“But why are you so interested in this?”

Maybe see if she will watch the recent long interview Sal Grover did on The Mess we're in? Sal is so intelligent and articulate, think this might help your friend understand a bit more about what's been happening?

i get that it's frustrating when you see the full horror of it, but friends/family don't really see it, or see it as such a big deal. But there's no sense in destroying friendships.

I she is in Australia, and you are in Ireland, it may be that she can't really see how legal decisions in Australia affect you. IN a lot of things, it wouldn't be that relevant.

It's because this issue is really international in the way it's behaving across political systems, and how people in politics seem to be affected and influence. It's like the conversation therapy stuff. No one talked about it, at all, at one time, because forced conversion therapy is effectively already illegal, and none of the major psychiatric bodies in the west support their members doing it at all.

Then all of a sudden we see these bills about it being pushed in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and even the UK, as it's really urgent to get it done. And people are suddenly talking like it's happening all over the place has to be stopped.

There are weird things going on with all this stuff and it's clearly international.

"But that doesn't happen. Surely if that happened people would stop it."
Rinse, repeat.

Yes, they do. The trouble here is that words are being changed in their meaning not by natural development of the language but by forced speech. Coerced speech (which is what it is) is undemocratic and authoritarian. The law telling women that they cannot have spaces of their own which exclude men is authoritarian - we can have those spaces and 'legal' sex needs to be taken off the statute books. Self-ID lost traction in the UK because of protests that just what has happened in Australian would happen in the UK.

I got interested in it originally when i married a man who'd desisted from transitioning, and when a cousin transitioned, and then when I started working in a specialist service for transgender people. I also knew someone working at GIDS. You know, life and other human beings as a pp said.

The idea that my ex-husband was ever a woman, rather than a man who'd had a particular life, was factually wrong and anti-feminist. It is a bizarre hangover from 50s and 60s views of the sexes. I've seen arguments that feminism 'won' really easily in the 70s (Sex Discrimination Act etc). It's not that simple.

The Australian legal decision was a correct interpretation of their law IMO. That's why there was such a furore when there were plans to review the law here. And why it was so distressing when the census was fucked up in the UK. Words, numbers, definitions and law do matter.

I've come to the conclusion that people peak in their own time. If she isn't ready to honestly confront all of this, she won't.

I'm in the same position with a few people. I just don't go there. I won't change their mind until they're open to do so.

There's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance around this topic. People don't want to confront it. This is just another way of trying to silence debate.

They wanted the word "woman", then "female", then "biological woman", then it will be "cis woman". Whatever we call ourselves, they want to appropriate it.

OP that's a complete failure on the part of your friend, both in awareness of what is happening and in imagination.

Firstly, of course it affects us all, as women. Redefining women to include men has massive implications. We do not live our lives isolated from other countries and cultures.

Secondly, even if you don't believe that, most people care about all sorts of things that do not affect them directly - the plight of women in Afghanistan, war in Gaza, people in small boats... It would be bizarre and inhuman to only care about ourselves.

I often wonder about this. I was at a bereavement support group this morning and talked about my late DH writing a novel about Scots Border reivers. The first question I was asked was whether he came from the Borders. Why? Can't one be interested in things just because one is interested?

Thought I'd better edit last sentence for grammar.

As she is in Queensland, she is not a woman any more (since June). She is legally a cis woman. She was not born female. Someone assigned her as a cis girl when she was observed at birth. www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/your-rights/for-lgbtiq-people/gender-identity-and-your-rights

Your friend has no right to enter a space and expect it to be female only. She has lost all her rights of record. Roxy Tickle has a Queensland birth certificate which is now not a record of historical fact but a legal figment of his imagination. A Federal Court case was won on that premise.

Should this happen to her by her husband, what does that do to her marriage vows? Her wedding certificate now says what? What validity does her children's birth certificate hold? What validity does her in laws death certificates hold as they are no longer records of historical fact? Death certs here list all children born, their sex, names and dates of birth.

My Mum and Grandmother drummed into me to use my vote. I am 64 so not being able to vote was a recent memory for grannies

Was it good when female only prisons were introduced so that women prisoners were not raped by inmates? If yes, why is it ok to admit male bodied people to these female places now?

Is it good for women to participate in sport for their physical and mental health? If yes, who do we admit male bodied people into female sports which will discourage this (impossible to win, fear of injury).

should women have female only rape crisis centres, or is their fear and pain less important than a male bodied person’s wish/demand to be admitted?

should WAG be able to change and go to the loo away from the male gaze/cameras put up by visiting male bodied people?

are you happy to be called a cervix haver to please a male bodied person who wishes he was a woman?

why did we previously have female only prisons/sports/loos/refuges? Was it a historical anomaly or because of the above?

are women as important as men, or is their role to support men? If they are as important, why can’t they have their own spaces?

Glinner always answers this question with four words.
'Why do you not?'

How lovely. There's something to be said about men with daughters.

“how is this relevant to your life?”

Because it sets a legal precedent that can be called upon in literally any court case and sway the entire outcome afaik.

"Because it undermines CEDAW and that will have ramifications for women internationally. It's not just your own trivial local issue you know. I'm surprised Australians don't seem to care more."

I don't understand why people aren't interested. How has an ideology that states men can be women taken root and spread across the West?
Even if you don't care about women's spaces, the compelled speech is deeply troubling.

I'm interested as I believe in freedom of choice.
Women should be able say "I'm only interested in women" or "I'm only interest in men" or "I'm interested in both men and women" or, indeed, "I'm interested in people who see themselves as women". But they shouldn't have to be forced to accept anyone else. Same for men.

Women should have the freedom to say "i prefer a female doctor"... and get one

Girls and women should know their opposition in a sports match are all female. Or choose to play Mixed sport if they prefer

Its about CHOICE

I watched this discussion recently and Coleman Hughes sums it up pretty well from 38:40. How can you not be interested in this?

It’s fucking infuriating that this person is called a female in the article.

According to Oz press this person is female because of their GI. If Tickle is discriminated against for not being able to go on a female app, then what’s stopping this person bringing a claim for not being placed in the female prison estate (or any other female space)? It may not be a problem to her but for many others it is.

She's trying to put you down by making out there is something weird or abnormal about your interest.

RoyalCorgi has it right here.

I’m not sure meaningful engagement is possible when she is starting from this position.

Whatever reasons you come up with, she will be dismissive of them, because she just doesn’t want to acknowledge that this could be an issue that needs exploring.

Too invested in the groupthink line, for whatever reasons.

She’s got you on the back foot, defending yourself. Turn it back on her, if you can - ask her, as AtrociousCircumstance says, why she isn’t interested.

Why doesn’t she care about vulnerable women in prison, rape support groups, needing intimate care etc? Why doesn’t she care about safeguarding the rights women fought so long and hard for; about safeguarding children?

And why doesn’t she care about freedom of speech and democracy for us all?

She’s behaving like just another smug, sanctimonious, ignorant bigot. It might help you to remember that when you’re talking to her, rather than respecting and/or deferring to her wilfully uninformed position.