In June 2020 the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute released its Final Report No. 31 on Legal Recognition of Sex and Gender. The report reviewed the 2019 changes to birth certificate laws that introduced self-identification of gender and concluded that it could identify no significant negative impacts from those changes.
Women Speak Tasmania did not agree. On 1 July 2020 we joined Dr Geoff Holloway and other advocates as signatories to a detailed, evidence-based response that challenged the TLRI’s findings, its consultation process, and several of its recommendations — particularly those affecting children.
At the time we posted the following on Facebook:
“Women Speak Tasmania are signatories to the following detailed response to the recently released Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) report on the Legal Recognition of Sex and Gender. ‘We trust that the TLRI will take our comments seriously and respond accordingly as there are potentially long-term damaging consequences for children and adults from some of the suggestions made in the TLRI report.’ This is in response to TLRI report concluding that they can’t identify any negative impact of these legal changes, contrary to many evidence TLRI received but ignored.”
The full response (PDF) is available to download below. It sets out why the TLRI’s approach was flawed and why its recommendations posed real risks to women, girls, and children.
Key Concerns Raised in the July 2020 Response
1. A targeted, not broad, consultation The TLRI’s process was heavily weighted toward input from trans advocacy groups. Girls and women from the general community, parents, and the wider medical profession (beyond the Australian Psychological Society) were largely absent. The only organisations invited to advise in person were a Department of Health group and an ephemeral community organisation. The response noted that a purely legalistic “human rights” framing, without comprehensive analysis of medical science, was inadequate for policy affecting medical and surgical interventions.
2. Gender stereotypes and the failure to define terms The response argued that “gender” is a vague, culturally variable social construction based on stereotypes. It cannot serve as a stable legal category for changing sex on official documents. Sex, by contrast, is a biological, scientific fact. The TLRI report’s statement that gender is “a person’s deeply felt sense of being a man, a woman, both, in between, or something other” was described as having no grounding in science — akin to someone claiming a deeply felt sense of being a wombat.
3. Birth certificates record sex, not gender If gender (fluid and changeable, potentially multiple times in a lifetime) is to be recorded, it should be a separate field. Sex is immutable. The response recommended inserting a clear biological definition of sex into the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999 (Tas), drawing on the pre-2013 definitions in the federal Sex Discrimination Act and NSW Anti-Discrimination Act:
“man means a member of the male sex irrespective of his age. woman means a member of the female sex irrespective of her age.”
4. Misuse of “intersex” The response clarified that intersex (differences of sex development) refers to rare, identifiable biological conditions — not transgender identification. More than 99.98% of humans are unambiguously male or female at birth. Many intersex advocacy groups worldwide actively resist being co-opted into the transgender movement. Using intersex conditions as justification for self-ID or to expand the category was described as manipulation.
5. Consequences for women and single-sex spaces The TLRI claimed there was “no evidence” that self-identification laws had led to increased assaults against women in jurisdictions that had adopted them. The response pointed out that submissions (including from the Feminist Legal Clinic) had provided evidence of male-bodied individuals entering female prisons and spaces and committing assaults, and that more cases were accumulating. Self-ID simply removes barriers that previously existed.
6. Distortion of data and research Sex is a fundamental, objective variable in crime statistics, health data, domestic violence, child protection, and mortality figures. Replacing or conflating it with subjective “gender” undermines the reliability of public data. The response also rejected the TLRI’s claim that transwomen are more likely to be victims than perpetrators at a population level as unsubstantiated.
7. “Cisgender” and euphemistic language The response objected to the term “cisgender” as deeply offensive to women who understand themselves simply as women, not as a counterpart to transgender identity. It also criticised the TLRI’s use of the phrase “men behaving badly in women’s spaces” — noting that this is criminal assault, not mere bad behaviour.
8. The Gillick competence proposal – the most serious concern The TLRI recommended enshrining the Gillick competence test in legislation for children under 16 who wish to change their legal gender. The response described this as “possibly the most objectionable part” of the report.
Gillick competence is a subjective, case-by-case common-law test with no psychometric basis. The response highlighted that the vast majority of children and adolescents presenting with gender distress have significant co-occurring mental health issues (up to 96% in some studies) and high rates of autism. It is difficult to see how such children could be routinely assessed as competent to consent to irreversible medical and legal steps.
Drawing on the work of Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, the response argued that children cannot give genuine informed consent to treatments whose long-term consequences (loss of fertility, sexual function, bone health) they cannot fully comprehend, especially when the decision-making environment is shaped by social and political pressures.
Specific Recommendations Critiqued
The response also examined particular TLRI recommendations in detail:
- Changing the Long Title of the BDMR Act to prioritise “legal recognition for trans and gender diverse Tasmanians” effectively sidelines the recognition of ordinary boys and girls.
- Guidelines for the Registrar that excluded parents’ and carers’ will and preference (contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).
- Making counselling optional rather than compulsory.
- Creating an open-ended list of “gender descriptors” based on stereotypes.
- Allowing child consent to override concerns in medical interventions while criminalising some intersex treatments.
Why This Response Mattered in 2020
The TLRI report was released at a time when the 2019 self-ID laws were already in operation. Its conclusion that no negative impacts could be identified stood in contrast to the evidence and concerns raised in multiple submissions. The July 2020 response from Dr Holloway and signatories, including Women Speak Tasmania, placed those concerns on the public record in clear, referenced terms.
We believed then — and the document states — that some of the TLRI’s suggestions carried potentially long-term damaging consequences for children and adults, particularly girls and women. Recording that position formally was an important part of our advocacy.
This 2020 intervention formed part of Women Speak Tasmania’s consistent work to ensure that law reform in this area is based on biological reality, proper consultation, robust evidence, and the protection of sex-based rights and child safeguarding.
Downloads:
Download the full July 2020 response (PDF)
TLRI Final Report No. 31 (June 2020):