So many political narratives on the left and the right are now overly concerned about the cultural and philosophical state of the female person. We once thought that gender would become less prominent in public debate but that is not what the 21^st century is giving us.

On the left, they have made “female” a gender identity that can be claimed with no reference to the sexed human body. In reaction, the right is constructing elaborate theories about how the politically empowered female body is “feminising” government systems, economies, and destroying civilisation.

A couple of years ago I locked horns with Jeniffer Bilek about the opinions of Jordan Peterson. Peterson was creating theories that women were overwhelmingly driven by the instinct to mother, and because birth rates were declining (because of feminism), we were facing a situation where women were making cultural nests with their barren wombs for trans identified men. Therefore, men having aggressively and undemocratically usurped women’s language, spaces and rights is the fault of women and more specifically single women, and more broadly feminism. It’s a crackpot theory, and crackpot Bilek, for whatever reason loved it.

What Peterson actually said was that maternal instinct is “hyper-powerful” and is the “defining characteristic of femininity”. Women entering into the “political arena” without having resolved this instinct in its “proper place”, which is of course bearing and birthing, has made femininity in the political sphere a very dangerous force. Peterson based his theory on the concept that “childless women infantilise everything”.

Peterson went on to evidence his claim in the percentage of women in “woke” disciplines in university.

This dodgy methodology of evidencing “feminisation” with percentages of women doing something has become quite viral. Cultural commentators on the right are seeking places that are statistically dominated by women, to evidence the driver of civilisation decline is in the female body engaging in public life.

We hear of the 55% of females voting for people who do bad things, and high percentages of women in HR etc. The politics and the departments, so the argument goes, are becoming dangerously feminised, and combined with low birth rates, this is becoming civilisation threatening. The narrative then steps into the argument that women are best to stay in the home.

I have pointed out that there is a serious problem with the methodology here. Anyone who has even a “woke” degree like mine, knows that you would never get away with this argument structure in any serious research discipline. Correlation does not equal causation. There are many reasons that women, for instance, are more attracted to the left of politics than the right, one of those reasons may be that the right are shaming women for not having babies without considering the economic issues. Another could be figures like Tate and the thousands of characters like him that we see daily on the socials.

Then we have Gad Saad. Mr Saad has a theory called “suicidal empathy”. Roughly this idea is that society is literally killing itself with kindness. Our sympathy, particularly for Muslim migrants is leading us to welcome very bad ideologies into our society and this is killing us. That is abridged of course. This theory is translating to the gender issue to confirm what Peterson is saying about women being dominated by their empty wombs. This week Saad tweeted that “Suicidal Empathy is fuelled by women”.

So, the problem is not just women, not just that women are not having enough babies, the problem is women in the public sphere, in politics, the problem in short, is feminism. Feminism has caused all the things to go wrong. If people want me to, I will do a separate blog on why this is very, very stupid. But I am yet to get to the most disturbing point.

This week Stephanie Bastiaan, who is the Head of Advocacy for Women’s Forum Australia, wrote a piece in The Spectator that has caused me to finally cancel my subscription to the magazine I have been writing in for years.

Women’s Forum Australia are a conservative advocacy group, I think we can say it is a Catholic advocacy group, who have been active in the fight against gender identity in Australian law. So they are on “my side” of the gender debate, kind of. The women from Women’s Forum have been very supportive of Sall Grover, and you will scarcely see a picture of a court trial, in Sydney anyway, without the Women’s Forum ladies in shot. I have been supportive of Stephanie, who often is seen on conservative media, very accurately summarising what are essentially feminist arguments against gender identity. But…

The article I took exception to was titled “How a feminised public square lost the plot on sex”. In the article Stephanie trots out all the nonsense right-wing arguments about women’s bodies existing in places “feminises” them. Bastiaan claimed that “in Australia, gender ideology is, at its core, a woman-driven problem.”

Bastian wrote:

“The institutions hollowing out women’s sex-based rights are not run by shadowy men in back rooms. They are run, increasingly, by women: a majority-female federal Labor government, a public service that is 60 per cent women, a thicket of agencies where the gatekeepers of our rights are overwhelmingly female – and they all seem to sit on the same side of progressive politics.”

The problem with this thesis is legion. We know that a lot of the leaders who implement GI in Australia are women, and heaven forbid if I would take agency away from women. But even the change to the SDA that Gillard made in 2013 can’t possibly have been her idea. Gillard was in a minority government at the time. She said more recently that she did it with the rationale that some men feel they are born in the wrong body. That’s not her idea. It’s a statement of nonsense.

The reality is that government is not run just by people, it’s run by policy, and policy is now not accountable to the people anymore than it is driven by women. My argument has always been that we need to make the policy acountable to the citizens it serves.

GI as a policy has many roots, and the research of Genevive Gluck is very comprehensive on this issue, you should read it. All the origins of GI are male, and Stephanie has conceded that the origins of GI are “nuanced”. She doesn’t seem to want to give fault to men in anything.

The roots of GI are not nuanced, they are documented and clear. I have also tracked, not just GI, but many harmful ideologies for women that are now in in policy, back to their source, which is overwhelmingly the United Nations, and other international policy generation organisations.

In addition, the idea that the Australian Labor Party is run by women is quite mad. There has only ever been one female leader of the ALP and that was Julia Gillard and she precariously presided over a minority government for three years. The Australian Labor Party is 135 years old.

And now the issue that I found most offensive, that relates the right-wing narrative about women ruling policy by placing their bodies in public life and “feminising” things. Stephanie used the figure of the public service being 60% female as evidence that women are a “driving” factor in GI. I recently posted a thread of industries that were dominated by women in Britain in 1909, none of which were driven by women. Women have long dominated administration and men dominate the trades. There are reasons for this, and they are mostly sex based.

The public sector is currently huge, too big in my opinion, and employs around 50% of Australian workers. I know a lot of female public servants, some are in for the trans thing, but most of my friends, obviously, are not. The reason for this is because most of my friends are people I have chosen to be my friends. Anecdotal evidence is precarious evidence. The point is that women in the public service are co-erced to run with GI, that some do willingly is imaterial, it is coersion and it is illiberal and undemocratic becasue it is not supported by the people the public service is supposed to serve.

Neither women nor men run the public service, not even the leader of the department runs the public service, policy runs the public service.

When I criticised Stephanie’s analysis on X I received a bunch of comments from people who don’t know that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Also people pointing out to me the corruption of women I have been criticising for years, as if they were telling me for the first time that Anna Cody is a woman.

The idea is that women should have some kind of sister loyalty as they go to work, and that Cody, who takes 400K a year for the corruption she instils in our laws, should be immune from corruption because of womb and her loyalty to the sisterhood. Here we are getting into the contradictory nature of the argument.

Men are not singled out by right wing commentators for their role in GI, because it is assumed they naturally won’t care about the removal of women’s rights and that they will be on the side of perverts. Sounds a bit sexist to me.

Critiquing women for being involved in corruption because they are women is not an argument. Are men involved in war that kills men? Shouldn’t men not send men to war.

These poorly researched talking points are the culture war side of what we are currently trying to argue is not a culture war.

Toxic femininity is just the right’s reaction to toxic masculinity; such discourse keeps the focus on cultures rather than the policy and politics side of the debate. Women’s Forum would do well to find a serious policy or research advisor, because I really do wish them well in their fight against gender identity.

Subscribe now

The issue of removing gender identity and gender generally from law is frequently encased in debates about pronouns, men in dresses, international law and liberalism. These fights are often grounded in a disagreement about the strategy of removing gender identity from law completely vs a mountain-by-mountain approach to the ultimate goal that we know must come.

Similar debates were had by the suffragettes, and indeed by the most famous suffragette family, the Pankhursts. The debate then was about whether it was worth arguing for universal suffrage or to try to get landed and upper-class women the vote first, as an interim measure.

Sylvia Pankhurst, I must say my favourite Pankhurst (even though she was a commie), was uncompromising about bringing working-class women into the fight, and she was not going to insult women by telling them they must advocate for rich women first.

Sylvia set up her base in the working-class East End of London and became of real use to working women, especially through the First World War. Sylvia set up child care facilities and services for women who had to work to feed their families. Her commitment to the worker and the worker’s cause cost Sylvia her relationship with her sister and her mother. I imagine she also lost some seriously powerful connections in London. She was a woman of principle.

Political debates are not always conducted with honour, and when I disagreed with a friend on the issue of gender in law some time ago, the next day he went into a message group and had people call me a Nazi, a bigot and an extremist in order to marginalise my influence in the debate. It worked. And yet I remain unrepentant, because my reasons for taking this stance are very rational and well thought out. So that is the topic of this post.

In the early nineties, the UN decided to change the language around women’s rights from sex to gender. It has been well documented that money began to flow into what used to be women’s studies to change it to gender studies, and now all the human rights language around the protection of women’s bodies from men’s bodies is encased in language about gender.

We could pretend this was all a happy accident, we could pretend it was all led by nasty feminists, but objectively, the erasure of female as a human rights category has been engineered and paid for by governmental bodies, using the most nefarious of characters. But this is not my topic today.

My topic is to question the effectiveness of the use of gender in government for the purpose for which gender was said to be placed into government. The intention of gender in human rights law, is supposed to be for the protection of women.

Putting gender identity aside for a minute, we can clearly see that what the UN have defined gender inequity as the greatest danger to women from men everywhere and always. It is a subtle fiction that the quiet observer may not notice. It’s a shit sandwich in a civil rights package.

The claim that gender inequity is the root of all violence from men to women is backed by mountains of research, much of which I have read. The data is very useful if you read it properly, which the UN do not. One frequently quoted multinational quantitative study of violence against women in the Asia Pacific region is most interesting, and it has recently disappeared from the UN website.

When you read the data in the study Why Do Some Men Use Violence Against Women and How Can We Prevent It? Quantitative Findings from the United Nations Multi-country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific … takes breath… a much more realistic conclusion is that the root of violence against women is not gender inequity but misogyny.

We quite logically see that a danger to African American people in the United States is racism, that a danger to Jewish people is antisemitism, a danger to gay people is homophobia, so why are we so terrified of misogyny? Why are women being arrested, fined, and dragged through the courts for “transphobia” when misogyny has never been subject to legal sanctions in any substantial way?

The way that sexual discrimination has been structured in Australia and internationally is focused on the characteristic of sex and not the characteristic of being female. Gender removes the focus of the law completely, not just from sex, but from all of the realities of living in a female body, including the relationship between misogyny and violence against women.

So, before we even get to gender identity and its annihilating effect on women’s rights, gender has been removing the reality of women’s lives from protection legislation for decades. If we were very cynical, we could speculate that the boosting of gender in academia and policy in the 90’s was a direct reaction to the expansion of women’s rights legislation in the 70s and 80s.

Gender in law, we could reasonably say, is a technology of government. Gender mitigates the growing responsibility the government were being burdened with. The protection and care of female bodies is difficult and expensive and the government would much rather pay a bureaucrat 300K a year to lecture men about toxic masculinity than to actually protect women.

This is, in fact, what I believe to be true. I believe, based on many years of research, that gender and gender identity in law are materially harmful to women and girls, and that this is a feature, rather than a bug of gender as a civil rights category.

Gender-critical feminism, which is grassroots feminism, is dissident; we oppose the government and advocate for changes to domestic and international law. Telling us that we can’t advocate for something because it is against the law or international convention is just nonsense.

The report that I referred to earlier, by the UN, shows clearly that unprotected women in misogynistic sodden cultures are raped and murdered at much higher rates. I am a survivor of sexual violence that I experienced throughout my childhood, and that made me homeless, so I am not going to betray my own self or the history of women to support an aim that I don’t believe in.

Here is where we get the conflict. Men performing “womanhood” because of a fetish, drag and men pretending that wearing stereotypes changes their sex, are all rooted in misogyny. Since misogyny kills women and I am an advocate for women and girls, for children and for sexual assault survivors, I am critical of misogynistic things.

No, I don’t advocate for drag or cross-dressing to be illegal, but there is plenty of evidence to say that gender in law is injurious to the lives and culture of women. The shaming that goes on in gender critical politics of women who take uncompromising positions on pronouns and public displays of fetish is embarrassing. Women are allowed to say stuff on X using anonymous accounts, and the world is not going to crumble. It’s also OK if they swear.

Gender is useful as a word to describe the cultural meanings that society gives to sex, but as a word to replace sex in law, it is damaging and has to be completely removed as a human rights category. This is my simple position on the issue.

I want to conclude by saying what I have said many times: women have their own interests, and we are entitled to advocate for the protection and advancement of our own sex.

Subscribe now

With Audrey’s ever-present voice in my head, I knew before many others that the Labor Party could not be reformed away from the progressive ideology package it had purchased from the United Nations. Whether the Labor Party know it or not, when gender identity as an ideology and policy direction crashes, and it will crash, the Labor Party will crash with it; they cannot leave the ship. It’s on full display already in the UK.

The only choice the conservatives will have in Australia is to jump off the political millstone of trans ideology or sink with it.

Ultimately, the Australian population are never going to be convinced that human sex categories, the two human sex categories of male and female, are not real. Nobody believes that these sex categories are not real, and are not the basis for the human rights of female people that have been structured into the law and society, particularly provisions for females to protect their bodies and the bodies of their children from men.

The mission that I speak of has been to write essays for the conservatives, explaining in plain language, in the classic liberal tradition, why gender identity in law is unsustainable alongside women’s rights. Ultimately, a choice has to be made, and women are not going to allow themselves to be erased.

As it stood, when I started writing, women didn’t understand that they were being erased. My mission was to try to convince conservatives to pick up working-class and female votes, which were going to be ripe for the taking, when people realise what Labor has done to women’s rights.

Today in the Federal Court of Australia, all the things we said would become law, became established in law. By refusing the appeal of Giggle for Girls V Tickle, the Australian Federal Court established that women in public life and business are not legally permitted to make a procedural boundary between women and men who say they are women, in the glorious Commonwealth of Australia.

In thousands upon thousands of words, I’ve tried to explain to people the devastating consequences of disconnecting women’s legal status from female bodies.

Today I feel tired of it, bored of saying the same thing, sick of creepy men stalking my social media trying to shame me for demanding the right for women to be allowed a legal boundary exclusive of men. I’m sick of talking about rape culture and dicks and vaginas. I’m sick of reading legal judgments by lawyers and hearing the stupidity of politicians. I’m sick of men’s rights activists. I’m sick of handmaidens.

I am not going to write an article for The Spectator with my ongoing wisdom, about the Giggle decision; I haven’t got the strength. I don’t even think I’ll do a legal summary here because others are covering this issue adequately. Believe it or not, we have seen progress in the last few years, and I’d like to think I’ve been part of that.

I’m working on a project that should see the light of day in the next few months, that will be about celebrating women, and women’s rights, and women in politics, and hopefully will make a useful contribution to the movement. But for now, I will write here of my absolute grief and devastation at what has happened to women’s rights in Australia.

Audrey loved to be right, and right she was about her beloved Australian Labor Party. Today, Labor had its grave dug for them, and they don’t even know it. I won’t be jumping to One Nation, I know many will. I hope the Liberals can step up, but if they do or they don’t, my words on the issue are spent for them.

Subscribe now

Here we are again in the gender critical world, revisiting the terms of our movement, specifically in relation to the use of pronouns. Why do we keep travelling over the same ground? I will go over the terms of the debate in historical context, and I hope to show what we are seeing is not J.K Rowling vs the Ultras, but pretty normal women’s politics, with lessons.

In 1911 The Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) organised a massive march through the streets of London, now known as the Women’s Coronation Procession. In preparation for the Procession, many organisations were invited to participate, including the National Union of Women Suffrage Societies (NUWSS).

