ten pin bowling, and lawn bowls — have come forward, mostly anonymously, to Women Speak Tasmania. Why anonymously? Because women fear backlash, isolation, or being called bigots for speaking honestly about their discomfort or the unfairness they’ve experienced.
Some have simply stopped participating. They are self-excluding from community sports — not because they’re intolerant, but because they no longer feel it’s a space for them.
Let’s be clear: For many women, especially in smaller communities, sport is not just about competition. It’s about mental health, friendships, fitness, and a sense of belonging. These are being undermined.
A report by the Affiliation of Australian Women’s Action Alliances (AAWAA) rightly observed that while national sports bodies emphasize inclusion based on gender identity, they fail to equally prioritize or even acknowledge the legal provision that allows for female-only competition where factors like strength and stamina make a difference. In other words, the legal protection for women to compete fairly is being quietly ignored.
Safety Is Not Optional
Now let’s move beyond fairness and talk about safety — particularly in contact sports like rugby, boxing, or martial arts.
Here, the physical differences can’t be brushed aside. Male-born athletes, even after transitioning, have higher punch force, greater grip strength, and larger frames that can increase the risk of serious injury to their female opponents.
In 2020, World Rugby became the first major sports body to ban male-born athletes from competing in women’s categories, citing clear data on injury risk. This wasn’t a political decision. It was a professional, evidence-based choice made out of duty to protect female players.
Other international associations banning men from women’s sports are World Aquatics, World Athletics.
We don’t allow adults to compete against children, or heavyweights to fight flyweights — not because we discriminate, but because we understand the need to protect the vulnerable.
The Impact Beyond Sports: School Facilities and Silencing Girls
The effects of these policies aren’t limited to the playing field. Let’s talk about schools.
In 2024, a Tasmanian teacher — who asked to remain anonymous out of fear for her job — reported attending a seminar run by Working It Out, in partnership with the Department of Education. This was given to PE teachers.
In one of the slides they talk about change rooms, it states:
“Consider whether changing is necessary or to be avoided, when possible create a gender neutral area OR when impossible facilities can post the following: People entering this facility deserve safety and respect. While this space may be labeled for a specific gender, harassment of any kind will not be tolerated”
On paper, that may sound neutral — but the implication is anything but. Girls are being asked to tolerate the presence of boys in their changing spaces. And if they object, if they show discomfort, they are the ones labeled as the problem. In fact, the Department’s policies imply that such discomfort could be treated as “harassment.”
This is not inclusion. It is forced compliance at the expense of girls’ comfort, safety, and dignity.
Another slide talks about safe binding for T*GD and how teachers can recognise the signs of physical distress such as problem breathing, overheating, muscle restriction in girls that bind their breasts.
Breast binding, or chest binding as was mentioned in the slide, is the flattening and hiding of breasts with constrictive materials such as cloth strips or purpose-built undergarments.
This slide is not only misleading but factually incorrect. There are not long term systemic studies on the effect of breast binding on the reduction of gender dysphoria, what we have is an array of complications caused by binding.
The most common complication is back and chest pain, others can be overheating, skin rashes.
Some of the symptoms take longer to develop, such as rib fractures, scarring and neurological pain.
Where Do We Go From Here?
This isn’t about denying anyone the right to live authentically. It’s about recognizing that women’s rights matter too. Inclusion should never come at the cost of fairness, nor should it silence women and girls who express discomfort with sharing intimate spaces or competitions with biological males.
We must ask ourselves: Why do sex-based categories exist in the first place? They exist precisely because sex differences matter — especially in sport, in safety, and in medicine. And if those differences matter, then policies must reflect that reality, not erase it.
Let’s protect the spaces that women have fought hard to create — from changing rooms to podiums. And let’s build policies that are rooted not just in kindness, but in truth, evidence, and respect for all — including women.
Thank you, now Isla will let you know about the impact of this laws on our right to freedom of speech
Freedom of speech and the Hoodwinking of Australians
by Isla MacGregor – Free Speech advocate and member of Women Speak Tasmania
Women Speak Tasmania formally established in 2018. Our Dossier contains case studies about how Tasmanian citizens’ speech rights have been severely impacted as a result of sex self ID laws.
The case I will share with you tonight concerns the no platforming of WST speakers. Former Anti Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks complained to the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom about WST speaking at their Human Rights Week forum in 2018. The email she wrote was leaked and the matter was covered by Matt Denholm journalist with The Australian on 5 Dec 2018:
From The Australian – Attack on freedom of speech
Two feminists have accused a former anti-discrimination commissioner of trying to stop them from speaking at a human rights forum because of their opposition to transgender reforms.
Bronwyn Williams and Isla MacGregor were invited by the Tasmanian branch of the global Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom to give a speech at an event in Hobart on Wednesday next week.
The two women, whose Women Speak Tasmania group is a vocal critic of transgender reforms before the Tasmanian parliament, were to speak about “Transgenderism and the impact on the human rights of women and girls”.
However, in an email to the WILPF, obtained by The Australian, former state anti-discrimination commissioner Robin Banks — a key advocate of the transgender reforms — warns the organisation against giving the duo a platform.
“Giving this group a platform for their hateful views … will be seen by many in the LGBTIQ community as an endorsement of those views,” Ms Banks wrote to prominent WILPF members on Friday.
“This is (sic) the very real potential to damage the reputation of an extraordinary and compassionate long standing human rights group.
