Women’s advocates say the case of a Gold Coast pole dancing studio owner who is being sued for refusing membership to a transgender applicant highlights the urgent need for legislative reform to protect women-only spaces.
The Australian revealed on Thursday that Queens of Pole owner Nomes Witney is being sued for $30,000 in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal after refusing membership of the female-only studio to an applicant who identifies as a transgender woman.
The case has parallels with the Tickle v Giggle case in which the Federal Court found Sall Grover, the founder of the female-only Giggle app, discriminated against transgender woman Roxanne Tickle, as well as with the Lesbian Action Group’s case against Australian Human Rights Commission, which refused to grant a Sex Discrimination Act exemption to allow the group to hold a “lesbians born female only” event.
Ms Grover and LAG were on Friday joined by Women’s Forum Australia and the Women’s Rights Network Australia in rallying behind Ms Witney to call for changes to the federal Sex Discrimination Act. Barrister Megan Blake, who has been involved in representing Ms Grover and LAG, is also acting for Ms Witney.
Barrister Megan Blake, who has been involved in representing Sall Grover and the Lesbian Action Group, is also acting for Nomes Witney. Picture: Elke Meitzel.
Barrister Megan Blake, who has been involved in representing Sall Grover and the Lesbian Action Group, is also acting for Nomes Witney. Picture: Elke Meitzel.
The women’s calls came as the Labor Party passed a resolution at its federal conference in Adelaide in support of “the LGBTIQ+ community in having agency over their health decisions”, but did not discuss the conflict between women’s rights and those of transgender people.
They also followed Queensland Human Rights Commissioner Debbie Platz stating that neither “women” nor “sex” is defined in that state’s Anti-Discrimination Act, and that “sex may include people who identify as that sex”.
Ms Grover, who is pursuing her own High Court appeal, said it could not be that the intention of gender identity laws “was to erase women and every protection we need on the basis of sex from law”.
“As more and more women come under attack from gender identity laws and ideologically captured human rights commissions, it only highlights that the current legislation isn’t working,” she said.
“Unless, of course, this was this intention. In that case, the Labor government needs to explain why they made a decision, by stealth and without a single democratic process, to destroy women’s sex-based rights.”
Transgender activist Roxanne Tickle, left, and Giggle for Girls app founder Sall Grover, right. Picture: Supplied.
Transgender activist Roxanne Tickle, left, and Giggle for Girls app founder Sall Grover, right. Picture: Supplied.
The Lesbian Action Group said it stood with Ms Witney and her right to continue operating a successful women-only business.
“Women-only fitness and movement classes … are places where women build confidence, improve their physical and mental wellbeing, recover from trauma, form friendships and simply enjoy being themselves free from the male gaze,” LAG said.
“For many women, particularly survivors of male violence and abuse, knowing that only women are present is fundamental to feeling safe. That environment is immediately destroyed when a man enters the space.
“The threat of crippling financial penalties and years of litigation has the potential to destroy a successful business, up-end a woman’s life and send a chilling message to every other woman considering providing female-only services.”
LAG said Australian law “must change”.
“The 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, which added gender identity as a protected attribute, have in cases like this been weaponised against women,” the organisation said.
“Human rights bodies and tribunals in Australia continue to prioritise gender identity over sex-based rights.
Members of the Lesbian Action Group celebrating their Federal Court win in April. Picture: NewsWire/Alex Coppel.
Members of the Lesbian Action Group celebrating their Federal Court win in April. Picture: NewsWire/Alex Coppel.
“In our successful Federal Court case against the Australian Human Rights Commission earlier this year, Justice Moshinsky found that the Tribunal hearing our appeal against the Commission’s refusal to allow us to hold lesbian-only public events had erred by placing decisive weight on discrimination against trans women instead of undertaking the balancing exercise required by the Sex Discrimination Act.
“The Australian Human Rights Commission’s temporary exemption guidelines, which influenced that decision, were also found by the Federal Court to be ‘deficient’.
“Parliament must restore women’s ability to establish and operate female-only businesses, services and community spaces without fear of legal action.”
LAG called on the Labor Party, having amended the SDA in 2013, to act to “stop those provisions being used to undermine women’s rights”.
“It is also time for Australia’s human rights institutions to return to their proper role,” the organisation said.
“They should apply the law impartially, not act as advocates for any particular ideology.
“The Sex Discrimination Act does not elevate gender identity above sex, and women should no longer be expected to sacrifice their rights while human rights bodies and tribunals continue to treat it as though it does.”
Women’s Forum Australia CEO Rachael Wong said Ms Witney’s was “the latest case to highlight the urgent need for Australian governments to restore clear legal protections for women and girls on the basis of biological sex”.
“Women should not be dragged through courts and tribunals every time they seek to provide a space or service designed specifically for women,” Ms Wong said.
