I sent Andrew one of his postcards inviting contact. I urged him to work for restoring the definition of ‘woman’ in the SDA.
This is the reply I got, on July 9.
Dear Anne
Thank you for taking the time to return Andrew’s postcard.
Andrew acknowledges your views, but does not agree with attempts to weaken the Sex Discrimination Act, such as by limiting protection from discrimination by defining men and women only by their physical characteristics or imposing a strict sex binary.
There is no evidence that recognising transgender women as women under anti-discrimination law has led to increased violence against women. It is also worth noting that trans women are among the women most likely to experience discrimination, harassment, and violence (see Trans and gender diverse people’s rights in Australia).
Additionally, it is important to note that changes to the Sex Discrimination Act, such as strictly defining ‘woman’ or ‘man’, may have unintended and unfortunate consequences for all women, not just trans women. For example, will those assigned female at birth be required to carry identity documents proving they are indeed female? Will they be subject to questions from strangers asking them to confirm their sex?
Andrew’s position is consistent with a statement released by 18 leading Australian women’s organisations, which I have attached for you.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Millie von Stieglitz
Parliamentary Adviser
Office of Andrew Wilkie MP
Independent Member for Clark
This was my reply to him, dated the same day:
To define male and female according to biology does not bring with it any lessening of the human rights of people who have gender dysphoria or who choose to identify or live as the opposite sex. Sex is biology, gender is a social construct, and it is a mistake to conflate the two.
The fact is, the human species is sexually binary, even if some individuals don’t meet 100% of biological markers for male or female.
That’s why we have separate categories for men’s and women’s sports, for a start. In fact, the logical conclusion of Andrew’s position is that if there is no essential biological difference between men and women, what’s the point of having separate categories for men’s and women’s sports? Or anything?
The point made in your third paragraph is outright wrong. There have been numerous cases of violence committed by biologically male transgender individuals in women’s prisons in the UK, and now here in Australia we have the case of Clinton Rintoul, a transgender prisoner who assaulted a female prisoner, whereupon the Victorian government was forced to pay compensation and change the policy of housing prisoners according to gender identity. A similar case is that of the transgender individual known as ‘Hilary Maloney’ who sexually abused his own 5-year-old daughter and managed to get himself (I use the term advisedly) a lighter sentence and a spot in a women’s prison on the basis that he had become a woman.
You say there could be unintended consequences for women if the biological definition were to be restored in the SDA. You ask ‘would those assigned female at birth be required to carry identity documents proving they are indeed female?’ Of course not! I can’t see why you even pose that question. Why and how would that issue arise? You don’t even try to explain.
By the way, human sex is observed at birth, not ‘assigned’, except in very rare cases of individuals (mentioned above) who may not have fully male or fully female biological markers.
The idea that a fully intact man can claim to be a woman purely on the basis of internal feeling would be comical if it weren’t being so aggressively pushed by activists who will not tolerate debate on important issues like the dangers of ‘gender-affirming’ treatment for minors, the physical threat to women in previously safe spaces like bathrooms, toilets and prisons, and unfairness to women in sports, especially those that rely on strength, speed and stamina.
One of these days the madness will end, as did the fad for believing in repressed memories of childhood abuse, and Andrew will end up on the wrong side of history.
Incidentally, I see even Julia Gillard has come out and said that no-one raised the possible unintended consequences of removing biological definitions from the SDA at the time. This may or may not be true, but her statement does suggest that even she, surely an otherwise sensible intelligent woman, is beginning to see the writing on the wall.
Sincerely,
Anne Warburton.