Australian documentary: Who decides?

[CassOle]

https://whodecidesfilm.com/

"WHO DECIDES? is a feature documentary exploring the growing national conversation in Australia surrounding the participation of transgender women in female-only spaces, alongside broader questions relating to education, healthcare and public policy.

As these issues increasingly move from sporting fields and schools into courtrooms, government inquiries and parliamentary debate, the film looks beyond the headlines to examine how competing rights, public policy and lived experience intersect. Through interviews with people holding a range of perspectives, alongside those directly affected, experts, advocates, journalists, legal professionals and policymakers, WHO DECIDES? seeks to foster a thoughtful exploration of one of Australia's most contested public conversations."

“And what's absolutely galling is how this manufactured top down grievance that involves 0.5% of trans women”

I think you might find that the issue of excluding male people from female single sex provisions involves excluding 100% of those male people with transgender identities.

It would be absolutely pointless to think that the issue only involved 0.5% of them.

Clue:

Banging on incessantly about your personal hyper disgust sensitivities regarding 0.5% of the population as if they were an existential threat to civilisation as we know it ain't it.

How’d that work out for the lesbian group?

If there was an ability to exclude male people, why did they have to go to court in the first place? And remind us again, did they win the ability to meet with out male people ?

Because 'app access' aren't considered a legitimate aim for obvious reasons.

This.

It's interesting that the pattern is always the same.

It begins with the belief that this is right and fine and will cause no problems.

It begins to break down as many difficulties and problems arise for women. Discussions such as this one start about 'balance of needs', and raising that the issues exist.

The court cases start where women's difficulties or experiences are so severe they have to once again fight for previously established rights because this has obviously not worked for all women, particularly less privileged and more vulnerable groups of women. The law recognises women's equality of need and impact which is not compatible with the wishes of men and activists. (Those wishes are always that those needs and impacts just be ignored and rejected with anger at incompatible issues for women even being mentioned. Spot the binary sexism present.)

The law and boundaries shift back to protecting women, and establish that men with gender identities can have their own resources and facilities and needs met, but cannot simply join the sex class of women in all things - because it effectively removes the needed provisions, safety and protections from the sex class of women. And it is reluctantly but definitely confirmed that in some things sex matters, and cannot be subordinated to gender.

Always the same flow.

The sad thing activists can never see, is that it started from their utopia, and good will, and their desired outcome being embraced and it didn't work. They would merely like the not working for women part to carry on without anyone minding about it or wanting equality or better outcomes for women.

“I don't have to the usual sky Rupert suspects on it speaks for it self.”

equals

this poster doesn’t have to have any evidence to spread misinformation. Meanwhile, the flurry of activity pushes this thread to appear in active so more women know that the film is coming.

The clip has mostly Rupert shillers who are regulars on sky channel shovelling the right wing agit prop. That you don't know who they are makes you 'unqualified' to comment.

The point is the 100% is only 0.5% of the population.And for those very bad at maths means they barely exist.

Exemptions from discrimination requires a legitimate aim to prove a disadvantage. There's no right for anyone to exclude protected groups otherwise.

That isn’t what you posted though.

Aha, I'll go get my paint pens out.

It was. Its small inconsequential population comparatively. That you can't even bring yourself to admit basic maths is testimony to the insecurity of your argument.

A legitimate aim would be that female people with a particular sexual orientation could meet without male people. It is not just a matter of their interest. It is also a safeguarding issue for those female people.

If the ability to exclude was there in law, then they would be able to exclude those male people.

Thanks again for bumping this thread so much, and showing just why the doco has been made.

I am looking forward to watching it.

God I love it when you come and tell us how to feminist.

Fucking banging on about things that affect women as a sex class is all that feminism is.

Because 'app access' aren't considered a legitimate aim for obvious reasons.

Please can you explain? It doesn't seem obvious to me why lesbians aren't allowed networking apps.

And what's absolutely galling is how this manufactured top down grievance that involves 0.5% of trans women

That is what you posted.

I think you are projecting even more than a Hoyts multiplex at this time.

I somehow don’t imagine that Fairgo will trouble us with a reply to your very important points

Nor to the issue of many documented attacks by transwomen on natal women in single-sex spaces

Nor to the issue that MoJ statistics suggest that transwomen commit sexual offences at a higher rate than other men

Nor to the fact that transwomen are such a tiny proportion of the population, but can nevertheless remove single-sex spaces/sports/services from 100% of women

Nor the fact that polling repeatedly shows that the majority of women do not accept men in their single sex spaces/sports/services, regardless of how they identify

inconvenient truths

Looking forward to seeing this when it streams. It looks great!

Oh how tedious. Wish we had an ignore button, though I’d have to keep updating it with all the names.

For the first time I’m starting to feel hopeful for Australia. As soon as the transactivists start in with their hyperbolic insults, you realise someone’s trying to give women a fair chance.

Australia used to be renowned for its tough male culture, with the unfortunate downside of misogyny and sexism. But that seemed to be changing for the better a few decades ago.

Then the trans industry got a foothold and demolished women’s single-sex rights amazingly fast.

Worldwide, the bizarre thing is that men’s sex fetishism has been taken up as a basic human right by people who consider themselves progressive or even left wing.

So I hope this film shows the reality and wakes a lot of people up to reality.

A legitimate aim would be that female people with a particular sexual orientation could meet without male people. It is not just a matter of their interest. It is also a safeguarding issue for those female people.

Maybe, it hasn't been determined yet.

Thanks again for bumping this thread so much, and showing just why the doco has been made.

I'm sure the women of Australia will be all ears to MN musings! 😂

App access to be used to, among others, arrange safe female-to-female ride-sharing opportunities. Yeah, can't see how that would be legitimate.

The introduction of Rupert into the discussion is hilarious really.

It is a contradictory argument. Telling us that Rupert would think women’s rights are going to influence politics in Australia while at the same time telling us that no woman in Australia is concerned about female single sex provisions.

All while then admitting that there is no evidence at all to support that Rupert had anything to do with making the film.

Great stuff.

I was in Oz for 5 weeks earlier this year, had a lovely time and mostly it wasn’t particularly woke! I imagine most people have no idea just how mad it’s got, I think people in the uk have been exposed to more media about it maybe.