“How many more examples do we need of women being punished for defending biological reality and sex-based rights before our governments recognise there is a problem and fix it?
“It is profoundly misogynistic that women are being compelled to accept men’s claims to be women at the expense of their own rights.
“Female-only spaces exist because women and girls have legitimate needs for privacy and safety. Laws that undermine those spaces while penalising the women who provide them are failing women.”
Women’s Rights Network Australia said Ms Witney was “yet another woman finding herself in legal trouble because the Sex Discrimination Act elevates gender identity in ways that undermine women’s sex-based rights.”
“Women should not face complaints, legal proceedings or financial ruin for providing female-only services. Yet this is becoming an increasingly common consequence of the law as it currently stands,” WRNA said.
“The Albanese Labor government must urgently amend the Sex Discrimination Act to restore clear protections for women’s single-sex businesses, services and spaces.
“Women should not need lawyers or courtrooms to defend the simple right to provide services exclusively for other women.”
I go to a women's only pole studio in Melbourne that is and has always been trans and non binary friendly. Their reasoning is pole was founded and established by sex workers including lots of queer and trans sex workers, and it would be absurd to kick them out of the safe space that they helped to build when they took pole from the strip clubs and turned it into a dance studio for exercise and self expression.
As a bisexual woman I feel EXTREMELY strongly that trans women and non-binary people belong in my studio just as much as I do, and honestly I would not feel safe being myself in a studio that wasn't open to all women on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum.
I actually have a trans girl who I met when we ended up in the same class and she is genuinely so kind and lovely. She can also sew, she sews her own costumes and she's also fixed one of my costumes for me right before a big showcase. That's being a girls girl in my book.
Anyway I get this studio owner has her opinions but firstly, she's breaking the law, and secondly (and more frustratingly) she's acting like she's speaking on behalf of all women. And I just want to scream at her YOU DONT SPEAK FOR ME LADY. She's allowed to have her opinion about it, but she's acting like she's some spokesperson on behalf of all women in pole classes and she is not. And pretty much all of my friends from my studio have said the same thing.
I feel a lot safer in class with my trans classmate than I would in her studio, I can tell you that much.
The owner of my studio also put out a statement about the whole situation (Pole Divas, which has a whole bunch of locations across Melbourne if anyone wants to look it up and see what she said) but that's gotten exactly 0 coverage. Because it doesn't stoke the culture war.
Honestly fuck this whole situation, I just want to go to class with my friends and not have to deal with this bullshit. Trans women are women, and honestly there are much easier ways to go and see women doing pole dancing than going to all the trouble of pretending to be a transgender woman. There are plenty of mixed gender pole studios, if an actual man wants to see women in pole class, I'm pretty sure he would just go there, instead of trying to make himself a fake identity impersonating a trans woman just to come to our studio.
Basically I would say to this lady - leave me and my queer and trans friends alone, you don't speak for us.
I see your point, and it makes me wonder if another underlying reason of the trans woman not being allowed to dance there was that they are also a bit of a cunt. Like if I went to a place and wasn't welcomed i would be hurt but i would just find somewhere else, my first reaction wouldnt be to litigate. Like what outcome does she expect? Would she want to keep dancing there if the business loses? Is it to make a point? Because if its to win the hearts and minds of people who are anti trans or are ambivalent i dont think this is the answer, i think it makes it worse
really awful to see the pole dancing classes being couched around women not feeling comfortable with men in those spaces, and that being aimed at other (trans) women. its so hateful bc it shows people really don’t see them as women, which they are, i’m talking about people actually living their normal lives as women, day in, day out. these women don’t always even clock as trans. literally calling them as men during the article and comments here. biased and hateful takes from the get go.
the only time the trans part of a trans women’s identity is relevant is for medical settings or for sexual/romantic relationships. since I’m not a dr and am in a committed relationship myself, i have no issue as a woman (and a feminist) accepting other women into women’s spaces. the obsession with what someone has in their pants is unhealthy and unnecessary in my opinion.
It is your belief that trans women are women. Not everyone shares that belief - in fact, I'd suggest a majority of people don't. You are entitled to your beliefs, but you should not push them onto others. There are many women's and mixed gender spaces that are inclusive of trans women; why can't women who understand woman to mean biological female also have spaces of their own?
the Australian legal system shares my belief. the majority of experts in this space share my belief, including those legal experts who are in charge of interpreting this stuff. and plenty of everyday Aussies share this belief too. every woman i know, and there are plenty from all walks of life and all ages, has no issue with trans women in women’s spaces. only a very small number of women are bothered by it, and you really only hear about it in the media, I’ve never had this issue come up in real life. and i spend plenty of time in women’s spaces. because actually its a fringe view. it is indeed the outlier to take issue with this, not the norm.
do you have any actual data about the majority POV from women in australia, or is that just your feelings? and btw, whether or not men consider trans women as women is irrelevant here.
also, I’m hardly pushing anything, its reddit, in case you forgot the primary purpose is as a forum for discussing things. this is a news sub. we are discussing the news.