The WSPU under Emmeline Pankhurst and the NUWSS under Millicent Fawcett had a public disagreement on the principle of militancy. While the WSPU believed in working outside the law to gain the attention of the press, the NUWSS was strict on the principle of political non-violence and lawful protest.

Mrs. Fawcett was asked to give an opinion on the NUWSS participation in the WSPU organised Coronation Procession, and she wrote;

Occasions have frequently arisen when the Nation Union was bound to express its strong disapproval of certain methods adopted by the Women’s Social and Political Union; but this seems to me no reason for refusing to co-operate with them when they are acting on lines which we heartily approve. We are all asking for the same thing, and it seems to me a source of strength to our movement that we should co-operate when we can do so without any departure from the general principles for which the National Union stands. (Millicent Fawcett in Letter to The Common Cause, January 1911.)

Fawcett went on to emphasise her commitment to the principle of political non-violence.

So, the groups were defined, not by personalities, though they were led by powerful women, but by the adherence to principles about methods of political resistance. “Strong disapproval” was present among women with the same ultimate goal.

Historically, feminism has been a dissident and marginal movement; any attempts to integrate feminism into larger causes like trade unionism have led to the overshadowing of the issues of women and girls by men’s issues, and ultimately the erasing of women as a class.

I am convinced that we need a separate feminist movement from other forms of political power. We will get called purists and all kinds of names, but there should be one arm of political engagement that only centres women and girls, and I call that politics “feminism”, and this is where I sit.

The cause of restoring females as a legal and political class is a big one, and spans a lot of different areas where damage has been caused in our liberal democracies by the lie that human sex is an identity category. The grassroots feminists hold a particular place in the resistance movement, and a grassroots rule has developed, among those called the TERFs, that we use sex-based pronouns for men and women and absolutely never give female language to men.

If you use female language for men and say so publicly, you will get snapped at by a section of TERFs, that are called “ultras”, that’s the rule, everyone knows it, and it’s a rule that applies to everyone.

In response, the ultras get a lot of lectures about being good liberals by liberals sympathetic to women.

Both the WSPU and the NUWSS fought a long and hard campaign against politicians and powerful figures, many of whom were self-identified philosophic “liberals”. The following cartoon was published in The Common Cause in August 1910, the newspaper of the NUWSS, depicting the WSPU and the NUSS being lured by liberal sympathy as oysters in the famous Lewis Carroll poem The Walrus and the Carpenter. In the poem, oysters are lured from the sea by the Walrus and the Carpenter with promises of a pleasant walk and talk along the beach, only to be devoured on buttered bread with vinegar and pepper by the sorrowful and repentant pair.

It’s a good analogy, for feminists in the gender critical space too, with the “good” trans identified men uniting with the centrists, saying “let us talk”, “let us walk on the beach and be liberals together”. At the time of the cartoon, the Suffrage Bill was being rejected by “liberals” on the basis that it wasn’t perfect, and more discussion was needed, but of course, they claimed to be sympathetic to the suffrage cause. It wasn’t until 1928 that universal suffrage was passed. That’s a long walk on the beach.

100 years on, the cartoon is remarkably prophetic in terms of what happened in institutionalising feminism.

If we keep to the politics and leave the liberal sympathies, ultimately the interests of the gender-critical feminist movement are fundamentally opposed to the interests of trans-identified men. In the social media age, we get to witness many pleasant conversations on the beach that bear this out.

Genspect, for instance, have hosted many such conversations, exploring the nuance of those liberally sympathetic to the cause of women, and the results are clear. Trans identified men and sexologists aplenty have gone on the Genspect platform with the soothing words about letting women have their toilets back, but a look into their philosophy, their tweets, and their public statements reveals where the vinegar and pepper is being prepared.

Man after man who is asked to “open up” about his desire to don the dress will say that his fetish is an “orientation”, and a frightening number say that the attraction to children is also an “orientation”. I have talked about the danger of that particular walk on the beach, leading to the devouring of children, women and the protection category designed for homosexual people. If you want receipts, I can provide them.

The debate we seem to be having is about pronouns, is the “liberal” battleground we keep returning to. Can we let women be nice to their frilly knickered men friends who have liberal sympathies? Are we being authoritarian, or postmodern in focusing on language?

The relationship of language to power has been examined long before Foucault put his words to paper, so the observation of language and power relationship cannot be credited to the poststructuralist or the postmodernist movement.

Famously, Orwell reflected a language/power dynamic with his fictitious dictatorship, that created updated dictionaries with gradually changing meanings. The idea that language creates meaning is more complicated and philosophical. I really dislike philosophy. I don’t know any “ultras” who think that withholding women’s language from men is preventing those men from literally turning into women, so I’ll leave that there as a red herring.

The attempt by the state to change language and the meaning of words, and particularly the word” woman” is a type of state oppression, and it is particularly a type of oppression of women and girls. Our attempt to make a collective agreement, among those who have little political and financial power, to use correct language and true meanings, partly as political resistance, is literally the speaking of truth to power.

Our use of argument to attempt to convince more people to use correct language and “strongly disapprove” of those who don’t is not a form of political oppression. There is no honest political framework in which advocacy for correct pronouns, even heated and passionate advocacy, can be likened to authoritarian regimes like fascism or totalitarianism. It’s simply a show of collective class resistance. Pronouns, I once controversially said, are a picket line in the gender-critical women’s movement.

You can call this socialism, but you’d be wrong. Attempting to use and grow collective power against the state is not socialism; it is the basis of feminism, Black civil rights, gay rights etc in the liberal state. We are looking at the oppressed organising against oppression; this is as old as Moses.

By saying these things, I have made people angry with me. However, nobody has convinced me that less powerful women, using their social media accounts to attempt to convince more powerful people about the importance of the correct language rule, is itself a form of oppression, or as Sarah Phillimore claims “coercive control”. That comment is an affront to women in more ways that one.

Of course, people don’t have to comply; there is no power to make anyone comply. A group organising against oppression only has the power to apply a kind of shame. It’s a shame for the lack of solidarity with the oppressed. It’s the same pressure in all class movements; the class traitor if you will. Women are not executing the class traitor for using wrong sex pronouns, they are just admonishing them on X. The problem, as always, is who they dare to admonish.

Although I won’t go into the comments of J.K Rowling on the issue, because it’s nothing she hasn’t said before if you have been listening, I will name the elephant in the room. JK Rowling is very rich and we all know people who want to separate JK from some of her money for what we think are worthy causes.

The kind of money J.K has, means she has her own source of power apart from the collective power of our feminist movement and the power of the regime feminists that she has openly defied. This power is why she has become so important to the TERFs.

What’s more, Rowling didn’t inherit her money from a powerful system of capital or government; she made her own money by producing a product that people want. Rowling is entirely independent, even of the movement she supports, and she can do and say what she wants. This fact she is asserting, and this fact is true.

Also true is that the gender critical movement has a nature aside from Rowling, and it is the nature of a class-based grassroots movement. Rowling is a towering figure among the TERFs and has been a game-changer and a hero, but that doesn’t change the nature of the politics that will ultimately give women their correct definitions back. Class-based movements are led by the base, and the oppression claims of the base, and the agreed principles of the base.

That Rowling has chosen to use her power to support the gender-critical feminist movement is a wonderful gift, and it’s something that every TERF I know is thankful for. But class-based movements like ours, like the suffrage movement, like the original civil rights movement, are led by principle, not by individuals. Even Martin Luther King Jr was accountable to the base.

Unlike King, Rowling is not a civil rights leader, she is a rich and powerful woman and a leading feminist of the gender critical type. Rowling has misgendered trans identified men publicly for political purposes and she continues to do so, and she does so in solidarity with grassroots feminists. Rowling also supports grassroots feminism with her money and with her social power.

What we are seeing is not women trying to cancel their queen, but the nature of grassroots feminism. The base is showing the nature of a base, and Rowling is showing her independence from that base, that she supports.

When we did the pronoun dance on social media last time, it was of a much more pernicious nature, and a co-ordinated group of people were attempting to shame and effectively cancel the gender critical base for criticising key figures. This is not what Rowling is doing.

In the last season of pronoun-gate we saw an attempt to replace principle with liberal “thought leaders” of the “centrist” and “nuanced” variety. These nuanced people were very sympathetic (in the liberal way) to women having some things for themselves, just not all of their language, just not a feminist critique of drag, just not a feminist critique of porn, or surrogacy. Again, this is not what Rowling is doing.

Pointedly Rowling has since come out in overt support of feminist publication Reduxx. Reduxx was on the cancel list in season one of pronoun-gate. Rowling is showing she is not owned by a group, as I have said, she has her own source of power, power that she has earned.

In season one, I said that the centrists were not going to be successful in cancelling the base because the base does most of the work and you can’t cancel the base until you win, and we haven’t won yet.

Since then, we have seen the win in the UK Supreme Court by For Women Scotland, a grassroots organisation heavily supported by J.K Rowling. In the States, the administration has taken on a very “ultra” interpretation of sex in law and language that came from grassroots feminists. In Australia we have seen a significant Federal Court win by the Lesbian Action Group, a grass roots supported organisation. We have seen the ABC come out of ACON under pressure by women doing grassroots work, like compiling hundreds of freedom of information documents and handing them to journalists in a coordinated format, and protesting and writing and just being a general nuisance.

The women called “ultras” do a lot of work for free, and I believe we will continue to see Rowling’s ongoing support for these women, many of whom have been placed in the “ultra” category. The ultras can’t be cancelled because they are already the most cancelled they can ever be. We know that J.K Rowling can’t be cancelled.

What we have is a political dynamic that is entirely consistent with the way feminism has always operated, and it is nothing to panic about.

I throw my lot in with the grassroots feminist resistance because it is where I can make a difference; I don’t have a billion dollars. I “heart” JK Rowling because she does great work. In the end, I’m only responsible for how I use my own power, and I hope I will be seen as someone who stood up for women, who stood up for survivors and who contributed to something important. That’s all I want.

Subscribe now

The Federal Court of Australia has ruled in favour of the Lesbian Action Group Inc (LAG) to set aside a decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) that refused lesbians permission to hold public dances and to politically organise to the exclusion of all males.

I have been following this case for a number of years and there is a lot of inaccurate reporting about this ruling. Let me first say what this decision is not. This decision is not the Federal Court giving permission to lesbians to dance and politically organise without trans identified males. Neither dancing nor the issue of the changing of sex was addressed by Justice Moshinsky in the ruling of the case of the LAG v AHRC.

Justice Moshinsky allowed LAGs appeal on two of the four grounds they proposed. Justice Moshinsky ruled that the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), guided by the AHRC had made a “material” error in the underlying reasoning that they used in denying LAG an exemption to the SDA. Additionally, it was ruled that the AHRC were negligent to their duty to uphold the human rights principles that are legislated to govern them.

While in other legal challenges to the AHRC on sex and gender identity conflicts, arguments focused on the legal definitions of sex and gender identity and the rights of women and “trans people”, counsel for LAG challenged the legal construction that the AHRC used in administering the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) and the adherence to duties to which the AHRC is bound.

LAG will now have to resubmit an application to the Tribunal, and the AHRC are going to have find a different legal formulation if they wish to deny LAG permission to engage in public single sex activities. This decision has wide-ranging implications across the current operation of the AHRC.

The AHRC denied the LAG application partly on the basis that it was likely to cause “overt discrimination” and contravene the objects of the Act, which are largely to eliminate discrimination. Justice Moshinsky determined that AHRC had taken “too narrow a view of the scope of the exemption power” under section 44 of the SDA, and he ruled that the legal reasoning of the AHRC in relation to the SDA was erroneous.

Justice Moshinsky stepped away from sex v gender issue entirely and looked at the operation of similar acts to the SDA, particularly the Equal Opportunities Act in Equal Opportunity v ADI Limited, where exemptions were granted to discrimination legislation to allow a defence contractor to discriminate on the basis of nationality and race.

In the ADI case, the judge ruled that the State Administrative Tribunal erroneously gave determinative influence to “public interest considerations”, but only those consideration that further the “the objects, scope or purpose of the Equal Opportunity Act.” Justice Martin ruled that the legislation allows interests to be considered in granting an exemption, that fall outside the objects scope and purpose of an Act.

Allowing lesbians to discriminate against straight and bisexual women and trans identified men, may enact discrimination, and this discrimination may contravene the anti-discrimination and equity objects of the SDA, but that discrimination may serve other purposes and the broader public interest, and even comply with the purpose of the SDA as a whole.

Moshinsky drew on the ADI case, where Justice Martin commented that because the parliament can’t legislate on every situation where “otherwise discriminatory conduct may be justifiable, it has granted the Tribunal to grant exemptions in particular cases”. In performing it’s duties, the Tribunal has to recognise that discrimination can be lawful for other reasons that are “extraneous to the anti-discriminatory objects of the Act”.

Discrimination is not unlawful in itself, and discrimination is not unlawful simply because it is discriminatory. It is a faulty argument to say that activity is unlawful when it falls outside of the Act, when the Act itself allows a range of activity to fall outside of its operation, including some discrimination on the basis of sex.

Given that discrimination on the grounds of sex is explicitly made lawful in the SDA in certain circumstances, and the construction of the exemption provision used by the AHRC has been ruled as “too narrow”, women’s right activists, like myself, are hopeful that the rights of women to their own meanings, culture, politics and sexuality can be clawed back from the current overreach of the AHRC.

If the scope of the exemption power of the SDA is being interpreted too narrowly, the scope of the power of the Sex Discrimination Act therefore is being administered in Australia too broadly.

The reach of the SDA, and in particular, the amendments that were made to the Act to include gender identity, have been vigorously, and I would argue undemocratically, extended by the government via a variety of publicly funded trans rights organisations such as ACON and Equality Australia.

Through government-funded trans lobby groups, we have seen the gender identity provision of the SDA, and the broad interpretation of their applications, enthusiastically thrust upon the Australian people in workplaces, sporting bodies and media organisations.

Like Mufasa and Simba surveying the Pride Lands, the AHRC and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have approached the SDA as a shining sun from which little behaviour is hidden. Justice Moshinsky’s ruling that this kind of reach is not intended in the Act, may be the start of checking the overreach of the AHRC.

The sex exemptions to the SDA, and the special measures written in, were designed for such activities as women’s sport, single sex schooling and changing facilities. These activities have become fraught with problems under the rule of the AHRC. The AHRC has in effect added males who identify as trans to the class of females.

Any attempt to exclude trans identified males from public accommodations for women and girls is being shunned by the AHRC and the organisations that fall under its guidance. The Moshinsky ruling is the first legal check to the erasure of women as a class that has been happening under the AHRC management of the SDA in Australia.

The AHRC have published guidelines about the inclusion of trans identified people in sport and sporting facilities, where they suggest the refusal for trans identified men to use women’s facilities “may amount to unlawful indirect discrimination on the basis of gender identity.” These guidelines have instilled fear in sporting organisations that they will be dragged to court if they don’t comply with the dictates of trans activists to let men in facilities where women and girls are undressing.

The Moshinsky ruling will give organisations and individuals some ground to challenge, what seem to be, unlawful dictates on public facilities, speech and organisations.

One of the reasons the Tribunal stated, out loud in Federal Court, that the meetings of LAG would be problematic, was because of the political nature of the radical feminist lesbian meetings. LAG are organising politically specifically to curtail the current operation of the SDA in the lives, culture and politics of lesbians.

It should disturb all Australians that the AHRC are lobbying, in the Australian Federal Court to silence political dissent against the laws it has helped to craft, laws that have removed women’s right to single sex assembly.

Julia Gillard has been given a lot of blame for the faulty SDA, by removing from it the definitions of man and woman in 2013, and rightly so. However, over 50 changes to the SDA have been made since its inception in 1984, almost every change to the SDA has been at the inception of the AHRC. AHRC have fallen in lockstep with international population management ideologies of human rights that are coming from the United Nations. This undemocratic process of law making and law changing has to be curtailed.

