Australia - Lesbian group's been to court for female only events

[TheKhakiQuail]

Just a little update from Australia. Last month the Lesbian Action Group went to court seeking an exemption in order to hold female only (and gay only) lesbian events. They had previously applied to the Australian Human Rights Commission who denied the exemption, so this is the next step. Live tweets are available on Lesbian Action Groups twitter/X account Feb 23 & 24, and online submission available Lesbian Action Group Inc. v AHRC: Online file if anyone wants to check it out.

Overall LAGs lawyers did a great job of explaining how sex and gender ID (along with sexual orientation) in our Sex Discrimination Act work more fairly if treated as separate characteristics each deserving of protection, rather than assuming Gender Identity changes one's sex for the purposes of the law. Provided guidelines from the time describing sex as biological and gender identity as social characteristics or something like that. The equivalent of Ben Cooper's approach in FWS, and IMO the most likely to be successful.

The AHRCs reasoning is that TWAW and excluding a vulnerable sub-group of women is discriminatory, that 90% of TW say having their GI publicly affirmed is important to them and they have high suicidality. And that the Sex Discrimination Act should not be used to discriminate against people protected within it (interestingly sexual orientation was added to the SDA at the same time as GI, yet AHRC had no problem with LAG excluding gay men from their events, so they are not being very consistent with their reasoning).

The outcome of the case may be affected by the ruling on Giggle V Tickle when that comes out soon. It wasn't obvious how the judge is leaning, but he did call out the AHRC's lawyer claiming LAG want to exclude TW because they see them as "unworthy", when there was no evidence of that in any of LAGs submissions. He also asked how the AHRCs reasoning applies to the exclusion of cisgender men, as the AHRC didn't seem to have any problem with that part of the exemption. (The answer was that being excluding from lesbian events validates men's identity so it's fine. Not sure that holds up well if you think about other groups who might be discriminated against in ways that are typical of how society treats people of a particular ethnicity etc).

While there wasn't a visible 'peaked in court' arc like Lord Hodge in FWS and the judge in Deeming V Pesutto, the questions suggest at least neutrality and willingness to explore the arguments, which is refreshing.

So now we wait and see.

The argument included that they needed public validation? Wow!!!!

So its the duty of a homosexual woman to provide her body to validate a man, is it?

Any man who wishes to force himself on a lesbian group knowing damn well they do not want him is NOT the kind of man those women should have to deal with whenever they wish to meet together, he will be an absolute arse and that's apart from the basic fact he's male! Ffs this is insane. Why is a woman's homosexuality something a man gets to control and play with while she has no right to refuse? Why are women men's animate sex toys?

I despair.

Honestly these tribunals are better entertainment than TV

Well, they draw the line at requiring lesbians to sleep with people they don't want to, but the Aussie left (yep, my people) are all in on making sure men can access women's change rooms & lesbian spaces via self id, rent uteruses, buy sex etc.

That's what grabbed my attention to, they said the quite bits out loud. Lesbians must be made to accept them or they'll commit suicide, how much more proof does anyone need that these privileged pricks are controlling bully's. 🤬

This one is kind of an appeal, in the last round the AHRC had an expert witness who said this type of lesbian feminism (put forward by Prof Sheila Jeffreys and LAG) has more in common with nazi ideology than with the views of the rest of the lgbtq community. She doubled down and some of her comments are in the previous decision document, the judge didn't seem bothered by it. This one probably isn't going to buy that given he pushed back on the 'see trans people as unworthy' nonsense.

But the judge also seemed most interested in the technical aspects of previous rulings about how broad or narrow exemption powers should be, so his final decision may be more about that than anything else. He could be looking for a loophole that says he shouldn't do anything, or one that says he can create whatever exemptions he wants, I didn't follow the obscure case law references.

But if the Act cannot be used to discriminate against protected groups then surely by that same reasoning lesbians are protected and cannot be discriminated against? If they argue that keeping TW out discriminates against TW, then surely they must see that letting them in discriminates against lesbians? To protect same sex attraction they need to define and defend sex. And they will know this from the Lesbian Intervenors’ arguments in FWS.

Mind-blowing that a judge could decide any other way, but given the Australian legislation is more recent I assume it conflates sex and gender more, which would make the judicial task harder.

Sex and gender are the same thing in Australia and under the Sex Discrimination Act. Thanks Julia Gillard for doing that. It means that legally transwomen are women.

Thanks for the summary OP. Fingers crossed, but I honestly cannot believe how batshit all.of this is.

Well, it's been muddied by the removal of the definition of sex, but sex and gender identity are in the SDA as separate characteristics, along with sexual orientation, marital status etc. There's nothing in the SDA that says GI changes your sex category, any more than being gay changes your sex category or getting married changes your sex category. AHRC is pushing for the interpretation that in common use sex is changeable therefore woman is anyone who identifies as one. But I think the actual legal framework is not dissimilar to the UK - it all comes down to interpretation.