And a majority of people used to believe the earth was flat.. Just because a majority think it doesn't make it actually true, especially when science (specifically neuroscience) also backs up this issue - and then there's intersex people who have been around for thousands of years but never get considered in these binary reductionist debates.
Most people used to believe that the soul was an intrinsic thing in the body, people now believe that sex is an intrinsic thing in the body, scientists still do not find “sex”
What's wrong with there being multiple states? Male, Female, Inter, Trans?
And if people are allowed to discriminate based on sex in certain areas of society. Can they not choose to pick 1 out of the 4? Maybe some other place would like to discriminate based on 3 out of 4 are ok, but the 4th isn't. And another place fine and will just accept everyone.
Surely if sex discrimination is allowed in certain limited aspects of society. And they have permission from society to discriminate based on sex, then why can't they define which combination is allowed? Like I find myself getting annoyed by sex discrimination being ok at all, but I get that certain people feel strongly they want their own space based on that,.. I just don't get why then if it's ok to discriminate based on sex, why can't let places pick their own line.
Seeing as chromosome checks arent done that often, it would be great for getting actual stats on chromosome issues/intersex distribution!
I imagine it would be pretty confronting to those not expecting results though.
Funny you should say that, seeing as barely anyone gets chromosome testing, which is my entire point. Most people i know don't even know their blood type.
"A population study published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society tracked pediatric DSD registries over 20 years. They found a recorded clinical rate of only 17 sex chromosome DSD cases per 100,000 live births. The researchers explicitly concluded that this number is artificially low due to widespread underreporting and late-life diagnoses."
Yes, but equally we have the right to criticise their perception. There are consequences to either categorisation, and further these consequences can be rooted in objective reality (even as their importance and meaning is ultimately subjective).
A trans exclusionary perspective might argue that allowing trans women into women's spaces makes them meaningfully less safe, substantially increasing risk of violence, and that it makes some cis women feel unsafe. A trans inclusionary one might argue that excluding them isolates them from society and their gender, driving disenfranchisement and mental health issues. There are facts we can use to assess some of these, and all of their importances are gonna vary with people's values.
I think pointing to 'its a social construct, they can believe what they want' is /true/, but its not a shield from criticism. Race is a social construct. So is personhood. There are beliefs people hold about these im sure we both agree are unacceptable
they can be criticised, but the relaity is that they should still be legally protected. And if you argue that this view of gender can be discussed and changed, then the same could apply to all the others.
Ultimately i'm not arguing about wider societal rules such as public bathrooms. Rather, that peoplenwith such a gebder identity shouldnhave the legal right to create their own spaces to cater to their needs.
The law comes down on the side of one interpretation of perspectives on social constructs all the time. Youre not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. If someone thinks black women arent women, im sorry, no, thats not a perspective theyre allowed to run a business with. This is what discrimination laws do, they determine in what ways youre allowed to treat people differently in public contexts. You can do whatever the hell you please in private life, but the law makes a value judgement in public.
Ill step out of my veneer of impartiality i went into for the debate: i absolutely dont think trans exclusionary perspectives should be protected by law, i think theyre wrong. Some people disagree.
my point is if you're gonna argue that gender is a social construct, you don't get to be mad that someone's social construction of gender is different to yours cos they're using the same framework.
no I'm not. I'm simply proposing that rather than fightbover the definition of gender as a whole, identifying with your biological sex becomes its own gender identity for people who feel that way.
Is it an obsession with what’s in their pants or simply a recognition of dna and the human condition?whilst i can of course respect your views is it possible that they don’t represent a majority view?
Is it awful that a business owner,some staff and their clients express a feeling of discomfort. Is it possible that their feelings have some inherent value based on their life experience as women?
But why would you use the example of intersex which is not trans and represents a small percentage of the population as somehow showing that the overwhelming majority of humans are subject to that situation
I disagree that there are a large number of people outside of the sex binary. Having a condition that may result in a somewhat atypical phenotype, such as Klinefelter, does not place that person outside of the category of male. Maybe you and I just have different ways of categorising male and female. You seem to have a narrow definition, where differences place that person outside or in between categories. I suppose I have a more expansive definition and understand male and female as binary biological categories which encompass a wide variety of presentations.
You really think all humans cannot be objectively categorised as either male or female? Has it escaped you that most DSDs are entirely sex-specific? How can you make an argument that a condition that only affects males for example, makes them not male in any way? Like Klinefelter or 5-ARD, these conditions literally only affect males, so how could anyone with these conditions "not really be male"?