Women didn’t protest in the streets to have their toilets removed; this has happened because an undemocratic body is managing a law, originally made by parliament for the protection of the people from oppression.

In the second point made out by LAG in its appeal to the AHRC, LAG argued that the AHRC were negligent to their duties in section 10A of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Justice Moshinsky ruled that the Tribunal did not see itself bound to consider the human rights contentions of the Lesbian Action Group and thus failed to meet its obligations under section 10A of the AHRC Act 1986. Section 10 A of the AHRC Act binds the AHRC to the duty to regard the “indivisibility and universality of human rights” and the principle that “every person is free and equal in dignity and rights”.

The Tribunal had argued in their submission to the Court, that section 10 of the AHRC Act was “aspirational or exhortation” and was not an “enforceable duty”.

Just to emphasise; a Tribunal, administering the SDA, under the leadership of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the AHRC, has told the Australian Federal Court that it did not consider itself bound by the duties that were listed in the Act that created it. The administrative body, then had to be told by a Justice of the Australian Federal Court, that they were bound by their governing document to respect the human rights and dignity of Australian lesbians.

The AHRC interpretation of the SDA on sex and gender identity is currently being used to prevent a woman from launching a female-only app, it has been used to remove women’s single sex facilities from a range of areas, and a woman has been fined an eye-watering amount of money for calling a man a man. In addition to this, the AHRC advice in relation to gender identity has influenced the way a great deal of our public infrastructure is managed, including our prison system, where women are being housed with violent men.

Justice Moshinsky is the first Judge of repute in Australia to challenge the AHRC on their relentless campaign to stop behaviour that should be perfectly lawful in Australia, according to the construction of our human rights law.

Outside of the shining light of the AHRC, lesbians are already meeting together in the shadows to the exclusion of males, they are dancing together, and they are politically organising. This discriminatory behaviour harms nobody and offends only men who should have no legal right to upend the protections that women have fought so hard for.

Lesbian Action Group have commented on X that they are “very happy” with the ruling and are especially pleased that now costs have been awarded to them and they will be able to pay their lawyers.

Subscribe now

In her address to the Geneva Congress in 1877, feminist and social reformer Josephine Butler said that the “conspiracy of silence of the press has done us this service in that it has forced us to create a literature”. In the absence of press support, Butler and other feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Taylor Mill, wrote texts that formed the basis for classic liberal feminist arguments. They argued, in different ways, that a political voice and state protections for females were necessary if women and girls were to be brought into citizenship in the emerging liberal democracies.

This week, Australian women’s rights campaigners have made a small dent in the armour of our national broadcaster. The ABC have announced that it is withdrawing from ACON’s Pride in Diversity scheme. In an internal newsletter, ABC management has announced that they are also withdrawing from relationships with the Australian Disability Network and the Diversity Council of Australia. In words that had me choking on my Weet-Bix, ABC management said the move would ensure that “standards of independence are maintained”.

For too long, the ABC has been silent on addressing the arguments that gender critical feminists are making against the gender identity ideology, which has soaked into our institutions. As in Butler’s time, the silence of the media has generated much words. Not just words, but a body of research that has, in my opinion, evidenced the bias of the ABC on the trans v women’s rights issue, exposing a structural problem that runs deeper than a single issue or a single organisation.

I don’t remember when I first heard about ACON, but I remember when I first saw a feminist put the organisation into a PowerPoint presentation and say the words “agency capture”. I may have fallen a bit in love with Kit Kowalski that day, if I weren’t a married Baptist lady.

Kit Kawalski is a feminist, a researcher, and a describer of things most horrid. After a project gathering freedom of information requests about ACON’s influence, Kit decided to organise the information in a structured manner. It’s what we call a rabbit hole.

Engrossed by the sheer scale and audacity of what ACON were doing, in broad daylight, Kit started a website called ACON Exposed. ACON Exposed provides information for individuals, researchers and media organisations about the reach of ACON and its AWEI program in Australian government organisations and corporations.

Stassja Frei, who started the freedom of information project, has gone on to produce a two-season podcast series on gender identity ideology in our institutions called Desexing Society, with an episode dedicated to the work of ACON and their relationship to the ABC. In the podcast Stassja stated that;

When it comes to the clash of rights between women and men who say they’re women, the ABC has completely thrown impartiality out the window, and it’s their involvement with ACON’s Pride in Diversity and their Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI), which seems to have caused this drop in editorial standards.

Agency capture is a problem in itself, but media capture is a massive problem in a democracy. The ABC is publicly funded and constitutionally bound to be impartial.

In 2022 Kit’s research was sent to Paul Barry and his media watch team. After reviewing the research, Paul Barry concluded that the ABC should review its relationship with ACON.

I wrote about the breakthrough with Media Watch in 2022, describing the dangers of agency capture and telling the story of my friend Ben, a gay man who had developed a serious stress-related medical condition after a cruel workplace investigation by his employer into his social media activity. Ben had expressed the opinion that gay men are not attracted to females.

After Bed died of an infection related to his illness, I found the anger and sorrow hard to face.

In 2023 Kit and I started a weekly podcast on the gender nonsense. We regularly went over the content that the ABC were producing in line with equity and diversity ideology, including drag acts for children, mastectomies for young girls and removing women’s workplace toilets. ABC has been simultaneously ignoring the feminist analysis on these issues while promoting ACON friendly “sex positive” perspective on surrogacy, prostitution and pornography, all issues that feminist analysis has been critical of for over 100 years.

One of the key arguments that gender critical feminists raise is that lesbians should have the right to a legal definition within the boundaries of sex, where their protection is required. In a shock move for keen observers, this issue has been reported on by the ABC recently, in coverage of the Australian Federal Court case Lesbian Action Group (LAG) v Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The case has seen the AHRC openly argue against the rights of radical feminist separatists to organise politically.

The ABC decided to lift their media blackout on the issue with the headline “Lesbian group takes fight to Federal Court in bid to exclude transgender women from events”. The ABC ombudsman responded to complaints about the headline, and the ABC Ombudsman found it was fine.

I was able to describe the radical feminist perspective in the LAG v AHRC case in my last article in The Spectator. I was amused when a subscriber to The Spectator threatened on social media to withdraw his subscription if The Spectator continued to publish my articles. I suspect that the reader would also be critical of gender identity, but wasn’t aware that free speech sometimes means tolerating critics of your enemies from your other enemies.

Many on the right want to blame feminism for things such as the removal of female toilet facilities from workplaces. What ACON Exposed has demonstrated, by analysing hours upon hours of Pride in Diversity videos and documents, is that the government is paying people to provide a rationale for removing single-sex facilities from workplaces, and those people are ACON. ACON turned over 35 million dollars in the 24/25 financial year, 78% of that was provided by the Australian taxpayer.

The job of ACON, like so many diversity organisations, is to provide the advice they are paid to provide. A Pride and Diversity training video replayed on the ACON Exposed X account shows Pride and Diversity trainer Nicki Elkin openly mocking the concerns of women to be safe in single sex toilets. Such videos train management on how to talk to staff when they raise concerns about toilets transitioning into mixed sex. The way to talk to women with concerns about men in women’s toilets is to shame them as bigots.

Because of ACON Exposed, we don’t have to engage in conjecture about what ACON is teaching in workplaces; we have mapped and graphed explanations, with videos, charts and financials. It’s the literature that Josephine Butler told us women create in a media blackout.

Radical Feminist publishers Spinifex Press have published dozens of books critical of gender identity by a variety of women, amidst the press shunning of the gender critical analysis. These books are unlikely to be platformed in any of the many literature chats found on the ABC.

Books that do get platformed by the ABC are books like Honeybee from Craig Silvey. Honeybee was promoted on Radio National, ABC Books, Double J as well as local ABC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. Honeybee is a story about a vulnerable, suicidal and abused boy who finds salvation in gender identity and a kindly older man who takes the child into his home to live with him while he undergoes gender transition. Craig Silvey is now on ABC News for being charged with possessing, distributing and producing child exploitation material.

The massive child safeguarding issues that have arisen from placing gender identity into our institutions are continually raised by the feminists of the gender critical variety. Such horrid bigots are considered “non-inclusive” by those whom we pay with our taxes to promote “diversity and inclusion”.

The move this week by the ABC to stop its Pride in Diversity involvement was both massive and minuscule. I found it interesting that in reporting on the move, The Guardian, called ACON Exposed a “women’s rights group”. After years of being called “anti-trans” by left-wing media, I felt, this too, was a small ripple caused by the mountain of writing and talking and holding up signs that women have been doing amidst the “conspiracy of silence”.

Subscribe now

Recently, I’ve had cause to go through some old publications, and I came across the following article, published in the 19 October 1919 edition of Judge magazine, written by Clara Wold, the editor of The Suffragist. To set the scene, the 19th Amendment, to constitutionally enshrine the right to vote for American women, had been passed in June, but had yet to be ratified. Feminists, like Clara, were at the end of a very long and dirty battle.

All of a sudden, everyone was on board, and she wrote this article of questions, to basically ask “are you taking the piss?”

Recently, Twitter has been aflutter with men and women lamenting the passing of the 19th, spreading misinformation about suffragists and speaking the most appalling revisionism of women’s brave and noble political history. So I thought I would republish, without permission (because all parties are long gone), this 1919 reminder of who demanded the vote, and who were reluctant to give it.

Were You Ever An Anti?

By Clara Wold

“Woman, woman, thou art divine!
Oh, that I had one I might call mine
To soothe me in my worst woes
And cook my dinner and wash my clothes.”
— U. S. Congressional Record

Did you, for upwards of twenty years, vote as you pleased when you travelled from your plantation to your seat in Congress?

Did you suddenly find that the women of the North and West and Middle West were attempting to force upon the women of your state a thing which they did not want?

Did you say in Congress that if women were given the vote, they would forget the men who gave it to them and vote as they pleased?

Did you say that it would degrade women?

Did you say that women did not want to vote?

Did you say that it was the duty of men to prevent them from getting it?

Did you say that it was a question of States’ Rights?

Did you say that the women of your state were perfectly satisfied and that they did not want to be bothered with politics?

Did you say that the women of your state were too good to vote?

Did you say that you were representing your constituents?

Did you say that you were protecting womanhood?

Did you say that you were preserving the home?

Did you say that you were upholding the Constitution?

Did you say that you were defending the South?

Did you say that you were fighting for democracy?

Did you say that you were opposing Federal interference?

Did you say that you were standing by tradition?

Did you say that you were acting for the best interests of the country?

Did you find that your state had adopted suffrage?

Did you find that your constituents wanted you to change your position?

Did you find that it was no longer safe politically to oppose suffrage?

Did you find that the women continued to picket the White House?

Did you find that they went to jail?

Did you find that they became martyrs?

Did you find that public opinion was changing?

Did you find that you must support suffrage?

Did you find that your political future depended upon it?

Did you then decide that you had always been in favor of suffrage?

Subscribe now

In an environment where they can’t seem to stop losing, the Australian Liberals desperately need a piece of solid high ground. Nothing too flashy, just a bit of dirt that is secure and that won’t erode in the next shower. I’ve got just the plot, a prime piece of land that will bring the Liberals back in the view of the regular working and middle-class woman, with issues that concern her and her family.

As a bonus, this plot of high ground won’t be contested by the left or the far right, and it falls right in the range of the classic liberalism the new look Liberals are reaching for.

The high ground is sex protections for women and girls, or what we used to call classic liberal feminism.

I first wrote about sex safeguarding issues from a classic liberal feminist perspective five years ago, because I couldn’t ignore the blatant safeguarding problems that emerged from gender identity ideology.

To understand the way gender is used in law, you must separate two concepts. One is the original idea of “gender” that was used in sociology, and the other is “gender identity”, which seems to have been developed in psychology and sexology. I’m not going to play chicken and egg here because I don’t believe gender identity is the natural offspring of gender. These are contradictory concepts in structure and conclusions.

Gender identity is a mystical idea that humans have a birth sex, which isn’t terribly important, and a more dominant sexed soul that is expressed with gender stereotypes. The idea that the gender soul or “identity” is more dominant than the sex of the body is most famously used to diagnose children who are gender non-conforming with wrong sex disease.

In contrast, gender in traditional sociology refers to the cultural meanings that societies assign to the two sexes.

As a sex abuse survivor advocate, I’ll give you an example of the usefulness of gender as a concept in cultural critique, political commentary and academic study.

International comparative studies reveal that rape culture exists in different levels in different cultures and has a correlation with the prevalence of sexual violence toward women and children. Where women are structurally unsafe from sexual violence, their public life becomes limited.

We know that rape culture exists in systems that minimise sexual violence, reduce or remove the consequences for sexual violence, cover for the perpetrator of sexual violence, and shame women and girls for exerting sexual boundaries.

Rape culture often co-exists with gender stereotypes for females that limit their roles to passive receptors of sex and performers of maternal and domestic labour. Restricted stereotypes can limit the public and political power of women and girls, leaving them dependent on men and, particularly, familial males, for physical protection. A societal system we call patriarchy.

Rape culture doesn’t only exist in ethnic specific or religious systems; it can exist in organisations, churches, mosques, synagogues and governments.

Mixing the ethereal concept of gender identity (where identity overrides sex) with the sociology of gender (that seeks to critique the of culture placed around human sex), has made the mess we call gender identity ideology. Gender identity ideology masks the fiction of the gender identity soul, with a legitimate field of feminist study.

Internationally, governments have cooked an ideology where gender is framed as an organic force that grows in the individual. Some gender grows with hate and inequality, like toxic masculinity, and some gender grows with harmless victimhood, submission and perfect equality, like the special femininity we find in trans identified men.

The growing of the good gender (equality) and the killing of the bad gender (inequality) has become a sociological epidemiology in universities and government-funded policy think tanks. The taxpayer now pays a new generation of gender scientists to prescribe cultural control mechanisms. These prescriptions try to kill gender inequity (the root of bad gender), and promote gender equity (the root of good gender). It’s a bit like the way economists prescribe fiscal and monetary policy, but with no evidential basis.

The targeting of gender inequity as a social disease by government is what I have coined “regime feminism”, even though it is not, in my opinion, feminist in structure or purpose.

The perfect example of the policy production of regime feminism is the Victorian government-funded “charity” Our Watch.

Our Watch are paid by the taxpayer to evidence the claim that the government will be able to eradicate family violence in one generation, under a policy called “primary prevention”. Primary prevention posits that, based on the international comparative studies I have mentioned, gender inequity is the primary driver of what is coined “gendered violence”.

Our Watch openly admit that primary prevention is experimental, stating that “high-quality impact evaluations [of primary prevention] are rare”. What they don’t say is that the ideology they promote uses the political capital of abused and murdered women and children to promote rape culture.

Gender inequity does not refer to negative stereotypes about women or misogyny, but a toxic culture produced by us all called “inequity”. The danger of male bodies to female bodies is merely a symptom of a social disease that will be cast out by highly paid gender priests.

In prioritising gender equity as a cure for male pattern violence, funding is disproportionately funnelled away from grassroots initiatives that protect and heal women and children from the effects of violence, like homelessness and trauma, and toward equity specialists with policy prescriptions.

One of the key policy prescriptions of gender equality is to reframe our language. Under the new language the gender specialist prescribe, we cannot describe the reality of living in a female body that is subject to male violence. Under regime feminism, associating female and male with a type of body is inequitable and inequality drives violence.

Having a female-only space is inequitable. Letting lesbians exclude males from dating apps is inequitable. The practice of throwing a man out of a public facility where your daughter is undressing is inequitable. Any action that identifies men as a sex of human will add fuel to gendered violence by promoting harmful stereotypes that men have penises.

