If you’re one of the many Tasmanians concerned about Labor and the Greens changes to our state’s birth registration and anti-discrimination laws you are, according to Anthony Haneveer (the Advocate 23 November 2018), a wilfully ignorant bigot.
If you don’t think 14 pages of complex amendments to a simple procedural bill are just ‘a little change to birth certificates’, join the ranks of said wilfully ignorant bigots.
Reading the text of his so-called opinion, it’s clear Mr Haneveer has made no attempt to interpret or investigate these amendments, made in the name of transgender law reform.
First, if most of us rarely use our birth certificates, and are likely unaware of its location, why are trans people any different? Are they singled out and asked to produce this document on a regular basis? The only example we’ve been given – repeatedly – of a trans person being disadvantaged by an incorrect ‘gender’ on their birth certificate is that of a young person unable to secure a job because they have no other age identifying information and prospective employers have questioned the discrepancy between their presenting ‘gender’ and the sex marker on their birth certificate.
But, how likely is this scenario in the age of anti-discrimination awareness?
Every employer, particularly large organisations like fast food outlets and supermarkets that typically employ young people under the age of 17, is acutely aware of their obligations under anti-discrimination law. They write inclusivity into their company core values, and operational guides, and pay special attention to ‘gender identity’.
If a young trans person suffers discrimination at the hands of a potential employer, would a complaint to the Anti-discrimination Commissioner not be the best and most effective way to draw attention to the employer’s transgressions?
Is it necessary to take a sledgehammer to a birth registration process that has served 99 per cent of the population, including Mr Haneveer, with no problems for many, many years?
Second, I wonder if Mr Haneveer listened to the Lower House debate on Tuesday 20 November last. It was far from respectful on the part of Labor and the Greens members. They delivered several lengthy contributions, and read letters from transgender families, and read out, in full, the convoluted text of each of the amendments as they were moved. The Government members were silent throughout.
When the Attorney-General rose to speak, however, interjections from the Opposition parties were loud and constant, to the point where she had to stop speaking and wait for quiet before she could resume.
Third, Mr Haneveer has totally ignored the opinions, evidence and legislative alternatives put forward by women’s groups, choosing instead to focus on the Catholic Church and its moral bankruptcy. Talk about picking an easy target for accusations of ‘baseless scaremongering’ and ‘disgraceful slurs against transgender people’.
If Mr Haneveer had chosen to speak to us, we would have provided numerous examples of men identifying as women and gaining access to female only spaces, services and facilities. They have sexually assaulted women in female prisons and women’s shelters, harassed them in female only gyms, and sued them for declining to provide intimate services to male-bodied people.
Obviously it would put a crimp in Mr Haneveer’s pro-trans, anti-trans ‘bigot’ rhetoric to acknowledge these facts, but balance in journalism is generally considered a good thing {unless you’re Mercury journalist, Tim Martain, and the Mercury editorial team – then it’s a journalistic ‘myth’).
Given the overwhelmingly greater propensity of male persons to perpetrate violence, compared to females, it is naïve to assume some men will not take advantage of laws allowing them to easily self-identify as female, and use that legal identity to prey on vulnerable women and children.
Fourth, female people are entitled to safe, secure spaces where male-bodied persons are not present, for a variety of reasons, ranging from embarrassment to significant trauma. Not every teenage girl wants to see a dangling penis and testicles parading around the change room of their local gym (this has happened, too – we have screenshots of images and comments posted on social media by a biological male transwoman talking about proudly displaying his ‘lady penis’ in the community area of a gym locker room).
Finally, Mr Haneveer begrudgingly acknowledges the amendments could benefit from an expert review. Such a review is essential. The drafting is flawed, the use of terminology is inconsistent, untested legal concepts have been introduced, and there are several obvious areas of conflict with existing legislation.
Has anyone asked the government agencies, and other organisations and individuals that will have to administer and interpret these changes what they think about the monstrous legislative debacle now facing them?
And, by the way, framed, decorative birth certificates are popular these days. Some of my grandchildren have them, ordered and displayed by their parents.
