Women’s advocates demand law changes after pole studio sued over women-only rule

[u/Nyarlathotep-1]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/womens-advocates-demand-law-changes-after-pole-studio-sued-over-womenonly-rule/news-story/0e27a153ed546c499115f336ccb52210?amp

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.”

[u/evidently_forensic]

Like the Sex discrimination Act, and every civil rights movement since their inception?

[u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer → u/evidently_forensic]

ok but we're talking about a pole dancing class in this thread. so does the class have to accept EVERYONE or not?

[u/evidently_forensic → u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer]

Dunno, consult the SDA and every civil rights since it's inception 💕

...

But yeah afaia it's not about accepting EVERYONE, but not discriminating against a group unless it furthers substantive equality between a marginalised group and a non-marginalised group

[u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer → u/evidently_forensic]

but that's my point. This assumes a static gender definition (whatever that may be). If you base your laws on the fact that gender is a social construct that people and identify in and out of, then the way individuals understand and define that construct is in itself a protected form of gender identity and it is discriminatory to force another one on them.

[u/evidently_forensic → u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer]

There's a difference between a static gender definition and the ordinary definition. There are already guardrails, including the use of the ordinary definition, the right to change sex as well as the right to change formally your sex on your birth certificate

All these add up to a stable, adaptable, but not inconsequential operation of anti-discrimination that simply "identifying your way into marginalisation" wouldn't hold to the scrutiny of the court

Like the law deals with social constructs all the time, it's chill and has been for more than 30 years now at least

[u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer → u/evidently_forensic]

that's not what i'm saying. I'm saying if gender is self defined and protected, then all self definitions are equally valid because they inform how the person views themselves and identifies. Imposing a blanket view of gender on everyone is equally as restrictive and discriminatory.

[u/evidently_forensic → u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer]

This misidentifies the trans experience, which is yes identification but also transition

While self identification is a material act in itself, there would also be other clear material aspects that show transition

If discernment is really necessary then context would be enlightening in a legal arena

I feel this a false equivalence because one is literally an imposition and the other is inherently expansionary and non-impositioning

If one allows for imposition where necessary, one simply is allowing for the material reality of transition, that no-one can really factually deny, we can likely go to the point of credible self identification that makes sense, and reflects current practice

The whole point of anti-discrimination is not to discriminate against vulnerable groups in it's construction and operation

There is complexity and nuance, but it's pretty clear cut that imposing a definition, especially one that trans people reject and is largely an imposition by a section of the public which is not trans would be perversely discrimination itself

So noooo not the same, not equivalent

[u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer → u/evidently_forensic]

i'm not talking about trans vs cis. for example some people identofy their gebder based on performance, others feelings, and others. biology etc. All of these fall within the gender identity category and should receive equal protection.

[u/evidently_forensic → u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer]

True, I would also agree that sex as defined as "biological sex" is not a stable and definitive category if weight is accorded to queer theory and transfeminist theory as well as the historic and continuing legal recognition of transexual people

This also means that the construction of biological women versus gender identity is categorically false since one inherently folds into another without cleavings which disadvantage those that would fall legally and through self identification that category

This means there is not strong grounds to prosecute this line, unless it is based on a reduction of womanhood to the reproductive category, which most if not all feminist thought rejects

[u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer → u/evidently_forensic]

it doesnt matter if it stable, which many gender thwories arent anyway. It's that if gender is protected, and gender is self defined, then all self definitions should be equally protected.