Yes, it seems only common sense that different minority groups should all have rights. But the AHRC frame it as they are all lesbians, but groups like LAG are being exclusionary of minority group lesbians (ie TW lesbians).

LAGS lawyer was arguing for lesbian's rights in a couple of ways. The first is if the judge in Giggle was wrong about sex, and it is biological. The second (as Giggle 2 may also rule that the sex of 'woman' includes TW) is that even if sex/woman is a broader, more inclusive grouping, then within that biologically female lesbians are a subgroup with unique needs that should be catered for. She did a pretty good job of trying to find a pathway forward regardless of what Giggle 2 finds - and given that the lead judge in Giggle 2 is a true believer who was arguing the AHRCs case for them, that was a necessary option to provide.

I think it bonkers, I will continue to think it's bonkers for evermore, that the law considered it proper to include males in the lesbian category. What is the legal definition of lesbian if it's not a female homosexual. Even if the law allows men to be women if they want, a law that allows a male to be female if he wants and therefore identify as a lesbian isn't fit to be called law, and the legislators who passed a law like that are not fit for any damn thing. 🤬

Yes, it is completely bonkers. There are a number of organisations here pushing 'Stonewall law' as it's called in the UK. We are a long way behind the UK, and a lot of things are bonkers, but there have also been a lot of tiny changes over the last few years as the pushback has begun.

Good to know, I think the grip the Global Left have on the political square in the West is also starting to loosen. That might help accelerate the pushback in many Western countries, because the politicians will start to jump ship, we've seen a bit of that here in the UK. Common sense might yet prevail, although allowing males to identify as female homosexuals is an embarrassment the left will never live down.

I'm gobsmacked that they think there are two groups of 'lesbians' and one has more rights than the other and one group has to be a support group for the special men lesbians otherwise they wouldn't feel their whole selves.

What the actual fuck?

TheKhakiQuail in the last round the AHRC had an expert witness who said this type of lesbian feminism (put forward by Prof Sheila Jeffreys and LAG) has more in common with nazi ideology than with the views of the rest of the lgbtq community.

That bring me back to Days of Yore when the misogynistic insult du jour was
'feminazi', remember that?

You don't have to be a Sheila Jeffreys to assert that lesbians are women who are sexually [as well as emotionally, of course] attracted to other women, and because sex is a physical thing, the biological definition of 'woman' is the only one that makes sense in the context of lesbianism.

The very concept of 'the male lesbian' is illogical and unreasonable, and the fact that 'the male lesbian' has rights enshrined in legislation is mindblowingly daft.

Thank you very much for the updates, TheKhakiQuail, though I read them with trepidation 😦

the fact that 'the male lesbian' has rights enshrined in legislation is mindblowingly daft.

Rights to protect those men from the reality, expression and legal protections of women's homosexuality while they cosplay.

Well, they'd prefer you just thought of it as one very inclusive group of lesbians...

The good thing about this ideology is it tends to jump the shark. If you get a normie judge like the one in the Deeming v Pesutto defamation case, and you stand there with a straight face arguing that someone is virtually a Nazi, and then the evidence behind it is so laughably weak, it does rather make them think twice about what you are trying to convince them.

When is the judgment expected? Also can we know more about Sheila Jeffreys please. Thanks for the updates The Khaki Quail.

I had a boogie and I think it’s a different Jeffreys who made the nazi comment.

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/sep/05/lesbian-action-group-trans-bisexual-women-ban-ahrc-ntwnfb

Which nicely hides the reality of some very excited men having a very lovely time experiencing being among homosexual women, and the hope of having sex with one. The women's homosexuality makes them absolutely thrilling to be around/harass for sex.

Why should men have the right in law to harass and voyeur for their own excitement, using those women's bodies? And even without touching one, they are using those women's bodies; no other part of those women is of the faintest interest. They are props in a man's sex life.

Just to make things confusing, both sides had expert witnesses with the same surname! Prof Sheila Jeffreys on LAGS side, and Dr Elena Jeffreys on AHRCs side, who is a sex worker advocate & academic.

Dr J was the one comparing Prof J to nazis.

Often around 6 months after the hearing, so maybe August? Prof Sheila Jeffreys is an Australian feminist in her 70s. She's quite well known, I probably should know more about her as she probably set up the first women's studies courses or somesuch. Her expert witness report is on LAGs webpage (https://lesbianactiongroup.org.au/downloads)

It's so easy to get confused.

Fingers cross this goes well for the Australian lesbians. The whole thing is ridiculous.

(I used boogie instead of google btw) .