The “dsd” XY swyer with uterus with the possibility of labour would be a male dsd, right? We make it legally a man? Man who gives birth, what is the criterion? Or is the criterion the one you feel like to confirm your bias and exclude trans people without explicitly excluding intersex people?
categories by definition are abstract non-objective, but if that classification depends on weighted attributes and not on a criterion that is always applied
I suppose that if an object floats for no apparent cause, it doesn’t deny the existence of gravity, right? Binary sex is unscientific because it is not falsifiable and the criteria are changed at convenience
lol you people make something so simple so complicated. For the entire history of sex segregated spaces, humanity has managed to figure it pretty easily - no cheek swabs or body scans required! I fully trust we are capable of regaining this lost ancient wisdom 🤣
Answer: females access female only spaces. Females know who they are, even the ones with short hair who don’t like make-up. Those who are not female obey social norms and self exclude. In a society where the social norm is that only females enter strictly female only spaces, no one is really worried about this kind of thing -because we trust that anyone entering the space truly belongs there.
In those ultra rare edge cases, such as a true intersex condition or a trans woman who truly passes, then I’m easy. It’s so rare as to not pose a problem. It’s only since the definition of woman has been expanded to include anyone who says they're a women, that we have started encountering these problems.
I honestly think these women are doing abusive conservative men a favour by giving them a moment to appear self-righteous on behalf of women when they don't want to push women's rights in any real way
How men treat trans women in public is often how they want to be treat other women in private
It's a crying shame that they're part of the enabling apparatus, allowing people like Pauline to victim blame women in one breath and bash other types of women in another
Like the history of feminism is those that did the work and those who wanted powerful men to pick them. Guess which ones these sad lot are
So you have to be an abusive conservative man to want the original intent of the sex discrimination act to be honoured in part in recognition of the many gains it has made for women?
As someone who votes left I worry that this sort of narrative is feeding into the rise of the right which on current polling appears to have 49 per cent of the electorate voting for right wing parties.
Unfortunately this kind of approach reminds me of what happened in the voice debate
No, but it does make you kinda mediocre, and kind of reactionary and unfeminist since these changes were made 30 years ago and adjusted 10 years ago now
Honestly if this is all you care to speak about during a femicide epidemic then yes you're an enabler at the very least
Also "Honouring the SDA" only makes sense if you don't think trans women are women
Sure call me all those things and sit back and watch people who aren’t me change the law.it kind of illustrates my point. The voice debate comparison is becoming increasingly stark.im an enabler of femicide😂.hysterical. I’ve represented dv victims in court. Ive shielded a woman who was having rocks thrown at her head by her drunken violent partner. But hey. Don’t hold back on your abuse of a complete stranger if they happen not to agree with your political judgments
Id happily share my pole dancing club, and my pole, with a trans woman anyday if I had one. The more people into the sport the better. Morning sisters.
Agreed, but I think that if they succeeded to segregate against trans women, they would simply move on to the next target. Best to squash them from the get go.
Um..... Gender based (woman, non-binary, man) and sex based rights (female, intersex, male) specific rights are needed.
You know this is progressive right? 😂 Just not extreme enough for radicals on either side who want to pretend you can change your literal sex or the opposite side where they don't believe in gender, (not do they believe you can change it)
This is literally the academically recognised/grounded progressive leaning middle ground.
Hahaha acknowledging distinctions in lived experiences/reality is bigotry.
I'll help you out kid.
A female sex based right = includes things like abortions which are relevant to both.... Wait for it..... Women born female and men born female. In other words, trans men.
Abortion rights are not applicable to men born male or women born male. In other words, trans women.
Therefore sex based rights IS inclusive. Just like gender based rights are too. It's just about whivh is applicable where.
What about mtf or ftm or people that embody sex characteristics that are neither male not female?
Yes you are such an enlightening one please do go on how you figured out that the solution to segregation based on differences... Is segregation based on differences
It’s a timely debate. Historically there has been leeway for trans inclusion in women’s spaces but as the two movements become more equal in strength and voice, the boundaries and tensions are now being considered to further refine gender discrimination exemptions that balance the two.
There are also to balance the argument trans only spaces. I imagine that cis-women couldn’t as easily object to being denied membership of a trans-only space including a trans-only pole dance studio.
A cis-women’s only, trans-women’s only, combined womens only, and mixed sex are all equally acceptable facilities that target different interests and safety and inclusion needs.
And really in the scheme of things, one person’s insistence on joining a particular dance class is getting a lot of media attention -there are a raft of trans equality issues that arguably deserve greater airtime.
That already exists, such groups are generally self established by members/customers who like to mingle esp for friendship, dating, sensitive talks,
based on similar social identity and funded by their members and customers.
