Australian womens rights activists recieve death threats in the lead up to a Sydney Womens rights rally

[Manyanamanyana]

Sal Grover and Kirralee Smith, both recently fined ($100k and $95k) for misgendering men imposing on womens spaces, have recieved death threats from a range of transactivist organisations. Sal Grover, a single Mum, has pulled out. I don't blame her one bit. It is sickening that women exercising free speech in this country are subject to this bull sh*t. Kirralee has decided to proceed and both are Warriors. Let Women Speak events in Australia require (and tbf, recieve) considerable police presence in order to defend these (usually middle-aged) women from the "be kind" crowd, who have in the past been violent and are always abusive and disruptive. What Government boasts about having sex-parity with the party, and yet sides with Men who behave like this towards women asking for their rights? All of them, actually. In Australia our sex discrimination act was altered beneath the radar to remove the definition of women and men, and elevate gender identity, meaning that a man who identifies as a woman is for all purposes, a woman in law. This is what Sal and Kirralee are fighting for: a repeal of the changes. Our Prime Minister and his tribe of handmaidens call this a culture war. It is in fact a war on womanhood.
https://archive.md/Eaeru

For the millionth time. Men aren't being prioritised. Disadvantage is.

The principle when it comes to exceptions is about who is disadvantaged most. Sometimes its males & sometimes females. DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

That's how justice works. It's about fairness applied to the specifics. Not 'just 'cause'.

It's funny hey because transactivists managed to convince a large enough proportion of the public, in many countries, that people who identify as trans face life threatening discrimination, and that the kids require experimental medical treatment to prevent suicide, despite crime statistics or suicide statistics backing neither position. No statistics back either of these claims. And yet, despite in the incredibly high rate of male violence against women, and historical facts that demonstrate women being shut out of public life, discriminated against in law, health, education, the workplace, sport, and elsewhere, the public just generally shrugs when our rights are scaled back to make way for daintily dressed men. Our derailer-in-chief posted an article from Australia's ABC before. The ABC has refused repeatedly to interview or include gender critical women or men in any of its media, there is never any balance. Which makes it hard to cut through and leads people to think they are alone in thier thinking. We need a big-name to speak up in Australia, like JKR in the UK or Sophie Cunningham in the US to really cut through (not to downplay all the groundwork laid by the brave souls who have been speaking up for years. But, something like 85% of Australian parents believe Gender Ideology should not be taught in schools, so the sentiment is strong, is just that the censorship and activism is strong as well.

Sentiment is against gender ideology but it it not strong. If it were strong, people wouldn't vote for labour (which they overwhelming did last election). They would say "no, I will not vote for a party who pushes this crap."

Instead they say they don't like gender ideology, but vote for labour anyway because they prioritise other issues over this one. As long as that remains the case, labour will keep with this policy. Also ABC is all but irrelevant these days.

So lemme get this straight. Nobody knows about this 'problem' in Australia because of censorship but yet everyone is against this 'problem' ….that they don't know exists…but don't know everyone else agrees with them so are 'powerless' to prevent a problem they don't know exists?

Gotcha!

See i thought this was being said but couldn’t understand the ‘lying’ bit

i get what gretel is saying but it in no way disproves what other posters are saying…they aren’t lying

Ah yeah it does actually because the initial claim was:

"In Australia our sex discrimination act was altered beneath the radar to remove the definition of women and men, and elevate gender identity, meaning that a man who identifies as a woman is for all purposes, a woman in law."

And that is false because exceptions in anti discrimination law apply for natal women in some circumstances if they suffer a disadvantage.

For the millionth time. Men aren't being prioritised. Disadvantage is

How is disadvantage being prioritised? If disadvantage is to be prioritised, then women’s rights should win out, always. Men are never disadvantaged by being asked to compete or be in prison with other men, when compared to their sex class. Women are always disadvantaged when men are allowed into women’s sport and prisons.

The fact the Australian government does not see this, and the fact the SDA doesn’t reflect this, means the rights of men are always prioritised. If it wasn’t the case, women could successfully enforce the SDA in the current controversies, the man playing AFL. But they can’t.

You are repeating yourself .This is false & examples of why are up thread already.

It's pretty clear that most of us on this thread are advocating for a blanket ban of men in women's spaces whereas @Gretel346 seems to think it should be done on a case-by-case basis (so no blanket ban).

Okay, simplify your position then.

Do men have advantage when playing AFL?
Are women disadvantaged if a man plays AFL?
If yes, why is the man being allowed to play women’s AFL? Why can’t or why isn’t the competition excluding him using appropriate exemptions under the SDA?
If you think whether he has advantages depend on the circumstances, what circumstances do you think those might be?

For reference for everyone else, this is the current live case:

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/aflw/australia-is-messed-up-fury-as-transgender-player-approved-to-compete-in-womens-footy-competition/news-story/c24b89a9e73c0375283579d24f88513e?amp

Would you consider it fair for blanket race exemptions always? Always giving them advantage even when they aren't being disadvantaged?

You are so fixated on female entitlement you aren't able to comprehend the broader consequences of how principles work.

And this shortsightedness has always been the blind spot of sex realists.

@Gretel346 is probably a TRA who believes that all male physical advantage in sport can be eliminated by taking cross-sex hormones for a period of time.

I think it’s more likely Gretel is a TRA who thinks trans identifying men should be allowed to do what they want because they’re trans identifying men.

Yes, we ban all men from playing in women's sports regardless of how well they perform against the competition. Even if a man is really old, fat or terrible at the sport. We don't say "we'll you're terrible at this sport so you can play against the women because you'll have no advantage over them"

A man can not compete in a women's competition even if he comes last every time.

What we've seen the world over is that terrorism is extremely successful. Trans extremism showcases repeated threats of violence and murder made against women (as exemplified in the op). This has extended to threats to property, politicians and leading figures and anyone who fails to obey the distorted demands of trans extremists to mangle language, facts and reality.

They've been remarkably successful, self identifying as a "social justice movement" while in reality being an oppressive force that uses violence and threats to remove the rights of other groups - especially women and the rights of children to be safeguarded from harm.

Challenging so many unhinged and dangerous men (and some women) is challenging - their fury escalates when others highlight their unreasonable anti social, anti democratic demands and unhinged threats of violence.

It's not surprising that women are terrified in the face of this. I have so much respect for our sisters who continue to speak out in the face of this MVAWG.

There's nothing stopping any females who may feel disadvantaged by this situation & as such discriminated against taking the governing sporting body to court for discrimination & demanding an exemption.

No one is suggesting there isn't a case for an exemption to be applied here or there isn't the means to do so.

Do YOU think they have a case?

Desperately derailing here are we? I wonder why?

Well you haven't stated your position clearly, so we are trying to identify it. Was I wrong or do you support allowing some transwomen to compete in women's sports?

You are avoiding the question. Race? Principles?
Do you even understand the question?

I don't know the details. So I couldn’t tell you.

I feel like you are trying to muddy the waters by bring race into it, which is completely different to sex. Sex difference exist and are the reason we have separate sports. That is the issue at hand.

I already answered that question upthread in terms of proven disadvantages pertaining to the individual circumstances.

So the answer is yes, you do sometimes support letting men into women's sports. So I was right in what I said.

The fact you need any more details than provided in the article demonstrates your position.

A man is playing in women’s AFL. Do you think he has advantage? Do you think there’s a circumstance where he could not have advantage? Do you think there’s a circumstance where it’s acceptable to have him in the women’s changing rooms?