Australian Legislative Ethics Commissions: Response to Lobby Media Statement Claims
This is not a neutral press release. It is a coordinated political attack on the restoration of biological sex in Australian law, dressed up as concern for “women.” Twenty organisations — many sustained by taxpayer money — have signed a statement that deliberately conflates biological males with women, opposes clear sex-based categories, and frames the protection of female single-sex spaces as bigotry.
The response by these organisations claim to speak for women while actively opposing the restoration of biological sex as the foundation for single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, shelters and medical care.
Many receive taxpayer funding through federal or state grants supposedly intended to protect, support and advance women’s rights. Yet their position redefines “woman” to include biological males, effectively campaigning for male access to female-only provisions under the language of inclusion and human rights.
This raises an unavoidable question:
Are some of these organisations being created, funded or amplified for the sole purpose of undermining women’s rights while claiming to defend them?
A number of the smaller or newer organisations within the coalition, including groups such as Not In Our Name Australia, appear to have low membership visibility, limited transparency and little obvious grassroots support. Their principal public activity appears to be signing joint statements promoting gender-identity ideology, while presenting themselves as representative voices for Australian women.
That distinction matters.
Research has shown that a relatively small number of taxpayer-funded or grant-dependent advocacy organisations can create the public impression that “the women’s sector” overwhelmingly opposes biology-based protections, even where opinion polling indicates that most ordinary women support single-sex spaces, female sport and sex-based protections.
This is not genuine grassroots consensus. It is the appearance of consensus, manufactured through professional advocacy networks, coalition statements and repeated media amplification.
By presenting male inclusion in female-only provisions as compassion, equality or human rights, these organisations erase the very legal and biological category of women they claim to represent.
The responses that follow expose the logical contradictions, material falsehoods and institutional gaslighting contained throughout their joint media statement.
Claim 1
“Women and gender diverse people continue to face barriers to entering, staying and progressing in many industries.”
— Clea Smith, CEO, Tradeswomen Australia
Our Response
One struggles to understand how the coalition missed that biological males retain substantial strength, speed and skeletal advantages even after testosterone suppression, as World Athletics, World Aquatics and World Rugby policies have explicitly recognised by barring males from female elite categories since 2022–2023. Permitting self-identification into female sports, shelters, prisons and training does not liberate women—it simply transfers barriers and risks onto them. The bill merely restores the sex-based single-sex exemptions the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 always permitted for genuine female provisions. How charming that the statement frames this as an attack on women.
The barrier was us having female bodies. How inconvenient for the narrative.
Claim 2
“This Bill risks making participation harder for people who already face discrimination and exclusion in workplaces and training environments.”
— Clea Smith, CEO, Tradeswomen Australia
Our Response
The coalition would have us pretend that allowing males into female prisons, refuges and hospital wards does not affect women’s ability to participate safely in those spaces. Australian crime statistics show males commit the overwhelming majority of sexual and violent crime. Documented cases in jurisdictions with self-ID policies have repeatedly shown male-bodied individuals committing further assaults once placed in female facilities. The bill simply insists that ‘participation’ for women means participation without added male-pattern risk. One can only wonder at the coalition’s determination to ignore this rather basic reality.
Protecting female categories oppresses males. The horror.
Claim 3
“Narrowing the definition of womanhood does not protect women; it does the reverse. It encourages looks-based scrutiny and policing of our bodies and spaces.”
— Kylie Benton-Connell, Not In Our Name Australia
Our Response
The statement claims to hate ‘looks-based scrutiny’ yet demands women perform exactly that assessment: is this male convincing enough in his femininity to be allowed into our spaces? The bill removes the need for that humiliating subjective test. One can only laugh at the contortion required to call this ‘progress’ while forcing women to act as gender gatekeepers for males.
Any man in lipstick is a woman. Zero scrutiny achieved.
Claim 4
“We support fairness for all, where attention and resources are focussed on the real issues affecting women rather than on harmful and outdated fearmongering.”
— Kylie Benton-Connell, Not In Our Name Australia
Our Response
The coalition would have us believe that male violence patterns are a social construct best ignored in policy. Australian crime data shows males commit over 90% of sexual assaults and the vast majority of homicides. Insisting that self-declared identity overrides this in female refuges and prisons is not progressive—it is a reckless fantasy that endangers the very women the statement claims to champion. The bill declines to indulge that particular delusion.
Real issues = whatever lets us ignore XX chromosomes. Selective blindness.
Claim 5
“The Coalition’s Bill is an attack on fairness and is out of step with what women want.”
— Kay Anastassiadis, National Convenor, Women’s Electoral Lobby
Our Response
Multiple polls show 60-80% of biological women support sex-based categories. The coalition of twenty organisations claims to speak for ‘women’ while airily dismissing this majority as fearmongering or bigotry. One can only admire the sheer brass neck required to position a handful of lobby groups as the authentic voice of Australian females while ignoring what actual women say in survey after survey. The bill sides with the data, not the fantasy.
Twenty groups know what women want. Actual women optional.
Claim 6
“We don’t want a situation where women are being judged as ‘not female enough’ to enter a women-only space, just because they might look or sound different to the stereotype.”
— Kay Anastassiadis et al.
Our Response
The bill uses the same objective criteria—chromosomes and reproductive sex—that have always underpinned single-sex exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. It does not require biological females to evaluate how convincingly a male performs femininity before deciding whether he belongs in their changing room or shelter. The statement’s concern about ‘looks-based scrutiny’ is therefore entirely misplaced—unless one believes males should access female spaces on the strength of their acting skills. Delightful logic.
Woman now means successful femininity performance. Biology retired.
Claim 7
“The Sex Discrimination Act provides critical protection for women, trans and gender diverse people and people who are intersex. This Bill would weaken these protections…”
— Elena Rosenman, Chair, Women’s Legal Services Australia
Our Response
Layering gender identity on top of sex does not expand protection—it overrides the female-specific provisions single-sex services exist to provide. The bill restores the balance the material reality of sex always required. The coalition’s claim that this harms intersex or other groups is pure invention; those categories never depended on pretending males can be females. One can only roll one’s eyes at the deliberate conflation.
Protect women by redefining them to include males. Peak inclusion.
Claim 8
“The Sex Discrimination Act works because it is broad enough to reflect the reality of all women’s lives.”
— Elena Rosenman, Chair, Women’s Legal Services Australia
Our Response
This is the clearest admission. Rosenman wants the SDA to treat biological males who identify as women as part of the protected class “women.” That is not strengthening protections for women — it is diluting the category. Women’s Legal Services Australia receives significant government legal aid and grant funding.
Biological women’s medicine, screening, injury patterns and violence exposure are shaped by female biology and XX chromosomes. The ‘broad’ redefinition erases sex from health data and research, making female-specific risks harder to track and treat. The coalition’s insistence that women must share single-sex medical and safety provisions with males is not a creative reading of anything—it is a deliberate erasure dressed up as inclusion. One can only pity the intellectual contortions.
All women now have prostates. Science by self-declaration.
Claim 9
“This Bill strikes at the core of gender equality by narrowly defining women. It risks taking us back to a time when an idealised definition of ‘the woman’ only allowed us to be caregivers…”
— Sally Moyle, Chair, National Foundation for Australian Women
Our Response
This is pure historical revisionism and emotional blackmail. Recognising biological sex does not force women into 1950s domestic roles. It simply acknowledges material reality for the purposes of sport, prisons, shelters, medical data, and single-sex provisions. The Bill does not dictate social roles — it protects the category “female” from erasure.
By the way, Moyle’s organisation receives government funding. Taxpayers are paying for this framing.
The bill rejects both that outdated stereotype and the newer claim that male and female bodies are interchangeable. The coalition’s suggestion that acknowledging reproductive biology equals forcing aprons on women is a false dichotomy only a lobby group could invent. The legislation is rather more straightforward.
‘Women give birth’ equals forcing aprons on us. 2026 hysteria achieved.
Claim 10
“Women often experience discrimination that has nothing to do with our bodies. … We need the SDA to cover discrimination that goes well beyond our bodies.”
— Sandra Creamer, CEO, Australian Women’s Health Alliance
Our Response
While stereotype-based discrimination exists, the bill addresses the areas where biological sex is the decisive variable: strength differentials in sport (documented by World Athletics), different pharmacological responses, and the male perpetration rate of sexual violence (over 90% per Australian crime statistics). Pretending these differences are irrelevant while demanding females share intimate spaces with males is not sophisticated analysis—it is wilful blindness dressed as compassion. The legislation simply refuses to participate in that pretence.
Bodies irrelevant—until males want female changing rooms and wards. Then suddenly sacred.
Summary: The media statement frames biological sex definitions as regressive while equating ‘women’ with gender identity. The bill restores sex-based rights grounded in physical characteristics for fairness, safety, and clarity.
Claim 11
“We do not want a situation where women are judged as ‘not female enough’ to deserve protection or access to women-only spaces, just because they might look or sound different to the feminine stereotype.”
Our Response:
This is the core sleight of hand. The Bill judges by biological sex, not stereotypes or presentation. The organisations are the ones demanding that biological females assess males on how well they “perform” femininity before deciding whether to let them into female spaces. The Bill removes that subjective, humiliating test.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Recorded Crime – Offenders, 2022–23 (Cat. No. 4519.0). https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-offenders/latest-release
Australian Institute of Criminology. (n.d.). Australian Crime and Justice Statistics. Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/
Harper, J., et al. (2021). How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(15), 865–872. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-103106
Hilton, E. N., & Lundberg, T. R. (2021). Transgender women in the female category of sport: Perspectives on testosterone suppression and performance advantage. Sports Medicine, 51(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
National Foundation for Australian Women. (2026, June 21). SDA Amendment Bill Is a Threat to All Women [Joint media statement]. https://nfaw.org/news/media-release-sda-amendment-bill-is-a-threat-to-all-women/
Parliament of Australia. (2026). Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-Based Rights) Bill 2026. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7479
UK Ministry of Justice. (Various years). Statistics and Reports on Transgender Prisoners and the Prison Estate. UK Government.
World Athletics. (2023). Eligibility Regulations for Transgender Athletes. https://www.worldathletics.org/about-iaaf/documents/eligibility-regulations
World Aquatics. (2023). Policy on Transgender and Non-Binary Athletes. https://www.worldaquatics.com/
Leave a Reply