By direction of regime feminism, grassroots rape and domestic violence shelters for women are now forced to include men who have a “female” gender identity. Because feminine gender identity drives out toxic masculinity and toxic masculinity is a product of gender inequity and gender inequity is the driver of violence. It’s science.

Single sex safeguarding is now illegal in Australia, in accordance with the rewriting of the Sex Discrimination Act that prioritises gender identity.

Women are now shamed and legally prosecuted for their sexual boundaries in Australia. Shaming women and girls for sexual boundaries is rape culture.

All state laws have now replaced sex with gender identity by allowing the falsification of birth certificates with a declaration of gender identity. Because gender identity is constructed of regressive stereotypes, female is now defined by regressive stereotypes in law.

Defining women by regressive stereotypes is symptom of rape culture.

The answer, classic liberals will be happy to hear, is in their own doctrine.

Gender identity ideology is the erasure of sex differences, while classic liberal feminists like Harriet Taylor Mill, Susan B Anthony and Millicent Fawcett highlighted the danger that women’s bodies face from male bodies, giving special value to the protection of female bodies from “vice” as a social good for the whole of society.

When all of society agrees that it is a social good to protect women and children from sex pests and violent partners, the predators are marginalised as an abhorrence to masculinity, not an expression of it.

Regime feminism involves the destigmatising of exploitative industries like prostitution and pornography, framing prostitution as legitimate “work” for girls. Classic liberal feminists, like Josephine Butler, highlighted the importance of protecting poor girls and women from the exploitation of the sex trade.

The good news for the Australian Liberals is that regime feminism is so institutionally embedded that it has become a big, stupid, predictable and immovable target. It’s like the Death Star, with the thermal exhaust port being the massive safeguarding failures now faced by a population of women and children.

Just this week, the ABC unironically reported on the growing problem of women in gender non-conforming jobs being driven out of those jobs because of the lack of appropriate toilet facilities.

Corporations are encouraged to have gender-neutral toilets under gender equity schemes. Previous obligations to provide facilities for women have been removed. Left wing unions will not break ranks and fight for facilities for female members.

The ABC are a platinum member of heavily taxpayer funded charity ACON. ACON has advocated for the equity policy of removing women’s toilets throughout Australian workplaces, in favour of gender-neutral toilets. ACON claims to have 500 member organisations to their workplace equity schemes, around 70 of these are government departments.

Women’s public toilets were first advocated for by the Ladies Sanitary Association in the 1850’s. They argued that women were effectively on a “urinary leash” without female public facilities, tying women to the domestic sphere through their bodily needs. Gender equity is again placing a leash on women’s bodies.

Because male pattern violence cannot exist in trans identified males, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, nobody on the left will defend sex-based facilities for safeguarding reasons, it is uncontested high ground for the Australian Liberal Party to take.

Jesus said, “you shall know them by their fruit”, and the fruit of institutional rape culture is the rape of the most vulnerable of women.

Prisons is one area the Liberal Party are gaining some political ground with an Australian Liberal Party leader finally saying “no men in women’s prisons”. Thank you Jess Wilson.

The Liberal party, and particularly Liberal women, need to savagely attack the underlying ideology that is leading to the rape of Australian women in our prisons and the institutional cover-up of these crimes against women that has been happening for years.

Conservative women, using classic liberal arguments, are making natural alliances with a range of grass roots feminists on these issues across party political lines internationally.

Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” was signed by Donald Trump as one of his first orders of business in his second presidency.” The order was written by conservative attorney May Mailman. Mailman has cited the influence of radical feminists attorney Kara Dansky on her work. Kara Dansky is a Democrat, but has been making broad feminist alliances to fight gender identity ideology, including the recent gender equity assault on Title IX, the landmark federal civil rights law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in the US.

In the UK, Scottish charity For Women Scotland successfully challenged the gender regime in the British Supreme Court, establishing the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 as biological sex. For Women Scotland is a grassroots feminist group supported by the queen of all TERFs, J.K. Rowling.

Grassroots feminism has a natural and historic place in both liberal and conservative policy. Giving women’s rights arguments their rightful place in safeguarding can help the L]iberals inspire Australian women to vote for them on principle, rather than for One Nation on reaction.

The problem of systemic safeguarding failures and systemic rape culture can’t be fixed with reactionary outrage; it has to be strategically removed from government in the name of true liberal democracy and classic liberal feminist traditions.

This starts with standing on safeguarding principles and continues with withdrawing taxpayer funds from ideologies that are demonstrably harmful to women and children. The monster that has been fed for decades must now be starved, and it will not go quietly; it has to be dismantled with courage, determination and historically sound intellectual rigour.

It is time for classic liberal feminists to re-emerge in Australian Liberal women.

Subscribe now

By arguments presented in Australian Federal Court this week, it is indisputable that the Australian Human Rights Commission is attempting to make a historic branch of feminism illegal in Australia via the Sex Discrimination Act.

Arguments were heard this week in the Federal Court in the case of Lesbian Action Group Inc. v Australian Human Rights Commission where The Lesbian Action Group (LAG) is appealing a decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The AHRC have ruled that LAG cannot lawfully publicly assemble to the exclusion of males who identify as lesbians.

I listened to the arguments this week, as I have listened to the arguments the AHRC has made through the Tickle Vs Giggle case and the Giggle Vs Tickle appeal, as well as the 2021 Tasmanian case where Jessica Hoyle was refused permission for the public meeting of female lesbians. It’s an ongoing TV show that I find less and less enjoyable.

The rules of play between gender critical feminists, like myself and the AHRC have long been recognised. The first rule of play is that The AHRC have taken away the words we need to form our arguments, by changing the definitions of those words. The fun part of the game, is that we have to construct traditional feminist arguments, not just without our words of woman and female, but without the political and moral capital those words contain. This political and moral capital has been stolen by the AHRC.

Our argument this week and every week, is that “female’ is a class of people that should be recognised in the law as a group with rights of political and cultural assembly to the exclusion of males. The AHRC’s argument is that trans identified males should be included in the sex class of female, legally culturally, politically and for all purposes, because they are the most oppressed of all women.

What AHRC need to make their argument sound reasonable and compassionate, is for us to be unable to use the words we need to describe ourselves. The AHRC have given trans identified males, not just the identifier of woman, but the entire category of female as something they can own with an identity declaration.

The AHRC have followed international population management models, where they construct arguments that in excluding males with a declared female gender identity from the class of female, we are not just being discriminatory, but morally repugnant.

I have known Carol Ann from LAG for some time, and this is not her first rodeo. Ms. Ann has been fighting for single sex spaces against the AHRC for thirty years. The reason LAG and it’s members have been at the forefront of this fight around sex and gender identity, is not just that they are lesbians. but that they come from a radical feminist separatist perspective.

Radical feminism, is not feminism that is super radical. Radical feminism emerged in the 60s from the foundation belief that females as a class are oppressed by males as a class. Radical feminists view gender, as a cultural system that is imposed on women to enforce patriarchal oppression. Radical feminists don’t just see lesbianism as an inherent sexuality, although it may be that, but as a choice that women make to separate themselves from patriarchal systems.

Therefore, the idea that a man can perform the gender stereotypes that societies impose on women, and use that “gender identity” to enter the sex class of female, and to be a lesbian, is patriarchal in its nature and structurally incompatible with radical feminism.

In addition to “female” and “lesbian” being sex and sexuality classes for radical feminists, “female” and “lesbian” are political classes that are exclusive of all males. From the 60s till now, radical feminist separatists have rejected postmodern re-engineering of sex and sexuality that has been embraced by regime feminism.

With the rules of play between radical feminism and regime feminism well established, council for LAG Dr. Megan Blake, came to the game contesting the AHRC rules of play. Blake argued that women should have their own sex class in law, that includes trans identified women (trans men), and men should have their own sex class in law that includes trans identified men (trans women), and from that position of biological reality, we should negotiate the rights of people with a gender identity to services and language in society. Blake argued that it is the erroneous placement of trans identified males into the sex class of females that has caused problems.

It has been previously suggested by the AHRC, that while LAG cannot have public meetings or advertise their meetings, they can have members meetings, and screen members in accordance with what was referred to as their “ideology”. The part of LAG’s ideology that is problematic for public expression, is not radical feminism, but that trans identified males do not belong in the sex class of female.

The private expression of the importance and immutability of human sex was not openly contested by the AHRC. You can legally whisper the reality of human sex to the cat in your house in Australia. But to openly express the belief that human sex is immutable, and that being a member of the female sex is politically consequential, and that the political consequences of being in the female sex class requires public assembly and action, is a step too far.

It was also suggested by the AHRC that LAG would still be allowed to hold public protests. When question by Justice Moshinsky about what these protests would look like, the council for AHRC became very vague, not clarifying if people could be invited to the protest, given that the protest obviously couldn’t be advertised. At one point, counsel for the AHRC made the caveat that the theoretical protests should not include people saying hateful things. Remember that the main thing the AHRC claim is hateful about LAG’s ideology, is that trans identified males, don’t belong in the sex class of female.

So, the possible lawful political activity of LAG, according to the AHRC, if LAG want to politically organise and challenge the current human rights laws, is to have a private meeting in their own house, or have a protest that they can’t advertise where they can’t say that trans identified males don’t belong in the female sex class. What is very obviously happening in Australia is the political oppression of feminism by the Australian government.

LAG brought to the court examples of relevant exemptions approved by the AHRC, where groups of people were legally permitted to discriminate against other groups of people, based on sex and sexual orientation. These examples established that it is not unlawful, under the intention of the law, for discrimination to take place in Australia on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. One example was of a hotel for gay men who have an exemption to the SDA, to hold events that exclude heterosexuals and lesbians. The very telling response from the AHRC, was that the assembly of those gay men was not for political purposes, getting to the crux of the problem that the AHRC have with LAG.

For radical feminists, sex and sexuality are inherently political. Radical feminist separatists seek to build a life and a culture, separate from men, to separate themselves from systems of male oppression. You may not agree with this lifestyle, you may think this lifestyle is impractical, but this branch of feminism has been alive a long time, and it now forms a key part of the broader gender critical feminist resistance to the gender identity laws that the AHRC impose on Australians.

The LAG appeal contested the accuracy of associations, made by an expert witness for the AHRC at the tribunal, between radical feminist Professor Shiela Jeffreys and Nazi fascists. These tropes originate from constructed links between gender critical feminists, who attended a women’s event, and a group of Melbourne based fascists, who crashed that event. These false and defamatory links were comprehensively disproven in the Federal Court in Deeming V Pesutto.

The AHRC were thereby forced in the Federal Court, to say that Shiela Jeffreys is not associated with fascism.

The question lingered then, if Jeffreys is not politically extreme, if radical feminism is not politically extreme, if therefore LAG is not politically extreme, why are their political activities being marginalised by the AHRC using the SDA. This exercise of state power is particularly pertinent, at a time when our government claims to be unable to control genuinely hateful speech against our Jewish community by religious extremists.

The political assembly of women for the rights of females is the essence of the feminist movement. The heavily molested SDA is being used by the AHRC to marginalise political action of women, and the academic school of feminism that supports the political action of women for the rights of females. This is a structural infraction by human rights organisations in our liberal democracy that must be addressed at the political level.

A revealing moment of note this week, was when counsel for the AHRC replied to examples of exemptions sought and granted in relation to the SDA on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Counsel for the AHRC said that we mustn’t make too much of exemptions to the SDA, because these were by their nature interim, until equality in society is achieved.

Equality, according to the AHRC, is a society where sex is immaterial to women’s politics. In a world of Australian equality, women would never seek a separate space from men who had a “woman” gender identity, because in a world of perfect equality, women would see no difference between a human with a female body and a human with a male body, when both people identified with the mystical gender of woman.

Equality, according to the AHRC, is men being allowed to rape women in women’s prisons, because that’s the price women pay. Equality is men undressing in public facilities that were previously assigned for the exclusive use of girls and women.

Equality in Australia, is the total removal of women’s sexual boundaries.

Subscribe now

In a world where political discourse can be difficult to shape, Pornocracy by Jo Bartosch and Robert Jessel’s is an essential read for those wanting to arm themselves with knowledge and quite a bit of righteous indignation about what the porn industry is doing to those we love and those who govern us.

Pornocracy is defined by Bartosch and Jessel as “a society in which political power, culture, relationships and identity are shaped and dominated by the purveyors of Pornography.” It’s a bold claim to make at the beginning of a book, but by the end of this engaging read, you’ll have been convinced by the weight of evidence that porn has become, to use an overused parlance, an existential crisis in the modern West.

Pornocracy is a small book, and a third of its size is references, making it as much a summary of the current porn-critical literature and arguments as anything. If you are brave enough to face it, Pornocracy will leave you more aware of the horrors, but also well-armed to engage in the debate.

Among the most startling statistics in Pornocracy are;

The porn industry is now worth twice as much as Hollywood. In May 2023 10.1 million men in the UK accessed porn. Given that there are 30 million adult men in the UK, that’s one-third of men. Males make up 73% of porn consumption.

35-45% of pornography involves physical aggression, almost always against women and girls. Incest is the fastest-growing porn category. The “barely legal’ and teen categories are the most popular subset of porn.

In terms of employees of the porn industry, what we now fashionably call “sex workers”, 88% of porn performers have been sexually abused as children, 65% claim to have been raped as part of their performance, 80% have a diagnosed mental illness. Occupational hazards of being a porn performer include sexually transmitted infections, overdoses and suicide.

I have frequently said that if prostituted women had the sympathy of male chickens, then porn and prostitution may suffer the same legal censure as cock fighting. We see that the rationale for this is that animals are deemed unable to consent, while young women and girls take payment for porn performances.

It is no mystery why “choice” and “sex positive” feminism are the chosen models of feminism for all government organisations. The shift from protection to empowerment empowers the mythology that porn is a regular and lucrative job for girls and women.

Pornocracy argues that the widespread use of porn has allowed corrupted narratives for the continued protection of porn as an industry to infiltrate systemically into society and law. This may sound conspiratorial until you look at the legislation being influenced by our own peak LGBTIQ organisations in Australia.

I wrote recently of a case in Victoria of a man who sexually abused his daughter while playing out sissy porn fantasies with another man. The abusive father was recast, by the defence’s forensic psychiatrist, as a female victim of male oppression, because he had played the submissive party in the porn fantasy and he had changed his birth marker to female just before the trial. Submission is cast as female in porn and in governmental trans ideology.

The Beyond Bricks and Bars project, part of the registered Victorian charity Flat Out, supported the pedophile during his trial. Flatout Inc are registered as charity for Indigenous people, females, and families, and are predominately funded by government grants. One such grant is from “Family Safety Victoria”, who are part of the Victorian Department of Health.

The link between sissy porn and trans identification is becoming well established in research, and Pornocracy highlights the growing field of research shining a light on harmful porn-positive or “sex work” positive narratives, now accepted by governments.

In 2023 Alex Greenwich, with support from staff of LGBTIQ peak body ACON, drafted the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023, that initially proposed the removal of all prostitution offences from the New South Wales Summary Offences Act 1988.

Greenwich proposed, in Parliament, for the removal of section 15A of the Act, which prohibits “coercive conduct or undue influence [to] cause or induce another person to commit an act of prostitution”. Greenwich argued that this “offence creates complications and risks for sex worker businesses in recruitment, sex workers talking about their work with friends and support services helping a person starting in sex work”.

Pornocracy outlines the unsurprising fact that “persons starting in sex work” are predominantly very young women and girls being groomed on tube sites from their own bedrooms. The sale of sexual services by a minor female person is increasingly how girls get “started in sex work”. Pornocracy includes the stories of women who went down this very path, and spoiler alert, they didn’t find the experience empowering, nor did they end up on the Forbes rich list.

