Australian Polity, Volume 9 Number 3 - Digital Version

theory and the idea that self-proclaimed gender identity
trumps biological sex are a relatively small subset of the
political left – which begs the question, which I will turn to
later, about why they have so much influence. Many of the
most passionate and eloquent critics of gender ideology
are feminists who traditionally have associated with leftof-centre
political parties. Others are politically neutral,
but are outraged about the attack on women’s sex-based
rights. Given what we know about the unacceptably high
rates of violence and sexual harassment of women in our
society, it’s hardly surprising that women of all political
persuasions see the protection of single-sex spaces
as critical – or indeed, that their husbands, fathers and
brothers agree with them.
Protecting Single-Sex Spaces
Trans rights activists continually assert that gender
diverse people using the facilities of their choosing has
no impact on women, but this is demonstrably untrue.
When rules are changed to allow biological males into
women’s single-sex spaces, they cease to be single-sex.
The question that therefore must be answered, rather
than being brushed aside, is: do females no longer need
or deserve to have single-sex facilities?
Single-sex women’s facilities, spaces, services and sports
have existed for decades. In certain areas of life, the need
to separate males and females is obvious and, until the
last few years, uncontroversial. Women’s changerooms,
for example, ensure privacy and dignity while also
reducing the risk of assault. While the vast majority
of men aren’t dangerous, the overwhelming majority
of sexual offenders who assault women are male. A
blanket rule keeping males out of women’s changerooms
is therefore widely accepted and supported, not as a
personal attack on men, but as a sensible safeguarding
rule.
Earlier this year, a Los Angeles spa became the centre of
international attention when a biological male exposed
his genitals to a group of women, including one young girl,
who were in the women’s spa. In normal circumstances
the police would have been immediately called and the
offender arrested. Shockingly though, staff ignored and
even criticised the women who complained, because the
person with male genitalia identified as a trans woman.
The left-wing media wrote stories complaining about
transphobia and alleging a far-right hoax, while far left
anarchists Antifa showed up to violently protest against
the allegedly bigoted women who raised the alarm.
A few weeks ago, it emerged that the trans woman at the
centre of the furore is a registered sex offender, with prior
convictions for indecent exposure, and has now been
charged over the Wi Spa incident. This was uncovered,
not by any of the major media outlets who uncritically
reported the incident as a case of transphobia, but by
an independent journalist. To be clear - this incident
doesn’t demonstrate that trans women are a danger to
women. What it does demonstrate, unquestionably, is
that allowing males to self-identify into female spaces
is a loophole that male sex offenders can exploit. It
also shows that women are not being listened to about
genuine concerns, or even actual sex crimes when they
occur.
Similarly, simple common sense would tell you that crisis
accommodation for women fleeing domestic violence, or
a rape crisis centre for women, need to be a single-sex
facility. Yet these too are now being labelled transphobic
and accused of discrimination if they don’t accept anyone
who identifies as a woman. One rape crisis centre in
Scotland has employed a trans women CEO who has
publicly said that “sexual violence happens to bigoted
people too” and said rape victims who object to the
presence of males in the centre will be “challenged on
their prejudices”.
Possibly the most offensively dangerous example of
gender identity taking priority over sex-based spaces
is the housing of male offenders in women’s prisons.
There are numerous examples of female prisoners being
sexually assaulted by male sex offenders who have
identified into women’s prisons. This is hardly a surprising
outcome, yet prison authorities, including in Australia,
continue to put female inmates at risk.
Naturally, these policies are rarely announced upfront
or admitted to the general public. With proper public
consultation they would be quickly identified as dangerous
and insulting proposals and knocked on the head. It
happens by sleight of hand – when you define ‘woman’
Australian Polity 23