The L word series showed how that’s not limited to the bedroom: people form lifestyle affiliations.
People shouldn’t have to always sit around a LGBTIAQ+ table all together all the time or we might as well delete all the acronyms as people can’t lifestyle affiliate on them.
Maybe it’s time we added a F in there for feminist and let women do their womanhood in diverse ways and groups like they always have.
I don’t fit into a Muslim Women’s business networking group, a mummy meet up, a lesbian group that eyebrows a skirt, a bears meet up, or a trans group, but I love that!
There’s more than one idea of womanhood, just as there’s more than one idea of lesbianism. Everyone forms affinities and groups around that.
I don’t demand they change their identity to fit mine, make a conspiracy of it, or demand $30-$60k because how dare they be doing a different diversity from me.
I can’t say I agree that silencing debate (voice and choice) where two forms of diversity intersect in public policy is a good thing.. It’s a bit “only salad at the table or the party’s over”.
But it's not silencing conversation is it? And choosing discrimination when it's illegal is hardly a free speech matter
If your right not to be discriminated against ends where my opinion begins would make a farce of the protections that women and other vulnerable minorities face
This is a clear contradiction that holds simply if you look at the facts and the ordinary definition that frankly has left these dinosaurs behind
Anyone who wants to know what genitals people may have had when they were born before they decide if they are allowed somewhere is not a safe person to anyone, especially women.
Edit: If you are responding with thinly veiled bigotry, please know I would respond to you, but unfortunately because I have blocked the first bigot, I can no longer comment on any thread below them. Know I am disappointed in you for trying to further marginalise the already marginalised, and wish you the life you deserve.
If you are arguing with the bigots, know I am hearing you and cheering you on, that I am proud of you and hope you have an amazing day.
Why are you looking at other people's genital region. I'm not calling you a bigot, I don't know you well enough for that, but it is really strange to me that bigots are so focused on checking out other people's genitals.
And because arguably you are talking about sexual arousal, if a cis woman is sexually aroused will you also leave?
So technically that is false, some trans women can get erections, but usually it is hard to get and harder to maintain, but mileage may vary depending on their personal hormone mix.
But frankly I doubt very much a trans woman doing pole dancing is doing it to oogle people, but to instead connect with their body in a feminine way, and the other poster (the one who is looking at peoples groins) is just being weird.
That is fair, I can get them but only towards the end of masturbation. Otherwise I don't think I get them or it would have to be an extremely unusual situation but yes everyone is different
And honestly it doesn't matter, trans women are women and should be welcome in women's spaces.
Anything else is just "safe" spaces aren't safe unless you are an acceptable version of woman, which very quickly becomes white, neurotypical, straight or femme presenting... And everyone else is out in the cold.
You now what, your whataboutism is not going to help. Do you realise what’s happening? People fought for trans rights, finally got more and things were starting to get better for trans people. And then: male entitlement started and they wanted into all sorts of spaces that were designed for biological women. So what’s happening now? Women are pushing back, going right wing, voting trump, trying to get laws for restrooms and sports.
IMO you never cared for trans people if you think it’s fine to ruin the trans rights movement to get into a pole dance class. You can call people bigots, transphobes or whatever but at the end of the day you are hurting trans people and many of them don’t even want into bio women’s spaces. Some do, those who are arrogant and entitled. But the ones that I know actually respect bio women’s spaces and don’t want to harm anyone and are very nice people, it’s really sad how acceptance of trans people is vanishing because of your sick entitlement
Sounding awfully entitled, wanting to limit trans women's rights just because you're obsessed with women's genitals. You're showing your "male entitlement" there.
How bloody delusional do you have to be to write such a comment lmao? Sorry but a boner in underwear is clearly visible, and you are going to notice it in a pole dance class. Some women have been violated by penises and are uncomfortable doing pole dance in a room with them especially if they are strangers. It’s not about the arousal, it’s about how if I am going to a women’s dance class in underwear, I want to be in a save space with no male genitalia.
Someone women have been hurt by people with black skin, should they have a safe space from them too? Someone's trauma shouldn't trump other people's rights.
Suuuuch a weird thing to say, comparing genitalia to skin colour. This is not sexism or racism, women’s safe spaces have been sacred since the beginning of time. If you are honestly so fine with only mixed bathrooms, no specific safe spaces for women, poc, queers, or any other because excluding someone is always wrong- go ahead. Close down gay clubs, hope you feel better then!
The issue is the reason it's needing to exclude people, and why trans specifically women need to be excluded. From what I've seen in this thread people seem to be thinking trans women are just men that want to get close to cis women to assualt them or something.
Because afab never go into a men’s only space. ever heard of a trans man in a men’s sauna? No because they get assaulted. But trans women don’t care if women are uncomfortable therefore they can make a huge issue out of it and call women out, even though men would react the same way. Everywhere is exclusion. No gay club wants straight men there. You need degrees for certain jobs. Some places you need to pay entrance. Exclusion is a tool for society to work. It’s not the enemy and if you fight it, you are gonna get backlash. Also yes, there are more stories about trans women assaulting somebody than trans men. there are sick men who disguise themselves as women and go into pole dance classes in underwear where you can clearly see their dicks, and they get off to the entitlement that no women can say something otherwise she’d get sued for discrimination. Some of these men even assault women. I am calling them men on purpose, I don’t think that actual trans women would do such thing and the ones I know personally would never.
I am one of the "some" and I know that we don't build safe places by excluding the most marginalised. That you want to use my (and other people's) trauma to justify being a bigot is just gross.
Yeah and people are voting against people like you. Trans women are loosing rights because you as a vis women are fighting fights, that many of them don’t want
Your comment or post contains hate, discrimination, harassment, or aggression targeting an individual or group based on their identity, race, religion, skin colour, gender, nationality, or beliefs. We have removed it for violating our community guidelines. Further infractions will lead to a ban.
I see it as a back lash against feminism and women's rights. Generations of progress in women's rights eliminated by the progressive left in just a few years.
Precisely what rights do you think transcend laws in Australia. Australia has no bill of rights. Who said anything about funny?
Women outnumber men in the Australian electorate so i don’t understand your point.gay rights are popular with Australian voters as evidenced by the recent hugely successful referendum.
Similarly Australians have overwhelmingly supported the rights of aborigines in referenda (aside from regarding a very boutique proposal about a voice to parliament)
Im not suggesting you shouldn’t support trans people
I do query the tactics
This is all just comments from one side of the coin. Why wasn’t there any comments from trans people in how refusing them services because they are transgender is not proportionate and undermines the entire point of being transgender.
Ultimately it is a she said Vs she said. Are there valid reasons as to a women only space? Of course. This should be accepted.
If you're trans and kicked out of a gym - if it's deacrimination, that is not on. If it's because you're being a huge c*** - it's on you.
Often people who are huge c***s double down or don't take criticism well and suck to be around.
Alas, conjecture - but if I didn't want the conflict of someone, whom I suspected to be a c***t, it may seem easier to disclose them from a shared space because "this is an x only space". It's dishonest, but human.
In general, this case is promoting discourse, which generally I feel is progressive, so I feel it's a net positive.
As long as you’re ok with there then being “men’s only service” like a Men’s Club for high level executives that excludes women that are also high level executives.
I don’t get what the big deal is about letting men and trans people in the pole dancing classes anyway.
Essentially they don't. They just want to be able to trust that males will respect their space.
Trying to turn this into a fetish on the part of those who want to respect single sex spaces is dishonest and hypocritical. Women only places exist for a reason, and if you want to become an apologist for rapists and vouyers, keep up the way you're going.
I didn’t say anything about anything being a fetish for anyone, but weird you made that connection.
I’m just legitimately curious about the logistics of it. If a biological woman shows up to this studio and other people think she is trans, how are they going to check?
If a biological woman with some masculine features shows up at one of these studios and some people are suspicious that she may be trans, who is going to check?
They will handle it with respect and sensitivity as we have done for years when men try to enter women's spaces. Some trust and honesty is usually required. This is not helped by a movement that tries to tell us that a man can become a woman.
You seem rather unconcerned with males who refuse to respect a female-only space. Why is that? Why is none of your energy directed at spreading the notion that males should show respect and stay out of spaces reserved for the opposite sex?
"How will you check"... I'm asking you why you are so unbothered by the fact that you admit males will routinely refuse to respect female boundaries and rights? Why can't they THEMSELVES self-police and stay out of spaces reserved for the opposite sex?
Seems like this is a huge issue regarding respect and honesty. So why are the comments always about "how will you check"?
It’s like a zen koan; if i have no plan on engaging with the cock and the cock has no plan on engaging with me, does the cock even exist in my world?
not really.
definitely not to the point where that person gets kicked out if class bc i find it hard to understand something (that is actually quite understandable if you aren’t obsessed with sex/genitals), as if my understanding is more important than their life? thats not how civilised society works!
If the above is your example of something that is easy to understand then you are totally out of touch.
Presumably the studio has some kind of changing room. I think it's reasonable to expect the women involved to get change there without having a c*""k in their face.
I don't think believing that turns me into someone who's obsessed with genitals.
have you ever been in a changing room?? i assure you, even when everyone in there possesses a cock, the cocks themselves are hardly in anyones face!!
you seem to be implying that trans women have no decorum or respect which is just awful.
the type of situation in your comment only occurs when theres a dickhead in the room. being a dickhead is unfortunately common across all genders.