Pornocracy can be a useful concept in explaining the reframing of age-old exploitation as an empowering home-based business, and the institutional depiction of men engaging in child sexual abuse as oppressed and marginalised women.

What Pornocracy made this old-fashioned feminist realise was that the arguments I have been making about the exploitative nature of the porn industry for girls and women are increasingly losing currency in a world that is devaluing the lives of young women with a constant stream of graphic sexual violence that legislators are unwilling to oppose and increasingly willing to enable.

Bartosch and Jessel do a respectful acknowledgement of the long-term feminist criticism of pornography, including the contribution of radical feminists and feminist separatists, to the porn problem. The solution of separatists is admittedly not for everyone, as it involves women opting out of men, the way vegans opt out of dairy.

To separate the feminists who are fighting porn to those who actively institutionalise porn and porn narratives, Bartosch and Jessel call popular intersectional feminism “zombie feminism”, describing it as “a brain sucking monster that inhabits the body of a once great movement”. I’m not altogether comfortable to see true feminism placed as a legacy or fringe movement, but this is a small criticism, given a full analysis of feminism as an ongoing useful concept would be well out of the scope of the book.

Pornocracy does propose some ways forward and some that I agree with, including the addressing of porn as a health crisis. Health promotion as a government doctrine is one of the ways porn narratives have been embedded in institutions, as we saw with the child sexual abuse case I cited. It makes sense to combat the pornocracy where it lives.

Bartosch and Jessel argue that porn is rewiring men’s brains, not just in attitudes to violence against women and girls, but it’s making men literally impotent and incapable of the relationships they need to build meaningful lives and families. Pornocracy is as harmful to men and society as it is to women.

Pornocracy is an easy and engaging read and a tremendously useful resource. I should give a small trigger warning for survivors of sexual assault, like me, but the book doesn’t go into any unnecessary detail or scale voyeuristic terrain. Given Pornocracy’s accessible language, I would also not hesitate to recommend it for older teens. Buy two copies and send one to your local member.

Subscribe now

Since I became a Christian and started discipleship in a Baptist church in January 1992, I’ve always thought evangelical is the only sensible way to be a Christian, even though I am now quite a bit lapsed. One of my New Year’s resolutions is to get myself back to church, so I’ve been trying to plug back into the Christian world.

I fell in with the evangelicals like one might fall in with any group that everyone you knew despised, with a degree of rebellious relish.

Thankfully, the pastor at the Baptist church I began attending, a Mr Colin Patterson, had a love for the sinner saved. My sister and I were clearly marked as joyous converts from a sure life of sin and destruction, and we didn’t mind that at all. Evangelicals take the scriptures very seriously, and the first order of business, when a wayward creature like me comes into the church, is to get them started on bible discipleship.

A lovely middle-aged teacher was consequently bullied into giving up her free time to give me a few hours every week to go through bible studies. I was allocated a “home group” where we would study the bible one night a week with tea and cake. Tea and cake are always a feature of the gathering of Baptist people. I liked that.

I was told that it was OK to drink moderately and date (without sex), but I should give myself a period of abstinence from both for about six months to a year, while I was discipled. I obeyed this diligently as well. So I stayed away from my ratbag friends; this also was a good thing.

As a pretty young girl entering the church, everyone was warned that I was to be given space; boys approaching me after church were warned that I was a “baby Christian” and I was to be treated as such. If any male hugged me, it was to be what we called a “side hug”, where no breasts could touch. There were no women pastors, as there are now in the Baptist church, but when I had private counsel with the pastor, he always left the door slightly ajar, so the secretary had a line of sight into the room.

It seemed a bit strict for the modern world of 1992, but I liked it. I had been made homeless from sexual violence, my family were largely insane, I was doing a left-wing humanities degree and had been flirting with radical politics, I was a hot mess, and the order of the evangelical church was good for me.

On reflection, I see my vulnerability more sharply than I did then, but Pastor Patterson saw it. Had any Christian leader been sexually or morally inappropriate around me at that time, I can only predict how ghastly it would have been to be abused in a place where I sought refuge and healing. So many stories of this very thing are coming out of the charismatic church right now, and I am arrogant enough to say I saw it coming.

Because I was a bit of a rebel, I eventually became discontent with what I called “the institutional church” and “the denominational system”. The home church movement was growing at the time, as was what came to be known as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). I remember the cool people questioning why churches were run under the authority of pastors, when pastors were frequently less gifted than other people in the church. The idea in the NAR was that authority was not just poorly placed in the traditional denominational system; it was not appropriately distributed.

Even though I became involved in home-based church meetings, I saw problems with NAR ideology right from the beginning. Even though I didn’t have the words, I instinctively felt the removal of the safeguarding that I had benefited from. With all the faults of traditional old boring Pastor Patterson, he had what we call “the fear of God”. Pastor Patterson understood that with the authority he had as the leader of that little church, he carried the responsibility for the sheep, especially the most vulnerable of the sheep. True Christian leaders believe that they will give an account to God when they die, as Pastor Patterson now has, for those who came under their authority.

As soon as I walked into the local Baptist church in my Doc Martins, skimpy dress and radical politics, Pastor Patterson went about equipping me with information that would make me less vulnerable to exploitation. He told me that I could go to another church, but he gave me a list of easy-to-remember points about how to recognise the difference between a cult and an established religion.

The charismatic leaders of the NAR would take their authority, not from the denomination, but directly from God. Red flag. I didn’t want anything to do with it, but the woman I placed myself under as a mentor, over the years, became very influenced by self-proclaimed prophets and apostles of the NAR.

Full disclosure, I did like some of the teachers at Bethel church, who have been at the centre of the controversy with the NAR. I did like Bill Johnson, who has shown ongoing negligent judgment in platforming liars, thieves and predators.

My mentor was an older woman of the silent generation, the same generation as my parents. She was a godly woman and a woman of exceptional Bible knowledge with a long history in the Baptist church. I believe she was the first woman to teach New Testament Greek at the Baptist Bible College. She was also at the forefront of the charismatic revival that went through the Baptist churches in Brisbane in the 1960s-70s.

The problem with the NAR, is that people would declare themselves as having authority in the church, while taking no responsibility for the welfare of the sheep, as traditional pastors do.

Many of the people my mentor would tell me to listen to, were very obviously charlatans. I loved her and was close to her until she died at the age of 96, but she had a massive blind spot, for reasons that I don’t need to outline here, but one of those reasons was not lack of intelligence.

A point of personal pain was that my mentor came under the influence of a younger woman who was heavily into the NAR and was very obviously manipulative and dishonest. Several people had tried to warn my mentor and were cut off out of her life, so I walked a fine line in maintaining my relationship with her through her very old age and frailty.

Long story short, in relation to the problems that we are seeing in the Charismatic church, and the new apostles, is that a massive bunch of the NAR men who could tell the future and hear from God, are sex predators and charlatans, and they have been raping the sheep literally and metaphorically for decades.

The way this is being exposed is that the old boomers are being called out by younger evangelical pastors with large YouTube platforms on basic biblical principles. And the young guys are 100% correct.

In my analogy with the world of political and cultural commentary, there are very obvious problems with legacy media, universities and political systems. Journalists were once graduates of top universities and equipped with classic educations and typically widely read. As these media institutions and the universities become more and more corrupt, these massive legacy institutions, like the establishment church, have needed to be called to account.

Many of us were excited about the rise of alternative media and we have found our favourite commentators to follow. Some people have called ‘time of death’ on legacy Western institutions and political frameworks.

The problem is that many of the new political and cultural commentators are shocking grifters at best, and cynical puppets of dark political agendas at worst, and the safeguarding rails have been removed.

YouTubers of many stripes have gained massive platforms critiquing the establishment-left and reactive political movements and are making real traction. Unfortunately, we are facing a post-structural nightmare on all sides.

I once thought that tearing down the corrupted institutions was a solution, but now I’m in my 50s, I don’t believe this anymore.

The problem we are seeing in the political world is an unmooring from, not just accountability, but from traditional political structures, like liberalism, democracy, and social justice in their fundamental form.

I believe in the progression of Christian thought. I am a fan of the happy clappy side of Christianity but unmooring it from the scriptures, tradition and history was a disaster of safeguarding.

Conservatives cling to the traditions and doctrines of the past, and it is normal for people to get more conservative as they get older. I respect true conservatives, but even conservatism is being unmoored from the meaning of conservatism under post-structural intellectual methodology.

Conservativism does not mean shoving women back in the kitchen and throwing a tea towel over their heads, because conservative institutions and ideologies have seen a slow reformation of these ideas over a very long time.

I am not a conservative, but I have always tried to provide a structural, intellectual and historical argument around the ideas and arguments I’ve provided. It makes me a little more boring, but it has been a safe way for me to negotiate this journey I have been on, that is quite a way, but not that far really, from my political roots.

There is a massive problem with giving the biggest platforms to people we think can see the future, who can tell you who is on the right side of history, who are charming, and who can speak well in front of an audience. We are setting ourselves up for failure.

Another problem in both the crumbling charismatic church ministries and the post-structuralist heterodox movement is the shunning of debate and critique of people “on our own side”.

I don’t have all the answers, I’m just venting and forming clarity around my renewed structuralism. I believe in structures and systems, and more than ever, I believe in safeguarding. The early 21st century will be known as the era of discarding safeguarding and watching the consequences.

Subscribe now

When asked why it is that young women are voting left, I have seen a frustrating array of predictable answers, all rooted in the inferior emotional stability of female people. Even when the question was posed to an allegedly left-wing Joe Hildebrand on a Sky News program, he mumbled something about girls being subject to left wind indoctrination at university. Boys also go to university, but somehow they have a superpower where they are resistant to indoctrination and understand the right is right. Strange commentary from a man who claims to still support the left of politics for apparently rational reasons.

Last year I got in a fight with the men and women of “my own side” when I criticised Jordon Peterson’s idea that the trans problem was rooted in single women’s misplaced maternal longings. Apparently, women are building a nest in their own public bathrooms, with their barren wombs, for the poor, vulnerable men, who just want to pee.

Growing ranks of angry women protesting for their sex based rights seems to go completely unnoticed by the philosophical men, who are convinced that the problem of pervy men flooding into women’s prisons and domestic violence shelters, is women’s own fault for mobilising for the vote in the first place. This political mobilisation for women is the problem and its name is “feminism”.

But we, who call ourselves feminists, are not allowed to put boundaries around the definition of feminism. We are not allowed to say “if you include men in feminism, that is not feminism”. This gatekeeping of feminism is apparently a “no true Scotsman” argument. The right are insisting, in my X tread this week, that a feminist is anyone who identifies as a feminist.

Consequently, it’s all the feminists’ fault. You name the problem, and some half-witted Matt Walsh subscriber will be able to give you the academic genealogy of the idea back to feminism.

What other reasons, I hear them ask, would women not be voting for modern-day conservatives as a way out of their own erasure? If I ask young gender-critical left leaning men, for instance, why they vote left, the answer is always about the alternative. The answer will logically be, that the alternative is poor.

In the analysis of voting patterns, men are given agency while women are subject to social contagion, toxic empathy, and the cry of a barren womb from their cat-filled, chardonnay-riddled, one-bedroom apartment.

I ask such proponents of this analysis, “have you met young right-wing men on social media? Do you think maybe there are other reasons that the right is so revolting to young women that they continue to vote for what they know?”

Could it be that prominent right-wing commentators openly argue for the removal of the nineteenth amendment in the US, the legislation that gave women the vote?

Could it be those photographs of popular right-wing influencers, flooding social media, in the company of actual sex traffickers?

Could it be that men who are facing multiple and credible accusations of rape are paraded as Christians and philosophical gurus?

Could it be that the real structural problems on the left side of politics, that are undermining women’s rights, are not properly addressed on the right because they have exiled feminists?

In 2023 Alex Greenwich, with support from staff of LGBTIQ peak body ACON, drafted the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023, that initially proposed the removal of all prostitution offences from the New South Wales Summary Offences Act 1988.

Greenwich proposed, in Parliament, for the removal of section 15A of the Act, which prohibits “coercive conduct or undue influence [to] cause or induce another person to commit an act of prostitution”. Greenwich argued that this “offence creates complications and risks for sex worker businesses in recruitment, sex workers talking about their work with friends and support services helping a person starting in sex work”. This is very obviously a law for pimps to get free access to groom young girls.

Because women’s rights are seen as an identity politics issue on the right, there is no serious pushback for outrageously misogynistic ideology underpinning the modern LGBTIQ. So how are young women to know this is happening when the left won’t tell them and the right have cancelled feminism?

Feminists, like me, who spend their time on little else but raising awareness of the misogyny on the left, get constantly marginalised in the centre by right wing commentators who definitely don’t want us influencing young women.

Bro-casters, like the boys that run the popular Triggernometry podcast, consistently demean feminism and portray, even gender critical feminist, as irrational and ideologically motivated.

Konstantin Kisin last week shared a popular article pontificating about all the reasons women may vote left, apart from anything to do with the right, furiously agreeing with every moronic point. He also made commentary that the fact that radical feminists hate men “has been incredibly off putting”, and that when he has tried to platform GC women on his show, attempting to get rational explanations for why they are part of the problem, they “unsurprisingly,… never got very far”.

For political commentators, like myself who turn rightward, we must denounce feminism in all its forms, which I will not. So, we get stuck in this literal no man’s land, where we are cancelled by all sides.

To then be lectured in our no man’s land about how we need to allow the conservatives to save us, it becomes difficult to not start a expletive ridden rant about where men like Kisin can fuck off to. Which of course we do and we get called irrational feminists.

And yet we press on and face another year in a movement that almost nobody listens to, refusing to submit to party political narratives, critically engaging as much as we can.

This year I intend to get my website going, I will also keep writing here, including the occasional rant like this one. We expect the Giggle V Tickle decision soon, and we have a few elections where we can blame the feminists for the conservatives losing. So, keep posted.

Subscribe now

I don’t like to talk about issues broader than feminism, because I’ve deliberately become political active in a single-issue campaign. I have felt compelled in recent years to come out and speak clearly about my support for the Jewish community in the face of rising antisemitism in the world and particularly in Australia.

A number of people became friendly with me in gender critical circles, knowing that I am part of a Muslim Lebanese community through my marriage. Because of my outspoken love for the Lebanese people, and my expressed wishes for the prosperity of the Lebanese nation, erroneous assumptions were made about my support for terrorist organisations, that I was keen to correct. I know and love a lot of Lebanese and Syrian people, and all my Lebanese and Syrian friends are against terrorism, many of them have fled the horrors of terrorism in Australian democratic liberalism.

The assumption that I would be somehow against the Jewish people having their own homeland, because I am related to Lebanese people, is a very naïve and frankly a very western idea. Believe it or not, Lebanese people have different political, religious and ideological views. When I speak to Lebanese people about politics, because I am ethnically British and Christian, they are never surprised to find that I support the existence of the sate of Israel.

After October 7, there was very disturbing scenes at the Sydney Opera House, and I wasn’t surprised by the anti-Jew chants. I said, out loud, that my experience of the Muslim Lebanese community in Sydney, is that there is an element of anti-jew sentiment among politically minded Muslims, and there is an extremist politics present among the some devout Muslims.

In my opinion, this extremism is marginal in the Lebanese community, but I won’t have people tell me it doesn’t exist, when I have had several face to face conversations with Muslim people who are openly supportive of terrorist groups, who’s aim is to eradicate the Jews.

I talked of Lebanese and Syrians because these are the only Muslim communities that I have had an ongoing relationship with over many (32) years. I was being told by British socialists, who have never stepped foot in a western Sydney Muslim home, that the Arabic speaking people chanting anti-Jew hate at the opera house, were just a few dickheads. As soon as I started to say I have seen systemic anti-Jew ideology among Muslim communities, I was branded a racist by a certain set of gender critical politics.