“If there is any way that I can help you to negotiate what I think is a very difficult situation, I am happy to do so.”
Robin Banks was the architect of the sex self-ID laws and is now a Post-doctoral Fellow at UTAS Law.
How media has been captured in Australia
Media in Australia demonises women’s rights groups and gender critical views as anti trans. Media has a responsibility to impartially and objectively inform, criticise and stimulate debate in a manner that can only enrich and enhance our democratic processes – rather than being allied to forces that seek to subvert them.
The debate over gender identity reforms continues to be plagued by censorship, bias and misinformation as we saw in coverage at Let Women Speak event outside Parliament House in Hobart on March 23 2023 and in Melbourne two weeks ago.
Paul Barry, from ABC Media Watch, has dedicated two major stories attacking his own ABC for lack of impartiality. On 15 August his first story concerned the ABC failure to report on implications for gender clinics in Australia of the closure of the controversial Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in the UK.
Then, on 17th October, 2022 Paul Barry blew the ABC out of the water by calling for a review of the ABC’s relationship with the Aids Council of New South Wales’ Australian Workplace Equality Index. This is an accreditation scheme that hundreds of organisations have bought into in Australia. It also operates as an award scheme where organisations win points for performing activities stipulated by ACON. This amounts to an institutional game of ‘simon says’ that has resulted in ACON’s editorial policy capture of the ABC in order to comply with LGBTQ+ ideology.
Dozens of complaints sent to the ABC Ombudsman about news, ABC4C and Australian Story, Q&A etc, get nowhere. Although new Chair of the ABC Kim Williams has said activist journalists can take the door, no TQ+ activist journalists have left the ABC.
After repeated requests to ABC Tasmania to present a balanced perspective on proposed Anti Conversion laws, we have yet to hear any interviews with Dr Dianna Kenny on social contagion or Dr Phillip Morris, President of the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists on the gold standard careful cautious approach of care.
How “harm” suppresses the truth
Several complaints to the ABC Hobart concerning trans rights activist journalist Ryk Goddard and Leon Compton have been submitted over some years. Here’s an example of one such complaint sent in about Leon Compton on The Drum on 9 June 2023:
As a journalist it’s sometimes hard because you want to air a balance of perspectives but what perspectives are reasonable to air? Particularly those that dress up opposition, particularly in the most recent cases to drag queens or to dealing with trans issues. You ask yourself, are we just dealing with a continuum of those opposed to civil rights or those opposed to homosexuality, those that oppose same sex marriage? Are these people just trying to throw anchors in another march towards a place that society will hopefully be going? So, it’s really challenging to understand what views to air and can be aired safely. Is it better to have no debate at all than to have a debate which might be really damaging for that young gay or young trans person growing up and listening to that as the adults have a fight about something that is often a clash of civilizations or some big battle of faith while there are human ears, young ears, listening to that? And you know the feeling that their lives have been shaped.
Samantha Stayner , Manager at the ABC responded:
ABC Editorial Policies Harm and Offence standards also set out that content likely to cause harm and offence must be editorial justified (standard 7.1) and that content that uses unjustified stereotypes, and discriminatory content that could be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice, should be avoided (standard 7.7).
In 2022, a colleague and I had an hour-long meeting with Craig Warhurst, Editor of the Mercury to discuss the Mercury’s lack of impartiality in covering different perspectives on gender law reforms and to complain about his journalist Kenji Sato’s appalling and vindictive coverage on our issues. We were shocked to hear Craig Warhurst excuse the Mercury’s bias by suggesting that impartiality might ‘cause harm’ to trans people.
The media’s failure to report on these issues will find them eventually held to account for not preventing harm to trans people for refusing to cover important medico/legal developments.
Of course, here in the North West, Anthony Haneveer, the Editor of The Advocate, owned by Australian Community Media, has continued to use the paper to push his ideological views on transgender rights and assert that anyone who disagrees with him is a hateful bigot, especially WST and now Burnie Councillor Trent Aitken.
In March 2023 Mark Westfield, Former Editor of the Examiner, also owned by Aust Community Media, was sacked after publishing a Letter to the Editor raising questions about a male in the women’s change rooms at the Launceston pool. It was alleged that Westfield had not verified the accuracy of the letter. This case was only one of many instances of males being seen in female change rooms at pools in Tasmania.
Attorney General Guy Barnett has been contacted with a complaint from a woman about a man in the women’s toilets in Hobart. We hear of many such complaints that have not yet reached the AG as many women are too afraid to defend their own spaces. WST has received several complaints about a man seen regularly at the Hobart Aquatic Centre wearing a women’s swimming costume and a wig, seen in the Member’s Women’s change room after swimming in the Junior pool during girl’s swimming lessons. Parading up and down around the pool! Was he just a man dressed as a woman, or was he a trans-identified male protected by the law to do as he pleases regardless of women’s concerns? We have received complaints about a trans identified boy winning numerous events in girl’s sporting competitions at a primary school in Tasmania. The limit to what we have published in our Dossier is constrained by many people’s fear of being identified and the very real threat of the Anti Discrimination Commission being weaponized by trans activists to take legal action or silence them.
What happened to the safeguarding of children, and fairness and safety for women in Australia? The introduction of laws by stealth, underpinned by the false pretense of “kindness, inclusion and diversity” have, until now, hoodwinked many Australians.
But the tide has turned.
I’ll open the meeting up for questions and discussion.