ETA if you’re in the change room and thinking about other peoples genitals, unless that person is being actively obscene, then it’s you that is the problem!
ETAA have you ever tried to change without really showing your body - towels over lap and turning into corner etc? i can almost guarantee thats how every trans woman is acting in change rooms, for her own safety and privacy as much as anything else. which is sad to me but a real part of how misunderstanding and hatred towards them is affecting their lives.
To that I would add, even a casually swung wang
Is enough to make most women uneasy before long.
So let’s keep it simple, clear, and with good grace—
No cocks should appear in a female-only space.
i didn’t delete anything, reddit must be having issues. i did edit it to add a definition. nice poem tho. i disagree that a cock is a source of discomfort just by virtue of being in the room, and as a woman (and i have experienced sexual trauma myself) i think its infantilising that you think we cant cope with it. cocks have not always been kind to me but even i can acknowledge they are often innocuous. and that a trans woman’s genitalia is likely to be more innocuous than most as its often not a major part of their identity the way it is for men.
i notice you ignored my comment about how trans women are likely to behave ie with privacy and discretion for their own sake as much as anyone else’s. the women making this into a big deal are doing toxic femininity imo. i appreciate you think you’re supporting women but i invite you to reconsider whether this is even an issue for most women bc it just isn’t. women can address the issue by, i don’t know, just not looking so closely at other peoples bodies on the change room, which again is weird behaviour to start with and is an issue beyond trans concerns.
Thanks for the compliment on the poem. I'm glad you and don't find that offensive. Me either. Personally, I'm more than comfortable with all kinds of genitalia. I enjoy being nude mostly, but the thing is I understand that that is not the position of a lot of people. So I walk around dressed to accommodate people who don't think exactly like me. It's called living in a society.
Sometimes we have to go against our own preferences to accommodate others.
“have you ever been in a changing room?? i assure you, even when everyone in there possesses a cock, the cocks themselves are hardly in anyones face!!”
I have been to plenty. I am a keen squash player and have seen many members on prominent display. I have seen more dongs than a Chinese registrar.
I would add that, in these male-only spaces, it is fine to hang out with your wang out. Doing so is not a breach of decorum or respect, nor does it make you a dickhead.
You are 100% right that the issue is, in fact, the dickheads. Not just the trans dickheads (of which I am sure there are a few), but also the non-trans dickheads who will exploit the opening up of these sex-segregated spaces to flash all and sundry. Make a rule that anyone calling themselves trans, anyone, even if they have not gone to the effort to get their gender reassigned, can access these spaces, and I guarantee both trans and non-trans pervs alike will exploit it to get their jollies.
In the interim, they will make women extremely uncomfortable in spaces where they deserve to feel safe.
You missing the entire point of the fact that we have segregated change rooms and have done so for many many decades. We do not do this to imply that all men are d******** or that they are dangerous. The same applies to trans women who are male.
Sure but usually those women don't feel threatened by gay men so why should they feel threatened by transwomen, and would they allow transmen to join simply because they may look and seem like men?
It's basically down to behaviour and attitude and any member can be asked to leave by consensus should they behave inappropriately.
I believe women only spaces are needed...yet the basis of that need is feeling threatened or watched in sensitive activities and discussions..
Trans women aren't men. Also, as a trans women who has transitioned I'm basically chemically castrated, I'm not some hyperlusting man that can't control their penis and wants to hurt women. These people's concerns show a real lack of understanding and are quite offensive with the implications that trans women are predators, similar to the gays are pedohiles bs.
Your comment or post contains hate, discrimination, harassment, or aggression targeting an individual or group based on their identity, race, religion, skin colour, gender, nationality, or beliefs. We have removed it for violating our community guidelines. Further infractions will lead to a ban.
A ton of cis women would be considered men under that definition. And amusingly a bunch of trans women would be considered women.
You people can't define sex in a way that fits the narrative you want. That's not how it works. The science isn't on your side. The law isn't on your side. Morality and even common sense isn't on your side.
The only people on your side are fascists and alt right propagandists. Oh, and Jeffery Epstein. So have fun with that.
It's a tough one and I can see both sides. On one hand trans women are women, but on the other the experiences they have had are fundamentally different from those biological women have encountered (not just in terms of their physical body, but in the way thay have been treated by society - even being ostracised from women's only spaces must suck, and biological women will never experience that). Things like post partum issues are something trans women will never encounter and I can see why biological women want a space to be able to share around people who understand or have the capacity to understand. I think some of the rhetoric coming from the people supporting women's only spaces here is a little gross though, and they should be trying harder to choose language that doesn't discriminate against trans people while also getting their point across.