In my very white suburban Brisbane upbringing, I hadn’t encountered any anti-Jew rhetoric, until I met Muslim people in my early 20s. The day before my wedding day, my father-in-law gave us instructions, in English so I could understand, about the seating arrangements at the wedding reception. He made it clear that his ex-wife, (my mother-in-law) was deeply despised by him. He said to my husband “sit me next to a Jew, but don’t sit me next to your mother”.

I am sure, that had my father-in-law been placed next to a Jewish person, he would have been as pleasant and charming as any narcissist would be. I don’t even think my Father-in-law hated jews, I just think that it was imbedded in his cultural rhetoric that Jews were the lowest form of human life. When he searched for an example of someone of the most repulsive class, the Jew was what came to his mind.

Of course, many Lebanese Muslims don’t think this way. A lot of my middle eastern born friends will say they grew up with antisemitism, but became committed to rejecting illogical and harmful beliefs about Jewish people.

My husband and I are both Christians and we were taught, in the Baptist church we attended, to respect the Jews as the people who carried the word of God throughout the ages. My parents both grew up during the depression and the second world war and were very clear about how dangerous antisemitism was. Because of my faith, because of my upbringing and because of the realities of history, I find Jew hatred, not just offensive, but a danger to peaceful society that I won’t see grow without saying some words. This is hardly a remarkable stance.

I believe human hatred is real, that incitement is real. We have now seen two massacres in Bondi, one targeted at women and the other at Jews. I believe that the Australian government has been negligent in addressing hatred toward women and hatred toward Jews and I don’t feel comfortable speaking about one and ignoring the other.

We have a government who is making laws against hatred that has led to Kirralie Smith being sued for $95,000 for calling men “men”, laws that mean lesbians can’t have a dating space for women, laws that ignore systemic misogyny in gender identity ideology, and the application of laws that ignore the dangers of Islamism brewing in suburban Mosques.

I believe the political apology for overt anti-Jew sentiment, is directly responsible for the open massacre of Jews on the streets of Sydney.

I am not surprised that the hero of the Bondi Hanukkah massacre was a Syrian gentleman, putting his life on the line to fight violent extremism, the kind of extremism that has destroyed his nation.

I don’t like to hear some of the obvious racism toward Arabic speaking people from the Middle East from the political right, and I push back against it where I can, but it is only being inflamed by ignoring the problems that are evident in Islamism.

It really is time to take back our nation by speaking the truth without fear of being called names, and I will continue to do so.

My heartfelt sympathies are with the people who lost their lives to Islamic terrorism in Bondi and to the Jewish community whom I continue to stand with against rising stupid hatred.

All the very best to all who read my blog. Blessings to you for Hannukah, Christmas and the new year. I will be enjoying time with my family and praying for peace in Australia.

Subscribe now

On the 18^th of November MP Di Farmer proudly posted on Facebook that she had been part of a protest outside Parliament House in Queensland, and was a signatory to a petition against the banning of puberty blockers for gender non-conforming children in Queensland. Farmer was joined by other MPs Grace Grace, Mark Bailey and my own local member Joe Kelly, to vehemently insist that we should trust psychiatrists to desex children.

The lobby groups involved in the Queensland protest, to demand the government re-instate puberty blockers for gender medicine, included Equality Australia, Transcend, Trans Justice Project and LGBTI legal services, all these lobby groups are government funded.

In the UK, comprehensive studies have demonstrated that puberty blockers are not only ineffective and dangerous, they target the most vulnerable of children, the majority of whom will later identify as same sex attracted. The Cass Review showed that almost all children who are placed on puberty blockers for gender incongruence, go on to a lifetime of cross sex hormones. This creates a group of people who have had no puberty at all.

Dr Marcy Bowers of WPATH admitted in leaked messages that he is “unaware of an individual claiming ability to orgasm when they were blocked at Tanner 2.” This is not just about an orgasm, but denying a person the experience of a long-term, mutually enjoyable, intimate relationship. This is an integral part of the human experience. No child can consent to the removal of something they have no way to imagine the value of.

Dr Stephen Stathis, top gender psychiatrist with Queensland Health, has admitted to a room of his peers, that the evidence of the benefits of puberty blockers to young people in gender medicine, is “weak”, while the evidence of long-term harms, including bone density issues, permanent infertility and sexual dysfunction, are increasingly evident. Apparently, these are not reasons “not to do it”.

Despite all this evidence, the NHS are about to embark on human trials of puberty blockers for what are called “trans” children.

So why are the parliamentary left and professional activists so reluctant to give up the desexing of children, when it is so obviously wrong?

I’d love to spin a BuzzFeed vibe and give you 5 reasons why, but I only have one reason. The only reason our government paid progressives want to block the puberty of gender non-conforming children, is to maintain the lucrative “tans myth”.

The trans myth is the idea that everyone has a body sex and a soul sex and of these two sexes the soul sex is the true sex and the true self. According to the myth, a very small percentage of special people have an incongruence between the body sex and the soul sex, and we call these people “trans”.

According to the myth, if the sex of the soul or the “self” is denied it’s expression, and it’s affirmation, the host body can literally die.

If there is an innate condition called trans, then it stands to reason some of the trans people are children. The paediatric science of trans, then posits that special doctors can tests to find the child with the trans soul, partly by finding out what stereotypes the child is attracted to.

Once the diagnosis of the trans child is conducted, so the science goes, a child will have the best chance of being their true sex soul self by stopping the toxic and deadly body sex development.

The trans myth then goes on to insist that brutal ineffective surgeries with very poor results, like phalloplasty, should not only be available, but paid for by the taxpayer. In addition, all of society must be compelled to pretend they don’t’ see body sex with their own eyes, and everyone must forget the dangers of sex completely, including male pattern criminal and sexual behaviour towards women and children.

The obvious problem is that this is all complete nonsense. It is useful nonsense to government because it has grown an industry of consultants that provide government with cultural and political control mechanism. The reality for the regular person is that harm has been caused by the trans myth, not just to medical science, but to society, to women’s rights, to gay rights, to parent’s rights and to children’s rights to reaching adulthood intact.

Without the trans myth, the entire medical and political industry of trans falls into the sea and the draconian legislation, that is tied to the trans myth, will just be a sticky dream between a politician’s sheets.

The trans myth became institutionalised in 2013 with the invention of gender dysphoria. The diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the DSM5 invented the dual sexed person, with the decree that the distress people feel about gender stereotypes is a type of innate sexual self and the source of distress in the trans person is from discrimination.

The big problem in selling the trans myth, is that almost no trans identifying men “pass”, they almost all look like men in dresses, and people have eyes.

Puberty blockers provide the trans medical and political industry with the closest simulation of a female person that a male can achieve, especially when puberty is blocked before tanner stage 2. This creates a physical illusion that sex is not as real as we think.

Individuals like Georgie Stone, Jazz Jennings and Avery Jackson are the patron saints of the trans myth. We saw them as boy children, and because they have had no male puberty, they are destined to grown up to look and act exactly like women, but in a long experiment, that is not really what has happened.

The smoke and mirrors of the trans myth will show us the castrated straight hipped “trans girl” on the catwalk, but we mustn’t look too closely at the life of reality TV star Jazz Jennings. The reality show I Am Jazz reveals that Jennings, who was identified as trans by his mother as a toddler, still struggles to access the milestones regular adults would achieve, like financial independence, emotional stability and natural romantic engagements. In one episode Jazz’s mother was seen suggesting that Jazz is “asexual”. Asexuality has become a cover identity for the desexed person.

Another puberty blocked male, who has turned into an inconvenient adult, is Avery Jackson. Avery Jackson was the young boy with pink hair who graced the cover of National Geographic as a nine-year-old in January 2017. With the dramatic headline “Gender Revolution”, Avery was placed at the forefront of the invention of the transgender child.

Debbi Jackson, Avery’s mother, is a preacher of the duel soul trans myth. She posted in 2020 that “God knows us before we are in the womb. He knows our spirit. That is not the same as our physical, temporary body.” Debbi began to socially transition Avery when he was 4, and he has become a typical example of a child placed on the trans pathway shortly after infancy and going into adulthood without puberty.

Debbi posted on X in 2020 in reply to at JK Rowling that her “daughter…IS female. And she absolutely would feel like you hated her if you denied that reality.” But by 2022 Avery was “course correcting” and identifying as nonbinary. It turns out Avery wasn’t a girl inside after all. Debbie now refers to her son by plural pronouns, declaring him to be “valid” and “happy”.

If the trans myth is not true, which it is not, because it is ridiculous, what we have done to children in its service is a scandal. Those who have been complicit, those who have profited, can never look and see what they have done. There is only one way to break the trans myth on which the house of cards of gender identity rests. Truth.

We must tell the truth about sex, always and everywhere. Those of us who have committed to never use wrong sex pronouns, to see a man and say a man, to not accept in our life any lies about human sex categories, suffer all kinds of abuse and vilification, but the more of us who commit to this path, the sooner this will end, and we can start to heal our society from one of the most dangerous lies ever told by government.

Subscribe now

I made this realisation while watching Seinfeld. There is an episode where Jerry and George pretend to be some random people to get a ride home from the airport, and it turns out that one of those random people is the head of the Aryan Union. This leads to comic misunderstandings that Jerry Seinfeld is an assistant to a leading Jew hating fascist.

In a glorious performance, Kramer decides that there has always been something suspicious about Jerry, especially his cleanliness. He concludes that Jerry is leading a double life as a comedian and a Nazi. Rather than replying with the obvious, that Jerry is a Jew, Elaine says, “Jerry isn’t a Nazi, he’s just neat.”

The Seinfeld episode made me long for a simpler time, when I didn’t know anyone who thought the Jews were conspiring with the captains of industry to control the world. A time when I myself may have called someone a Nazi for being persnickety. Unfortunately, we all know people peddling the anti-Jew conspiracy theories now, because they have infiltrated every political movement in the Western world, including the gender critical (GC) women’s rights movement.

I assume most of my readership are going to know the drama that occurred at the recent Filia women’s conference, so I won’t go over it in detail. Long story short, some women are socialists and believe that, to liberate women, we must liberate everyone from the capitalist, Zionist, patriarchal liberal state.

These women are not fascist by doctrine, but many are not frightened to join with well-funded Islamists to achieve their goal, giving a flavour of Jew hatred to the new feminist/socialist revolution. The merging of the women’s revolution with the intifada seems like one of the more stupid turns in history, but now the workers earn a living wage, what are the commies to do?

Since the beginning of the latest Israel-Palestine conflict, we have seen the game of pointing the genocide bone at anyone who supports Israel as a homeland for the Jews or anyone who claims that Islam has a problem with Jews, or women, or any such obvious thing.

Solidarity is important in a grassroots, class-based movement, but GC needs to split and it needs to do so properly and honestly if we are to get on with the work of overthrowing gender identity in government.

Kathleen Stock has been on the tweets sticking up for her mate Julie Bindel and pointing the finger at the left-wing section of gender critical for getting into a “purity spiral”.

There is not a purity spiral problem in GC, there is a fundamental lack of political understanding. Socialists are not attacking Bindel now because she is sitting on the stage with right-wing figures; she’s been doing that for years. Socialists are attacking Bindel in the current political environment because she stands up for the Jews, and consistently opposes antisemitism in her own side. It’s important to be honest about this. Stock has been less vocal on the issue and more typically philosophical.

To be fair, Stock shouldn’t have to declare a side on an international conflict that has nothing to do with her, but that’s not how the GC socialists are playing this.

Kellie-Jay Keen has been the most vocal critic of the socialist arm of GC. The “socfems”, as the TERF island GC’s call them, have been real trouble for Kellie-Jay, calling her all kinds of terrible names and unjustly associating her with some very dark figures on the extreme right. The left-wing aggression toward Kellie-Jay almost cost her her life in New Zealand, so it’s no small thing.

The accusations the socfems made toward Kellie-Jay were raised in the Australian Federal Court, by the Pesutto team, in the Deeming V Pesutto defamation case. It was found, by an Australian Federal Court judge, that the claims being made against Kellie-Jay Keen by the socialist arm of GC were spurious.

But Kellie-Jay equivocates on the issue of the socialists, claiming the attacks by the socialists originate from feminism, and I don’t’ think that is accurate.

KJK is not the only one being called nasty names by this gross little gang of meanies in GC. They attack anyone further right than Rosa Luxemburg.

The main attacks I’ve had from the GC commies was after Kathleen Stock publicly disciplined me for criticising Stella O’Malley, and when Dennis Kavanagh then went on to call me “extreme” for my disagreements with the “top girls”. Once this happened, lower figures in the GC chain called me slurs, suggesting I was on the far-right, and in came the commies, digging up anything they could find to suggest that my secret wish is to install a Christo-fascist government.

The next week of online abuse ended with me in the hospital. At the time, I was recovering from a long-term stress-related condition, and I should have turned my phone off as soon as the pile-on started, but I honestly couldn’t believe that people would call me a Nazi because I disagreed with Kathleen Stock. I tried to argue and write my way through it, and of course, that’s not how the internet works. I could have taken a picture of myself from the ambulance and stormed off X, but I’m not an arsehole. The only reason I raise it here is to say that politics can be unduly stressful if we see it as a sorority.

If it was just the commies, it would have been no problem, but the socialist have been a handy little shield for the paid leaders of GC when they want to ward off the ratio of the grass roots. As the abuse continued, polite top figures in GC quietly soft-blocked me, so as not have to witness me being bullied with accusations they knew to be untrue, but that they think are the appropriate comeuppance for disobedience to authority.

We have to be honest that some people are serious about seeing the liberal capitalist state overthrown, and they are prepared to join with some very dangerous characters to achieve this goal. This politics is escalating violence toward Jewish citizens. The same side that threatens the Jews is assaulting gender critical women in the streets and is more broadly normalising violence as a political tool. These people are not just a bit persnickety; they are political extremists.

I think the split in GC is inevitable over revolutionary politics, in the same way it was for the suffragettes, and it needs to happen with honesty and clarity.

There is no shame in a split over reform or revolution. The Pankhurst family split on this issue. I have chosen a side, I believe the answer to the gender corruption is in the reform of the liberal nation state, not in its destruction, and certainly not in overthrowing the liberal state in partnership with Islamists.

I don’t like war, I want the best of things for the Arabic-speaking people of the Middle East and I want them to have safe states. Therefore, I am against Islamism, I am against terrorism, and I believe that Israel is a legitimate homeland for the Jews.

Disagree with me on this, but let’s be honest about our politics and secure ourselves in our camps, because this conflict won’t end with the war, and it isn’t about to disappear with the philosophy wand.

Subscribe now

Picture from the Suffragette March 20,1914

Last week, I told you of the magical powers that allowed me to predict the arrest of a woman four years in advance. This week, I’m going to tell you about a group of magic feminists who predicted, six years ago, that women in Victorian prisons would be locked in a second prison of administrative injustice.

The magic women, who may in fact be witches, are from a sect of dissidents who don’t believe in gender souls. The Australian Labor Party and the Greens refer to these women simply as “the transphobes”. As the ghastly predictions of the transphobes come true, I wonder if the scold’s bridle of social shame that has been given to them may finally be removed.

In 2019, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019 (BDMRAB) was passed in Victoria. The Attorney General responsible for passing the legislation, Jill Hennessy, said that the aim of the reforms was that “trans and gender diverse people can have a birth certificate which reflects their true identity.”

The Australian reported that feminists were objecting to the Bill, and they were being called “transphobic”. In the report, a woman named Nina Vallins, spokeswoman for the Victorian Women’s Guild, claimed that women’s spaces were in danger, that female prisoners were at risk, and she warned that the sex self-ID legislation was being passed recklessly, without adequate consultation with women’s groups and concerns for women’s safety.

