During this week’s 2026–27 Budget Estimates hearings, two important exchanges once again highlighted the deep confusion and ideological capture within Australia’s key gender and human rights agencies.
Pregnancy and “Potential Pregnancy” in Discrimination Law
On Tuesday 26 May 2026, in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Michaelia Cash questioned Sex Discrimination Commissioner Dr Anna Cody about pregnancy and “potential pregnancy” protections under the Sex Discrimination Act.
Senator Cash pressed Dr Cody because of submissions the Australian Human Rights Commission (under Cody) made in the Giggle v Tickle Federal Court case in 2025. In that case, the AHRC argued that trans-identified males (biological males) should have access to the same pregnancy and potential pregnancy protections as biological women.
Dr Cody acknowledged that a biological male cannot get pregnant, but argued that if an employer discriminates against a transwoman based on a belief or statement that she intends to have children, it could still amount to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of “potential pregnancy”.
Senator Cash pressed Dr Cody on whether these protections apply to trans-identified males (biological males). Dr Cody acknowledged that a biological male cannot get pregnant, but argued that if an employer discriminates against a transwoman based on a belief or statement that she intends to have children, it could still amount to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of “potential pregnancy”.
The exchange became national news, with The Australian running the news article online: “Human rights chief argues trans women could be victims of pregnancy discrimination”
Questions on the Definition of “Woman” in Policy Contexts
On Wednesday 27 May 2026, in the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Senator Malcolm Roberts questioned Minister for Women Katy Gallagher and senior officials from the Office for Women, including Executive Director Padma Raman PSM.
Senator Roberts asked whether the Office for Women stands with biological women, or also includes men identifying as women.
When an official replied “we stand with all, all women”, Senator Roberts pressed: “So, that’s biological women?”
The response was: “What’s that term even mean?”
Roberts continued: “I stand for women’s rights as hard fought for and won by the feminist movement decades ago. Do you believe that a man that is born with male genitals, and male chromosomes can be anything other than the male?”
The panel responded with visible frustration, deflection and dismissive attitudes. They avoided giving a straightforward answer on biological definitions and instead deflected, replying: “This is a health question, Senator Roberts. You’re better off in the health department, which is next week.”
Why This Matters
These back-to-back moments in Senate Estimates reveal the same problem Women Speak Tasmania has been highlighting for years. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Office for Women — bodies tasked with protecting women — are unwilling or unable to clearly acknowledge biological sex.
When pregnancy protections designed for women are stretched to cover trans-identified males (as argued by Dr Cody in both the Tickle v Giggle case and now in Senate Estimates), and when senior women’s policy officials dodge basic questions about what a woman is, it is biological women and girls who lose out — in single-sex spaces, sports, services, and safety.
Australian women deserve honesty, not obfuscation. Women’s rights cannot be properly defended if the very meaning of “woman” is treated as too difficult or controversial to state.
Further Reading:
“Pregnant pause for thought as trans debate takes a bizarre turn” – The Australian printed edition 28.05.26
