Over the weekend, we at Women Speak Tasmania reflected on a very busy and, yes, quite exciting week. It started with a simple email to Tasmanian parliamentarians asking for “sex” to be properly restored and protected in the Anti-Discrimination Act. What followed was a pile-on of attacks on women advocating for sex-based rights.
It began with Independent MP Kristie Johnston using Question Time to launch an attack on us. Was it worth it, Kristie? Attacking Tasmanian women for politely asking politicians to protect sex-based rights in law? In the end, the Premier gave a short, neutral response with no condemnation of our group. Closing comments on your Facebook video probably wasn’t the strongest look.
We also had the usual statements from Rodney Croome and Equality Tasmania — nothing original, just the standard script we’ve come to expect.
Media Coverage: Hits and Misses
The Star Observer ran a piece that called us names again, but credit where it’s due — they used a great photo of our posters. Thanks for the free advertising!
The most concerning coverage came from The Mercury. On 20 May, journalist David Killick wrote:
“Tasmania will not be changing its discrimination laws despite lobbying from anti-transgender activists, Premier Jeremy Rockliff said.”
This is not what the Premier said.
In the official Hansard from 19 May, Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s full response was:
“We stand with all Tasmanians, irrespective of circumstance or background. We have no plans to change the anti-discrimination laws.”
He made no reference to Women Speak Tasmania or “anti-transgender activists.” By inserting that loaded phrase into the Premier’s mouth in the opening sentence, the article created a false impression that he had condemned Tasmanian women defending sex-based rights. This is misleading framing at best.
We sent a right-of-reply opinion piece to Editor Craig Herbert. No reply. No correction. Once again, women defending sex-based rights are denied the chance to tell our side of the story in Tasmania’s major newspaper.
Parliamentary Privilege Used Against Women
Later that same day in Parliament, not one but two MPs went further, claiming we use “our platform to spread hate.” We’ll let that one speak for itself — using parliamentary privilege to smear women asking for basic legal protections is a concerning tactic.
The ABC Interview
On 21 May, the attacks continued via the ABC. What can only be described as journalist-activist Ryk Goddard invited Rodney Croome from Equality Tasmania for what turned into a largely unchallenged monologue.
The ABC even promoted the segment using the term “biological gender” — a phrase that doesn’t exist in science, medicine, or law. Sex is biological. Gender is not. That was an embarrassing blunder.
Rodney went on to discuss sports, claiming (yet again) that concerns about fairness are overblown. He showed little understanding of basic biology — including how DNA testing and sex verification actually work in elite sport. It was, frankly, an unconvincing performance that left the ABC looking unprepared on a serious safeguarding issue.
Martine Delaney’s Post
Finally, on 22 May, Martine Delaney blamed our lawful advocacy for the latest defacement of Marjorie Harwood’s memorial and accused us of organising a protest against Martine Delaney’s portrait in the “Wall of Women” display.
For the record:
Women Speak Tasmania did not organise the protest at the Cascades Female Factory. That was another women’s group. Contrary to Martine Delaney’s assumptions, many Tasmanian women oppose the erasure of women’s history under the guise of male affirmation.
We did, however, formally write to Minister Madeleine Ogilvie on 16 April requesting the removal of Martine Delaney’s portrait — because Martine Delaney is a biological male.
The Cascades Female Factory exists to remember the sex-based oppression and suffering of female convicts. Placing a male in that space is an insult to the women whose history it claims to honour. This is not “prejudice” — it is a defence of biological reality and female history.
We strongly condemn the repeated vandalism of Marjorie’s memorial. Criminal damage has no place in public debate and should be properly investigated. However, there is zero evidence linking Women Speak Tasmania or our supporters to these acts. Suggesting otherwise is a deliberate smear.
It is becoming a predictable pattern: whenever women stand up for sex-based rights, single-sex spaces, and female history, we are labelled “anti-trans” and implied to be responsible for criminal acts. This constant dismissal of women’s legitimate concerns is disrespectful and divisive.
Tasmanian women are not obligated to surrender our rights, privacy, safety, or history to accommodate men who identify as women.
Peaceful advocacy is not extremism. Tasmanians deserve honest debate — not guilt-by-association tactics.
Overall, it was certainly an interesting week.