Subscribe now

Ms Hennessy said the bill was “developed in consultation with LGBTI communities” and “declined to answer questions on how widely the government had consulted on the bill.”

In their submission to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee in 2019, with concerns about the BDMRAB, the Women’s Guild raised the issue of vulnerable women’s prisoners and said that it would be “unjust to make the rights of women in prison… dependent on administrative decisions which they cannot appeal.”

In the wake of the scandal of a male pedophile being placed in a women’s prison in Victoria, Premier Jacinta Allan deflected any accountability by saying that Corrections Victoria is responsible for the placement of prisoners in Victoria.

The Labor government, which Allan leads, has hamstrung the very administrative structure that she points to as responsible for the safety of women in Victorian prisons. They have done so with the self-ID legislation that the Labor government enthusiastically developed, promoted, and passed.

Thanks to the Labor Party, Corrections Victoria cannot protect vulnerable women, because like all government departments in Victoria, it cannot recognise natal sex, only legal sex, and in Victoria everyone has a right to choose their own legal sex to affirm their identity.

Placing prisoners in mixed sex facilities is a violation of the Nelson Mandela Rules of humane prison management, which require a separation of male and female prisoners. Achieving this justice is an impossible aim for women under the authority of Corrections Victoria, because there is no avenue for a prisoner to appeal legislation that defines men as women. This second prison of injustice makes the dissident feminists of the Victorian Women’s Guild seem spookily prescient.

The fact that Self ID is operating exactly the way that the dissident feminists predicted should translate to a political victory for all those who opposed Self ID legislation, like the Victorian Liberal Party.

Brad Battin, Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, has come out saying that his party opposes male sex offenders in women’s prisons. He is proposing to take only the convicted male sex offenders out of women’s prisons, even though rape and sexual assault are well-known to be under-reported crimes. Most sexual crimes by men, against women and children, will never see a courtroom.

Subscribe now

This half-baked solution does not have the capacity to keep women safe, because the problem is not just sex offenders in women’s spaces, it’s men in women’s spaces. Ultimately, the problem is the erasure of women as a people who can exist separately from men.

To gain political traction, Battin should be pointing to the women’s rights and safety violations self ID legislation has caused. Issues that the government was warned of and ignored. Issues that his party raised to oppose in the legislation in 2019.

There should be no men in women’s prison, no matter what crime they have committed, no matter how vulnerable they are; women’s bodies don’t exist to rescue men from other men.

Other “moderate” commentators have suggested that the psychological assessments can separate the wheat from the chaff among the special men who seek access to vulnerable women’s bodies. Let me tell you about the psychological assessment for the male pedophile in question (from hereon to be known as “the pedophile”).

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Rajan Darjee prepared a report for the court in relation to the pedophile, which referred to the pedophile as a woman and a mother, even though a man can be neither of those things.

Darjee pointed out that paraphilias are very rare in women, particularly pedophilia, and especially the sexual abuse of their own children. Women who engage in child sex abuse are more likely to do so because of coercion from a man. These statistical realities were the foundation assumptions of the psychologist’s report, even though the pedophile only changed his legal name and birth sex marker to female during the trial.

In psychiatric terms, just performing a sex act on a child does not make a person a pedophile. In diagnosing pedophilia, the intrinsic deviant sexual motivation is considered relevant to the person’s danger to others.

Darjee’s report framed the pedophile as a female person who had been coerced into performing horrific sex acts on his daughter by a man. Darjee claimed that the pedophile “was not inherently motivated by deviant sexual interests or any other motive”.

By imposing the criminal profile of a woman on the male pedophile, the court was able to mask the deviant nature of the pedophile and the paraphilic dynamic between the two pedophiles involved in abusing the little girl.

Dom/sub (dominant/submissive) sexual roleplay is a feature of BDSM, (bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism) and is typical in some forms of trans porn.

Genevieve Gluck has researched trans-related porn in relation to the link between fetish and identity. In an interview with Brendan O’Neil from Spiked Online, Genevieve said trans-porn often features men humiliating and degrading themselves “by performing certain objectifying constructs of femininity”.

The porn genre of sissy-porn, Genevieve explains, centres the sissified male (usually a man dressed in sexualised feminine clothing and makeup), as an object to be dominated and abused. In sissy porn, womanhood is achieved through submissiveness and abuse because, for these fetishists, womanhood exists in submission to men and in vulnerability to male-pattern sexual violence.

By framing BDSM roleplaying as legitimate female oppression, an Australian court has validated violently misogynistic pornographic narratives in the service of affirming a pedophile as a vulnerable woman. Importantly, the pedophile was characterised, through this ideology-sodden psychology, as someone of no substantive danger to society, and more specifically, no substantive danger to women or children.

Worse than that (I know it doesn’t seem possible), Judge Nola Karapanagiotidis said that the pedophile’s “gender identity was not fully accepted” by the women in his life, and this lack of affirmation was a mitigating factor in his crimes. In this scenario, pedophilia was accepted as a desperate act of gender affirmation by the court, and therefore, the victim’s mother and grandmother are given some responsibility for the crimes against the little girl, because they failed to affirm the girl’s father as a woman.

The framing of the man as a woman and a victim, instead of a willing player in a male pattern, violent, and criminal pedophilic game, was also a consideration in both the length of the pedophile’s sentence and his placement in the female prison estate.

Judge Nola Karapanagiotidis was at liberty to impose a sentence as long as 25 years for the crime, which is described in graphic horror in the court documents, but taking into account the mitigating circumstance, Karapanagiotidis sentenced the man to 4 years and 9 months, to be eligible for parole in 2 years and 6 months. This sentence is being served in a women’s prison.

The ability to falsify his sex with self-ID legislation allowed this pedophile to adopt all the legal and cultural currency of women and mothers, most critically, that he was free of male-pattern sexual deviancy. This assumption that men with altered birth certificates are free from male pattern deviancy and violence is carried through all the spaces in Australia that were once exclusively for the privacy, safety, and dignity of females.

Male birth markers can be changed throughout Australia, with a declaration from a man that he feels like a woman inside. If you question whether all these men are free from male sexual deviancy or violence, you, too, are a transphobe. Welcome.

Among the transphobes, we sometimes sit around the fire, sharpening our broomsticks, wondering what issue may finally break the spell of trans insanity. No one guessed, not even the most cynical of the hags, that it would be a man performing sex acts on his own daughter, and that a court of law would accept that this horrific sexual violence was a gender affirming practice, reduce his sentence, and send him to a women’s prison, all because he engaged in BDSM with another man, while abusing his daughter.

The depths of depravity that humans will excuse in the service of their ideology are heartbreaking. I am now pleading with the Liberal and National Parties in this country to stand up and put this wickedness out of our misery. Listen to the dissident feminists, our real superpower is to tell you what happens when you disable government protections for women. This is basic, old-fashioned feminism, and it requires hardly any witchcraft at all. Protect women and children, repeal Self ID everywhere.

Subscribe now

(Image from Women’s Forum Australia)

Four years ago, in this The Spectator Australia, I made a prediction that a Māori women’s rights activist in New Zealand would be arrested for her words as a direct result of the progressive polices of the Ardern Government. That Activist’s name is Rex Landy, and her situation is much worse than I predicted.

In 2021 when I was writing about the feminist push against the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill, in New Zealand, I talked about a spate of “progressive” legislation the Ardern Government was passing to the detriment of the freedom of New Zealanders.

I mentioned that women’s rights activist Rex Landy, had made a streamed submission to a “consultation” process, arguing against sex self ID legislation. The submission was uploaded to YouTube and it made Rex a bit of a star in the gender-critical activist community.

I suggested that one of the problems with the legal fiction of changing birth certificates is that, when coupled with hate crime laws, “people like Rex Landy will be arrested for her heretical opposition to the belief in human gender souls”.

In an interview with Rex Landy, Reduxx reported this week that Rex Landy was arrested in December after being reported by a trans identified man for not respecting his legal sex. Rex allegedly failed to scrub all her social media in accordance with an order, amidst a personal tragedy, and “police raided Landy’s home and arrested her”. Rex Landy claims the remaining posts were an omission, but she was charged with “failing to obey a Harmful Digital Communications Act order”.

According to Reduxx “On September 18, just one day before she was ordered to appear in court, Landy was hit with yet another count of failing to obey a Harmful Digital Communications Act”. Rex Landy will next appear in court on December 16, and “faces three months in jail or a $50,000 fine”.

I am not a futurist, a mentalist or a fortune teller. Everyone knew what the consequences of gender identity legislation would be, because the sanctioning of women for recognising a man past a trans identity was always the intention of gender identity legislation, and some women were never going to submit, and Rex was always going to be one of those women.

The progressive laws of leaders like Ardern and Albanese come from UN population management templates that former British Empire colonies like New Zealand, Canada, and Australia have been particularly vulnerable to. Unicameral parliaments like New Zealand and Queensland have created the most radical sex denial legislation, in combination with sham consultation processes.

The, almost identical Queensland legislation was heavily relied on by the Australian Human Rights Commission to push for a judgment against Sall Grover recently. The former British colonies are the true Petri dish of progressive colonialism. As The Who put it “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Rex Landy is a member of Mana Wāhine Korero, an organisation that stands in “opposition to the appropriation and abuse by Critical Social Justice ideologues of our wahine, our tamariki and of our culture, our language and our history”. The women of Mana Wāhine Korero vehemently oppose the New Zealand government and intelligentsia’s claims that gender identity ideology is embedded in Māori and Pacific Islander tradition.

There is plenty of evidence Mana Wāhine Korero and others have provided for the absolute authority of sex as an important human attribute in their culture, and in the organisation of their cultural spaces. But just like nobody believes anyone can change sex, nobody really believes that Māori and Pacific Islander traditions ever included pretending that men can change sex with paperwork. Nobody believes that Māori and Pacific Islander traditions include a punishment for women who don’t recognise men with special paperwork as literal women. Nobody believes that Māori and Pacific Islander traditions call for punishing Māori women, who dissent to colonial law, by locking them up with the men who have the special “female” paperwork. If any of this were the case, a movie could be made about Māori culture that is even more terrifying than Once Were Warriors.

I spoke to Mana Wāhine Korero this week, and they fully acknowledged that Rex is guilty of being “saltier than Lot’s wife”, a statement made me feel surprisingly sad.

I know I will upset the anti-woke, but to look at the situation of Rex Landy separate from her race and her sex is impossible. It is not that white women are not being targeted; we know they are from the Sall Grover and Kirralie Smith cases. It’s the injustice and cruelty of native people being targeted with ideologies cooked in the same institutions that once tried to erase them, institutions that now profess to wield the political capital of the struggle of native people in “social justice” ideologies.

The outworking and reality of international population sex denial experiments is steeped in such stifling cruelty and hypocrisy that you would have to hold your nose very tightly to walk past the racism and misogyny in them. This is especially true, if you have an old-fashioned social justice education like I do.

I prefer the old social justice, the way that Ricky Gervais prefers the “old women”, the ones who don’t have “beards and cocks”. Rex doesn’t say anything ruder than what Ricky Gervais has said, and she is funnier than most comedians, not necessarily Ricky. Rex is not just guilty of being salty; she is guilty of being salty towards a man while being Māori and a woman and not wealthy.

Gervais gets to fly in a private jet and live in his massive house with his cat, something that I applaud him for. Still, Rex Landy has to furiously scrub her social media like Lady Macbeth. She is facing the very real prospect of Christmas in prison, a prison disproportionally populated with Māori and Pacific Islander women, and thanks to Ardern, female prisons in New Zealand are all inclusive of trans identified male sex offenders.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand all now include male sex offenders in the female prison populations in contravention of the Nelson Mandella Rules. It is now impossible to legally distinguish between men and women in institutions, because institutions judge danger by policy, not by sight, like the “old women” do.

In her submission to the sham consultation process, to the sex self ID legislation, Rex mocked the concept of “dead naming” (where a person uses the birth name of a trans identified man), saying “you’re not dead bro, you’re a man in a dress’.

This kind of deadpan humour is very common in Māori and Islander communities. Like most people in South East Queensland, I’ve grown up close to Māori and Islander communities. In another life, I owned a transport company and probably half of my staff were Māori and Pacific Islanders, both blue and white collar.

I’ll tell you a few things for free. I don’t know if Māori and Pacific Islanders believe in gender fairies, but their humour is often sharp and sometimes brutal. Like in an Irish family, where I am from, you’d better not take yourself too seriously at a family gathering in the Pacific Islands. If you can protect your feelings a bit, Māori and Pacific Islander people are among the funniest people I’ve ever known. When they want to put on a performance and tell you a story or a bit of truth, like Rex does, you can rely on being thoroughly entertained.

I believe Māori women have a right, as all women do, to be salty. Nobody has ever died from a rude, salty woman; plenty of women have been killed by men.

It wasn’t sophistry to predict that a salty Māori woman like Rex was going to fall shy of Adern’s policies, I won’t be giving you a tip for the Cup in November.

During the submissions for the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill in 2021, a minister by the name of Deborah Russel, a New Zealand Labour politician and academic, sat through the speeches of gender critical feminists with a hilariously sour face.

Russel came to symbolise the face of the progressive government intelligentsia. During Rex’s funny and rude submission, Russel turned her camera off for a while and later claimed it was because she “needed to stretch”. The chair of the meeting says at the end of the video “it’s okay Deb, you got away with it”. On replaying it this week, the comment struck me, because “Deb” is still a Minister in New Zealand’s opposition Labour Party, and she won’t be getting away with this.

If New Zealand are going to imprison a Māori woman for using hurty words about a man with special paperwork, we need to consider the situation of Rex Landy, as well as those of many women I have written about, as proof that the UN-driven gender law experiments are a targeted assault on the most vulnerable of women in former British colonies.

Government turning men into women with paperwork does not turn men into women. Women will continue to dissent to this nonsensical ideology. Gender identity ideology is not just colonialist, it is rape culture, it is racist, and it is both illiberal and undemocratic.

To give the last word to the Māori and Pacific Islander women at Mana Wāhine Korero; “Mana Wāhine Korero will never capitulate to this cult. This IS second wave colonisation and we fear Māori will not survive this medical death cult.”

Subscribe now

You see, a few years ago, my emotional system fell out from under me, almost overnight, and clawing back my emotional and physical health put me on a reflective journey of life and faith. Today I feel like I’m hovering over my old evangelical self, and the church culture I took refuge in, and ask why so many people hate evangelicals so much.

Full confession, I was never a perfect fit for evangelicalism, I never relinquished my left wing politics, ironically until I left the evangelical fold, and I always identified as a feminist. Both my husband and I took refuge in the evangelical church after recovering from traumatic childhoods. Both of us were always more keen on Jesus than the evangelical culture, but we both liked the structural and logical teaching, the earnestness in the people, and the safety of the community that you see every Sunday. I still like those things.

A few years ago I saw the ABC start to really go after Evangelicals. I have spoken before about the nonsense that Julia Baird was writing. What struck me, was how poorly constructed Baird’s arguments were that evangelicals are a danger to society, and in looking at her evidence, how it didn’t match with her conclusions. It was suspicious.

Once I saw it, more and more propaganda was obvious from the left. Secretly, it was told to readers and watchers, evangelicals want certain groups of people dead. At this point I knew hundreds of evangelicals, I’d listened to thousands of hours of evangelical preaching and immersed myself in the music of the evangelical movement. I’d never once heard anyone say the hateful sentiments that were attributed to us as a group.

I, of course, knew about the sexism and the marriage thing. I have said it before, to much unpopular acclaim, you will never get evangelicals to change their view on marriage being between a man and a woman. True evangelicals will defy the state and forgo their capital assets before submitting to state doctrine on marriage.

