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

Even if I thought case-by-case risk assessment was an appropriate response to the threat that men pose to female prisoners, I'd still argue that the implementation is hopelessly misguided.

The 'cases' being risk-assessed are the men. No-one is considering the needs and vulnerabilities of the female prisoners amongst whom these male criminals are being housed on a case-by-case basis. We know that a high proportion of female prisoners are victims of male violence and abuse. These are female prisons and yet the vulnerabilities of the female prisoners are completely absent from this shabby pretence at risk assessment.

Male-centred thinking and policy-making, anyone?

She won't give a clear answer because she thinks a transwoman on cross sex hormones for a period of time has no advantage over women. But she doesn't want to outright say it.

The point was to give an example of why special exemptions require a disadvantage because you don't seem to understand the consequences when it is applied to females. But clearly this is beyond your understanding.

And doesn’t acknowledge that the Australian government takes that position too.

And doesn’t acknowledge that women should be allowed to protest this without death threats.

I note that she will not confirm nor deny this: "She won't give a clear answer because she thinks a transwoman on cross sex hormones for a period of time has no advantage over women."

She would rather muddy the waters by bringing race or anything else up to avoid having to admit her true opinion on the issue of men in women's sports (which is in quotes above).

@Gretel346

Do you accept that mental harm is caused to many women and many women are excluded on cultural grounds by someone with a penis being in female only spaces?

Depends on the individual & the circumstances. If there's no physical risk or competitive disadvantage I think its fine but I think sporting bodies of individual sports are best placed to determine that because its not really my area of expertise given the complexity.

Should they be in the change rooms? My view is all change rooms should have locked cubicles because plenty of women are uncomfortable changing in front of others regardless of sex. So if discomfort is the bar it should be applied uniformly.

Why are you avoiding my question and sticking to vague responses?

Do you think a transwoman can lose all his male physical advantages in sport by going on cross sexed hormones for a given period of time? Yes or no

Also do you ever think there is a situation where it may be ok for a transwoman to be placed in a women's prison? Yes or no

Blind spots? You think it's the gender critical who have blind spots? 😂

Do you know what, Gretel, I'm damned sure that if the physical advantage in sport lay with women that men would be screaming their heads off about female transgender people taking mens places in sports teams and that some would be threatening violence against them and some would be carrying that violence out.

So bottom line is, you think men can have no physical advantages in some circumstances and that’s okay. Got it. So an intellectually poor, anti-scientific, sexist, and misogynistic position to take.

And you think men should be accommodated in women’s sport by changing rooms removing the communal area for sports teams to bond. Got it.

And prisons? You think it’s okay to lock men up with women too, “depending on the circumstances”?

Discomfort isn't grounds for anti discrimination exemptions only disadvantage is.
If we had to organise society based purely on subjective reasons for discomfort we maybe in quite the logistical pickle. As I said, where's my change room locked cubicle if my discomfort in changing publicly should matter?

You people don't live in the real world.

I told you, she thinks cross sexed hormones are a miracle drug that can remove all male physical advantages in sport. But she is too chicken shit to say it.

Honestly, I think it is quite telling that she is so ashamed of her position on this issue that she just can't outright say it. I would have far more respect if she just said "yes, I think transwomen should sometimes be allowed in women's spaces" rather than trying to be coy about it.

Don't know I'm not a sports scientist…& neither are you.

And yes I do think its fine if trans women are in female prisons IF the appropriate risk assessments are conducted & appropriate housing is available like single cells.

Discomfort isn't grounds for anti discrimination exemptions only disadvantage is.

We already have single sex spaces for disadvantages. Men are not allowed in women's spaces as it would disadvantage them (and transwomen are men).

Where? In Australia?

I'm not, but all of the leading sporting organisations in the world have done their research and found that it is only fair to ban men from women's sport, including the olympics and fifa. I'm going with what the experts say.

So you support men sometimes being allowed into women's spaces. You should have just said that from the outset and saved us time.

I told you from the start & repeatedly it depends if a disadvantage can be proven so I don't know what on earth you are going on about.

World Rugby has determined males shouldn’t be in women’s rugby.

Australian Rugby has gone against this, because they think they can’t exclude males due to the gender identity part in the SDA.

God the aggression just drips off of you. Hideous.

Well all the major international sporting organisations have done mountains of research and found that transwomen still have male advantages which is why they are now banned from competing in nearly every international sporting competition. So I'm going to trust all their research scientists over you.

“You people” 🙄

Bloody hell, that is beyond stupid.

Um, I never said not to. In fact I specifically said if a disadvantage can be proven. You seem be responding to some fantasy you have of my position rather than the actual words.

Maybe its time to step away from the keyboard?

But your discrimination claim only works if you believe people can charge sex. They can't.

And your claim for men to use women's changing areas is based on the discomfort of changing in the men's. Why should your, later identified, discomfort trump the discomfort of the women for whom those facilities were originally separated out?

Do you actually care about anyone's discomfort but your own?

We are the ones who do live in the real world. You live in a fantasy world where men can choose to be women.

But your discrimination claim only works if you believe people can charge sex. They can't.

Sorry but that's incoherent.

And your claim for men to use women's changing areas is based on the discomfort of changing in the men's. Why should your, later identified, discomfort trump the discomfort of the women for whom those facilities were originally separated out?

I specifically said locked cubicles should be available to all just as toilets are. There's no difference in my view.