The opinion piece was written in response to Anthony Haneveer’s article published in the Advocate newspaper on 23 November. The editor of the Advocate, Luke Sayer, has declined to publish it. He says Women Speak Tasmania has no right of reply since we were not specifically mentioned in Mr Haneveer’s opinion piece.
Op-ed in the Tasmanian Times
Here is the full transcript of the opinion piece by Anthony Haneveer which appeared in The Advocate on 23 November 2018
OPINION: A few little changes would make a big difference for some of our most marginalised people
BIGOTRY and wilful ignorance have reared their ugly heads over a little change to birth certificates.
For most of us, birth certificates are documents we rarely use, holding no information we don’t already know, and when we do need them, we have to go off to Service Tasmania for another copy because we have no idea where we put the last one.
While you can pay a little extra for a decorative option, it’s doubtful many bother to put their kids’ birth certificates on display.
For transgender, intersex and gender diverse people, birth certificates can, however, pose serious problems.
Imagine, for example, living life as a man but having to present a document that states you were born female. That could be more than an embarrassing invasion of privacy; it could lead to discrimination and/or abuse.
We have, as a community, come a long way in accepting and understanding people who are different than the mainstream. Yet there remains much ignorance about, and intolerance of, minorities.
The reaction to the Labor-Green move to make recording gender optional on birth certificates, among other changes, has made this very clear.
The opposition parties saw an opportunity to advance the rights of transgender and gender diverse people by, as the government labelled it, hijacking a bill relating to federal legislation on same-sex marriage.
Attorney-General Elise Archer repeatedly – and perhaps rightly – argued the changes could have unintended consequences and should first be reviewed by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute.
However, her Liberal colleague, the opportunistic Speaker Sue Hickey, crossed the floor in support of the amendments, meaning the bill will now move to the Legislative Council.
In contrast to the generally respectful debate in the House of Assembly, what has been said outside the Parliament has epitomised the worst of the close-mindedness that still exists in our community.
Rather than seeking to understand the motivation behind the changes, and what they would mean for others, many have chosen to give voice to the first thoughts that popped into their heads.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion; and thanks to social media everyone is able to readily express it – participating in public discourse whether they realise it or not. It’s just a pity so few bother to take the time to think a little first.
Worse though are those whose contributions to the debate are shaped not by their ignorance so much as their bigoted beliefs.
The Catholic Church is playing in the shallow end, warning of “profound effects on our society”, seemingly oblivious to the fact it lost what moral authority it ever had long ago. And if that’s how Bob’s left to say what the Archbishop of Hobart had to say.
Where other jurisdictions have allowed individuals to self-identify their gender, men have been permitted, it claims, to use “the law to access female only facilities in order to harm women and girls”. This is the same baseless scaremongering witnessed in redneck US states that led to so-called bathroom bills, and should only be seen as a disgraceful slur against transgender people.
It’s not a reasonable fear, and nor is the further claim that “single sex schooling, medical care, sports competitions, welfare services and religious facilities” are all under threat. Transgender people are no threat to gender-specific activities and services; they’re just people who want to be included.
Yes, in very few cases this has caused controversy in sporting competitions with transwomen believed to have physiological advantages over other competitors because they were born male. But such examples are not “threats”; they are just matters that need to be addressed by sporting administrators with careful consideration.
Churches are not alone in their opposition. In fact, the outrage went all the way to the Lodge, with Scott Morrison mimicking Trump by taking to Twitter. In typical politics-as-usual fashion he tried to make it all about Bill Shorten. It’s not.
What it’s really all about is respecting the dignity, feelings and rights of other people. How is that so unreasonable?
While opponents accuse campaigners for such reforms as “radical social engineers” and the like, they are fighting for real people who are facing challenges and struggles most of us will never know.
Change makes people uncomfortable, but it’s making gender optional on birth certificates is really that big a deal?
Weblink: https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/5772264/birth-certificate-outrage-fueled-by-ignorance
Printed edition:
