Yes, Labor have backflipped on their plan to remove sex markers from Tasmanian birth certificates. However, what they and the Greens’ are still proposing is still incredibly dangerous.
- Making biological sex markers on birth certificates ‘optional’.
- Making changing your biological sex as easy as changing your name.
As you know, laws are educative. Laws passed send a message about what society holds as valuable, acceptable and ideally, hopefully, what is true.
So what is the Greens suggested changes communicating?
I’d suggest:
- That biological sex is no longer important. For them it is irrelevant.
- It is okay to ignore scientifically verifiable male and female distinctives.
I can confidently say that most Tasmanians disagree with these premises.
Polls indicate that 95% of people believe removing sex markers from birth certificates is a bad idea.
Interestingly, the Tasmanian legislation doesn’t prescribe that sex markers be on birth certificates – yet they are traditionally included, and for obvious reasons.
Also, a child’s mother and father have historically been included on a birth certificate. The proposed changes could see these important terms replaced with ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two’. There is a huge difference!
Having biological sex stated on a birth certificate can be upsetting for those with gender dysphoria (who feel like they have been born in the wrong body). Such people must be treated with compassion and respect. However, those who are seeking a legal permit to retrofit birth certificates must be challenged. Especially when they suggest no one else will be affected.
Diluting the significance of God-given male/female differences will negatively affect society.
Safety/privacy issues in women-only safe spaces like bathrooms and refuges is one area of deep concern. Jeopardising of women’s safety in women-only sporting contests (especially combat sports) where biological men have a clear physical advantage is another.
These concerns are not just speculation but are already being borne out as I highlighted in my recent Examiner article.
This is why ACL and others will continue to campaign against radical gender ideology.
Of greater and more widespread concern is the plight of children caught up in the confusion such blurring of lines causes. Since gender fluidity ideology started being taught in schools via programs like Safe Schools, there has been a huge escalation in children presenting with gender dysphoria.
Casualties of such teaching could likely line our courtrooms for decades to come unless we do something urgently.
If we care for our community, we must put a stop to this dangerous social experimentation.
The Tasmanian Parliament is set to debate these laws in the last two weeks of November.