Evangelicalism is bible based, and male female marriage can’t be extracted from the bible without breaking the entire structure. According to scripture, God made man in his own image both male and female, and then He took the female out of man to make man two sexes of male and female. Marriage is the union of male and female into the perfect image of God. Marriage between man and woman is not just the image of God, it is the symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church. This is a belief, not just in the Old Testament, but Jesus reinforced it, and then Paul.

We have a biblical interpretation rule called “the weight of scripture”, where you can’t just get one obscure passage and impose it over the overs. But marriage as male and female meets the “weight of scripture” test in spades. To change this fundamental belief, and this is where I started to take notice, you have to impose a postmodern framework on the scriptures. When I looked into the ABC and their new set of religious consultants, this is what I found.

What I found, was that the state broadcaster, was targeting evangelicals as hateful and using postmodern biblical interpretation to enforce their argument that evangelicals stick to regressive beliefs, not through religion, but because they have corrupted hearts. Then on the ABC, comedian Tim Minchin openly called us “c*nts”, and my perspective was forever shifted.

When the state is calling a group you are part of “c*nts”, and you have a politics degree, you take notice.

Around the same time, after years of stress and grief, my emotional system gave way from underneath me (completely unrelated to how the ABC felt about me). I have the typical story of not being able to get out of bed, fear of crowds and uncontrollable crying. I waited for the bounce, and the bounce didn’t come.

I stopped going to church, and the church didn’t pursue me. This is the reality with the new mega church, you could disappear in the middle of the service, and they wouldn’t notice. A handful of Christian friends remain, as does my overwhelming love for God.

I have no “backsliding” story, apart from disengaging in evangelical church life. I haven’t fallen into alcoholism and sin. I still hold very much the same values personally.

And here I am 8 years after I first wrote to the ABC with my concerns with Julia Baird’s shoddy hit job, watching a prominent evangelical murdered in front of the world and catholic children murdered at school, because progressives have been telling unstable people that Christians hate them, year in, year out.

I feel like I am whatever is the opposite of the boy who cried wolf is. The boy who had binoculars given to him by years of life, and struggle and old-fashioned academic training. The boy who cried out to other wolves.

I didn’t even follow Charlie Kirk on X and I follow a lot of people on X. Truth be told, I now find some evangelicals in politics annoying. I don’t like religion in politics, nor do I like religious extinction in politics.

I could tell you a thousand things wrong with evangelical church, but today is the day to tell how Jesus saved me, and that salvation was found in the flesh and blood arms of committed evangelicals. Till the day I die I’ll be thankful to those closed minded, singularly focused, dedicated, wonderful people.

I feel deeply sad and angry, and I know that whatever is to come, all the words and research I may want to contribute will make no difference. My prayers are with Charlie’s wife and daughters, his church community and the tinderbox that is American politics.

Subscribe now

Following the Giggle V Tickle appeal, in the Federal Court last month, and the recent legal issues that Kirralie Smith has been facing, for recognising adult human males, it is clear that to avoid social scorn and financial ruin, Australian women are now expected to gain, what was referred to in federal court, as “perfect knowledge.”

In the hearing for the appeal of Sall Grover and her company, Giggle for Girls, we heard from the counsel for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (SDC), that when a woman confronts a man, presumably buck naked, in a change room, with all the glory of Adam on show, that, in this scenario, a woman does not have “perfect knowledge” with which to determine if that adult human male is in fact a man.

In the situation counsel described, the adult human male would be devoid of the stereotypes empowered by gender identity protections. Gender identity is now sovereign in law over “sex at birth”, or what uneducated people call “sex”.

Therefore, when confronted with a naked adult human male, a perfectly educated Australian woman is to assume she has insufficient knowledge to identify that person as a man.

If you are an Australian woman, you could lose your job and house through lack of perfect knowledge, so please take note, because ignorance is no defence in law

The Queensland Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act (2023) (BDMRA) was heavily relied on by SDC in her support for Tickle in the Giggle V Tickle appeal. The BDMRA permits registered sex to be changed with a gender identity claim.

The BDMRA now has proven application beyond falsified birth certificates, because the legal definition of gender identity it contains is of a sovereign human characteristic that exists in “name, dress, speech and behaviour”. Without the paperwork or the surgery, stereotypes are now legally enforceable, and sex is a laughable idea that only bogans and cookers believe in.

It was pointed out by the SDC, in Giggle V Tickle, that in the picture submitted to Grover’s company by Tickle, for entry to the Giggle app, Tickle was wearing a V-Neck shirt and had feminine hair, and that these were obvious indicators of a feminine gender identity. The shirt worn by Tickly looked to be a standard unisex V-Neck and in the photo it is obvious that Tickle’s hair is receding in a typical male pattern.

The court comments about the V-Neck, drew much mockery from the Australian right-leaning media, including The Australian, but not a peep was heard from them when the Queensland legislation was tabled three years ago, when the implications were being highlighted by Australian feminists.

When the BDMRA was tabled, the Queensland Government said that women were not stakeholders in the legislation. Shannon Fentiman went even further, saying that women opposing the legislation were motivated by transphobia.

The new definition of sex in Australia, on which the Sex Discrimination Act now rests, takes women’s rights from their bodies and gives the protection, right to politically organise, and sex facility access rights of women, to the performance of cultural stereotypes regardless of sex.

We can take the hypothetical woman in a change facility, that the counsel for the SDA brought up, let’s call her Eve. Eve will be in contravention of human rights law, if she reacts to an adult human male, let’s call him Adam, in the normal way any woman may act when confronted with a naked man in (the example used by the Commissioner) a designated single sex change facility.

A normal reaction for Eve would be to cry out in fear, ask for Adam to leave or be removed, protect herself (from violence, rape, impregnation, or a fetishistic flasher) or worst of all, call Adam a man. These reactions may be based on the obvious characteristics of Adam’s body, including an erect penis.

Under Australian law, Eve must wait to see what clothes Adam will wear, what his name is, how his voice sounds, and what pronouns he prefers, before she has the “perfect knowledge” needed to see if the sex of Adam has been changed with stereotypes, and if she can act to protect her female body from his male body.

Under government-mandated perfect knowledge, the performance of legally recognised stereotypes removes male pattern violence from men, because “trans women are women”. Eve, therefore, does not need to cry out or protect herself from Adam if he performs the stereotypes, because the stereotypes literally make Adam a woman. This is a lucky break for Eve, because such reactions to Adam, may cost her her house or job when he sues her for discrimination.

When human rights law is copied and pasted into the criminal law, which has started in Queensland, Adam can call the police, and Eve will be guilty of criminal violence for her normal protective responses to the sex of Adam.

Gender identity in Australian law has already created precedent where “misgendering” is punished by police and the courts as a type of violence that women enact against the Adams who perform the legally recognised stereotypes.

Kirralie Smith, a woman without perfect knowledge, has been politically opposing men participating in women’s sports with her organisation “Binary” for some time. Polls in Australia and overseas have consistently indicated that Binary’s position against men in women’s sport has majority popular support, even if the organisation promotes other views that are less broadly popular.

Kirralie, like other media commentators, has identified people of male sex playing in a women’s football team. The team has come to prominence precisely because it is so prolific with adult human males. The team is undefeated in its league, women are reportedly boycotting games for their own safety, and claims have surfaced of the injury of women by adult human males during play.

Certain players in the team, who have been identified by Kirralie as adult human males, have launched successful legal action against Kirralie, including an upheld apprehensive violence order and now a successful defamation action that may cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus costs.

The ruling against Kirralie includes the nonsense idea that there is such a thing as “living as a woman”, a proposition, again, that can’t be supported without legitimising stereotypes to replace material human sex categories.

In the Grover and Smith court actions, it is crystal clear that Australian women have no legal right to identify an adult human male, based on appearance, even if that man is naked and the woman is vulnerable, if that man can demonstrate he performs the special protected stereotypes that society has given to women. Women must employ the perfect knowledge of the government in all public life and for lesbians, even in dating spaces.

Adult human males make up between 97 and 99 per cent of violent sex offenders, and adult and juvenile human females are the majority of victims. Consequently, the adult human female is the most efficient entity, biological or mechanical, on earth, at determining an adult human male. Within a fraction of a second of meeting a person, a woman has unconsciously identified the sex and basic risk profile of a person. If that woman is in a place where she is alone or vulnerable, and if that woman carries sexual trauma, that risk profile will be performed with a level of hypervigilance.

The laughing and scoffing that is engaged in by regime feminists, of women and girls who refuse the perfect knowledge, is not just stiflingly arrogant; the application of shame to sexual boundaries is rape culture.

Without the legal ability to identify an adult human male outside of stereotypes, women are stripped of something deeper than a right of conscience, speech or religion; our instinctive protective responses have become unlawful. Consequently, the public safety, dignity, and full citizenship of women and girls has been dramatically impacted by legislation in which we were not considered stakeholders.

Not only are women prohibited from developing a single sex business model, as Sall Grover sought to do, but single sex political assembly is now illegal. Any public speech identifying a male person, past superficial stereotypes, can subject a woman to loss of employment, the removal of her assets, and open public scorn.

To reiterate, feminism, which is the political organisation of women for the rights of females, has been made illegal in Australia by the body that administers the Sex Discrimination Act. If you think this is an accident or an inevitable result of feminism, you are an idiot. We are witnessing deliberate state oppression of women and government-driven systemic rape culture.

Regime feminism is to feminism what the Chinese three-self church is to Christianity. It is a government counterfeit, designed to erase the troublesome original.

I will continue to refuse the perfect knowledge of regime feminism and continue to publicly identify Adam as male. Wherever we can, we must engage in dissident feminist action and defy the draconian state mandate of denying our sex. As the suffragettes did, so must we; they can’t put us all in prison.

Subscribe now

The reason I research and write as a gender critical feminist is not because I’m obsessed, it is because there is a massive failure across the Australian media landscape to notice an ongoing wave of human rights violations by our government that has become systemically corrupted.

Much attention is given, by me and others, about the inadequacy and outright bias of the national broadcaster, the ABC, but that is not where the blind spot ends regarding the rights and safeguarding failures in this country, arising from the penetration of the LGBTQ lobby into law making.

Albrechtsen, this week, is asking, “would a man dressing up in a frilly shirt be a sufficiently conclusive marker of female gender identity?” Yes Janet, this is the law. This is the law, and the many laws, that your paper let pass without a peep. The legislation in Queensland is called the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2022 (BDMRA).

The Queensland legislation is particularly radical, and as I highlighted in an article last year, it “protects a man performing female gender via a hat, a garment from Millers, a tilt of the head, or a higher octave of voice.” The Queensland BDMRA completely redefines human sex in law, and was relied upon by Tickle’s counsel and the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in the original Federal Court judgment against Sall Grover and her company, Giggle For Girls, last year.

The comments in the Giggle V Tickle appeal, about Roxanne Tickle wearing a low-neck shirt and feminine hair, were not frivolous “woke” theory, but referenced legislation that has been passed around Australia by Labor governments, with pressure from The Greens, LGBTQ lobby groups, and the AHRC.

All this legislation was passed in my state without a peep of resistance from The Australian or our local paper, The Courier Mail.

Last year, I attended an event in Brisbane for subscribers to The Australian, where they were recording their flagship podcast The Front. The panel was hosted by Claire Harvey and included Australian journalists Headley Thomas and David Murray.

When it came to my turn to ask a question, I did make a remark about the topic that the podcast was addressing, but while I had the mic in front of Australian journalists, I felt it appropriate to ask if the panel had an opinion on why The Australian had ignored the passing of self ID legislation throughout Australia, that has been so harmful to women and girls. Given that the topic of the podcast was the lucrative “true crime” investigations into murdered women, I didn’t think the issue of safeguarding failures and the loss of women’s rights was too far off topic.

I was shocked and embarrassed when Claire Harvey had the microphone immediately removed from me. Headly Thomas did see the look on my face and halted the attempt of Harvey to take the next question. He obviously felt sorry for me, and briefly answered the part of my comment that was addressed to the podcast. After the recording, Thomas came up to me, and in whispered tones, told me that he was in agreement with my dissident opinions about women’s rights. The attitude of Harvey shocked me to my core. I could tell from her look that she would have had me removed from the venue if she were able.

Claire Harvey is happy for her paper to make money from murdered women, but legislation that gives predators access to vulnerable women and children, just by wearing a blouse, is of no interest to her. The protection of women through legislation has seemed to be generally of no interest to The Australian. Albrechtsen’s piece this week is more than just a day late and a dollar short; it is a clueless analysis from a paper that has shown reckless neglect to the safety of Australian women and girls.

Like many others, I had a laugh on X about the nonsense being spouted by counsel for the Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner. We joked about 80s rock stars who didn’t know they were women. But we, the TERFs as we are called, know these comments are not just crazy, “woke gone mad” ideology, but law that was enacted through open and insufficiently scrutinised government corruption.

As much as I love the media coverage of Giggle V Tickle, I am afraid I can’t sit back and cheer the pretense that this is all a problem with human rights gone too far, with feminism, and with the “woke takeover” of the bureaucracy. We are not facing unintended consequences of badly drafted, well-intentioned legislation, but deliberate and strategic corruption of the democratic process of lawmaking with international, ideologically based, population management experiments.

As well as Sall Grover, who has been abused and ignored by Australian media, lawmakers and trans-activists, I have come to know many women in the last five years who have shown remarkable bravery and determination, highlighting female erasure in Australian law, and its dire consequences for the most vulnerable of women and girls.

Moira Deeming, whose gruelling journey I’ve documented, was sacked from the parliamentary Liberal Party for her excessive interest in women’s rights. Julie Szego has documented her own shunning from The Age and polite journalism, because of her gender-identity critical stance.

Many anonymous activists gather data on men in women’s prisons, on young girls having life-altering surgery, and on the results of safeguarding failures, and are ready and willing to share their data and knowledge with mainstream outlets. Many of these researchers and activists are featured in the podcast series Desexing Society, produced by Stassja Frei

My friend, and podcast buddy, Kit Kowalski, has meticulously documented the institutional capture of Australian human rights organisations by lobby groups, and has received more attention from the ABC than she has from our flagship centre-right newspaper. In fact, on receipt of Kit Kawalski’s research, Paul Barry and the team from Media Watch gave the opinion that the ABC should review its relationship with the powerful LGBTQ lobby group ACON.

I wrote about the remarkable comments from Paul Barry about ACON three years ago, where I documented the journey of my friend Ben, who had been through a grueling workplace investigation about his gender critical beliefs. Ben, a gay man with a history of having endured homophobic bullying, died from the stress-related condition brought on by the workplace inquiry.

Four years ago, gender critical lawyer Anna Kerr was evicted by the City of Sydney for her opposition to laws that The Australian are only just noticing. A group of radical feminists, including Anna, has been a consistent presence in opposition to gender identity in Australia for decades and have been present in opposition to every bit of stupid legislation that has led to the erasure of sex we see now. While mainstream press wouldn’t publish a word in opposition the TQ, the radical feminist publisher Spinifex Press have published 20 gender critical books.

Feminism, I have said before, is where women go to war with the state. It has been years of war for us in the gender critical trenches, and the wise Sun Tzu advised that one should build a golden bridge in such circumstances, for the retreat of the enemy. But we are a long way from this. In Australia, we have a systemically corrupted law-making process that needs immediate and in-depth public scrutiny and a lot more bravery than is currently evident anywhere in the media.

Janet Albrechtsen is correct in her comment that this mess needs to be corrected by Parliament, but there is no political will or courage right now, with even the center-right of politics calling the gender identity issue a “culture war”. To gain political will, we need public awareness, and to get public awareness, we need journalists to start doing their job.

Subscribe now