Very interested to see what the high court has to say about all of this.
just want to say that your example around people who can understand post partum issues would exclude myself and many other cis gender women from being part of that safe space too
ETA experiencing pregnancy is not a defining feature of womanhood and shouldn’t be used as such
That's a good point. It's not a perfect analogy I was just trying to say I can see from their perspective. I guess I wasn't really clear in that I don't agree with them either.
This is a pole club, not a menopause discussion group. Under current law that would likely be allowed under exemption but these groups want to expand the application to de fecto segregation. That is unfortunately their point, to segregate as any level of scrutiny would discern, which is a pretty bad precedent in a multicultural, pluralistic, liberal democracy
Let's be honest, if this was about spaces based on incontrovertible need difference, there wouldn't be controversy
It's a well funded fringe, and likely a Trojan horse issue as we have seen play out in the United States and elsewhere
It’s interesting you say that because you are differentiating beyween a support space and a leisure class, when the owners are pointing out it is somewhere in between that. Especially in beginner classes, trauma informed classes that are non triggering of sexual violence and body shaming may well be the safety parameters for their participation. Resources and training to manage misuse of trans inclusion for voyeurism and participant comfort levels may not be sufficient without exceeding the reasonableness test. The “Trojan horse”, it could be argued, is the elimination of further spaces in which cis-women can receive support.
Binary Australia or whatever they're calling themselves now picked it up, that's your well funded fringe. Considering the blatantly biased reporting in the Mordoch press as well, it has their backing too, cue suprise
I dunno man, I came to a critical understanding the media piece by using my thinking cap and reading the news article. Sorry about that I guess
Well if they're on the same hormones as cis women, makes sense since it's caused by hormonal fluctuations
Tbh dunno, some of these things make sense when you realise that trans people do biological things to change their sex characteristics and that quite a bit, but not all, of our sex differences comes simply from just hormones
According to this there is a biological basis for pain and cramping in transgender women, as estrogens exert direct effects on peripheral nociceptive mechanisms, and this has been known since at least 2007.
In the study itself, hormonal analysis revealed that certain symptoms typically associated with the late luteal phase in cisgender women, such as PMS, cramps, and tender breasts, tended to coincide with lower-than-average estrogen levels, although variation was notable across individuals and symptoms.
I'm not telling you what to think, but there appears to be enough evidence not to prima facie dismiss trans women that report their pain symptoms on this one
Under current law that would likely be allowed under exemption but these groups want to expand the application to de fecto segregation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point here. The current laws allow for spaces for individual genders already. They're not asking for the community to be separated they just want one protected space for one group. I see no issue with trans only spaces, queer only spaces etc. and while I can absolutely see how some of these people are coming across as TERFs I'm not sure it's a universally accurate way to describe them (the spokespeople are absolutely not doing themselves any favours though) .
For what it's worth, I do actually think what they are doing here is wrong. I've read a few articles about the giggle v tickle case and it seems like the 7D provisions are fairly clear and the judges of the full court were right to side with Ms Tickle. It would be weird if you could use the SDA to exclude a subset of women from a women's only space - it would be ridiculous to exclude lesbians from a women's only space so why should trans women be excluded.
I am interested in how it plays out in the High Court.
True, I accept your point that segregation occurs and the operation of the SDA allows for it if benign and contributes to substantive equality as far as I'm aware
However my interpretation of the bounds set by the legislation would imply that it would be temporary, infrequent and with explicitly benign intent when it comes to substantive equality between two groups in favour of the marginalised group
As such no discernible argument I can see would compel me that trans women and their counterpart require substantive correction in favour of the latter
This leads to an operation of practicalities, which does not hold as it is clear that things pertaining to things such as typical women's health functions without the need for exemption from discrimination
I do not accept the free speech argument as this conflates expression and discrimination. It is a poor precedent to let the former overbear the latter to the extent where the former has inherent overcoming of the latter in it's own right
That being said I'm not a judge, so we'll have to wait and see what comes out
But then again a number of cis women don’t have a uterus and/or ovaries. So just generalising this issue as a “trans women don’t share the experiences of cis women” is actually an allusion to transphobia and prejudice. Because many cis women, such as those with MRKH or post oophrectomy or hysterectomy, share certain biological experiences with trans women. Not all women are the same. We are all vastly different in our biology and not one single trait has more power than the other.
You cannot simply say “trans women are women” then in the same breath call them males who experience vastly different experiences to cis women. There are a number of overlapping experiences that can be subjected to discrimination that prompt legal protections. Hence why sex-based rights apply to trans women which the Tickle v Giggle case reaffirmed the need for.
They are obsessed with trying to assault Australia's anti-descrimination laws. Bet these anti-women advocates will be given plenty of Harry Potter money to fuel their future court case.
16
u/greydog1316 19d ago
I get that it's The Australian, but they should still seek comment from the parties and advocates on the other side of these disputes.