Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny
Australia has a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who isn’t sure what we mean by ‘biological men’ and a Race Discrimination Commissioner who refuses to attribute unprecedented levels of mass migration to the housing crisis and cost-of-living nightmare.
Both these individuals are paid roughly $400,000 + super.
At last week’s Senate Estimates I was able to question these commissioners on their recent dealings as part of my role holding the bureaucracy to account to you, the taxpayer.
What I heard in response was not only frustrating, it begs very serious questions about their standard of work.
‘What do you mean by biological males?’ – Dr Anna Cody, Sex Discrimination Commissioner
Here are some highlights from my questioning of Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the context of the Giggle vs Tickle case and, more generally, the interference of sex-based protections in law through the inclusion of trans individuals.
Roberts: So, what sort of chromosomes does she [transwoman Roxanne Tickle] have – XX or XY?
Cody: I can’t answer that, Senator.
Roberts: You can’t?
Cody: No, I can’t answer that.
Roberts: Wow. [headshake]
Roberts: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle vs Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?
Cody: What would you like me to explain, sorry Senator?
Roberts: What your position is.
Cody: On which issue?
Roberts: The position on biological males in female spaces – could you please explain the Human Rights Commission – your position on that?
Cody: What do you mean by biological males, Senator?
Roberts: Can someone who was born on XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes? A male change to female?
Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist.
Roberts: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex? If born a man they are a man. If they are born with XY chromosomes they’re a man and they stay a man?
Cody: No, I would not a agree.
Roberts: You don’t agree?
Cody: No.
Roberts: You talked about XX / XY you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?
Cody: The issue that I’m saying around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.
Roberts: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Born female is XX.
Cody: Not always, Senator.
Roberts: No?
Cody: No.
Roberts: Someone who was born a man – a boy – has XY chromosomes, cannot change to have XX – is that correct?
Cody: If they are born – if their chromosomes are XY then their chromosomes, I don’t believe they can change, but as I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change.
Roberts: So, you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?
Cody: Um, I’m not taking a side within a court case, our role is as amicus so that is to provide a clarification – help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.
Roberts: So, how can you clarify if you don’t understand?
Cody: The – the – what – I – I – understand the law, what I don’t understand is the science around the XX / XY unless the evidence is before the court.
Astonishing! This is reminiscent of the Department of Health taking on ‘notice’ the definition of a woman.
The situation was not much better with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman. Previously the former Chair of Multicultural Australia and Member of the Queensland Multicultural Advisory Council, he seemed particularly reluctant to address the economic, social, and cultural impact of mass migration.
Roberts: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?
Sivaraman: In of itself? It doesn’t have to be. No. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.
Roberts: Okay, thank you. Mr Sivaraman, there are currently 4 million people in this country – our country – who aren’t Australian citizens – are not Australian citizens – taking up beds while Australians are homeless. Record homelessness – after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived. That’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospitals, dams, transport, and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?
Sivaraman: Um, Senator, I think the first issue is to simply to – connect – in a very linear way migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve-
Roberts: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?
Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to like housing, the cost of living – are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with. And it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, Senator, and I think that can be problematic.
Roberts: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants when I am one, and can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?
Sivaraman: Because it is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems.
Roberts: I didn’t say there was only one cause – it’s just a significant factor.
Sivaraman: Even that in itself is a simplification, Senator, that it could be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.
In both cases, the commissioners reject simplicity.
The biological norms which underpin human gender are simple. ‘Progressive politics’ is the first movement in history to regress ideologically to such a point that it struggles with the definition of men and women. This self-inflicted ‘confusion’ has jeopardised the protection of women, made a mockery of women’s sport, and a laughing stock out of what was once the greatest civilisation on Earth.
Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has a lot to answer for on this topic. After all, it was under her watch that the amendments were made to the Act. Consider the irony of a female leader making Australia less safe for women.
Meanwhile, the undeniable reality of mass migration is a simple mathematical principle that creates a complex forest of problems downstream of the initial mistake. These additional issues are being used to talk-around the primary cause even though the average Aussie on the street has a clear view of what went wrong. Ask them. They know.
I have found that simplicity is often rejected because it allows us to identify the policy error at the heart of these tragedies befalling Australian society.
If we know which policy is causing the problem, we know who wrote it, who voted for it, and how to fix it.
In these cases, we have sex discrimination policies that have been erroneously modified to remove accurate biological qualifications of sex to suit the trending ideological movement of the day, rather than upholding the protection of biologically segregated spaces – as was their intention.
For migration, the problem is the Big Australia Ponzi scheme being run by Labor (and the Coalition in the past) to cook the economic books and obscure the per capita backwards economic trend taking place. Doing so would mean admitting that migrants are being used to prop up political parties, bureaucratic structures, and the interests of developers while the immediate needs and rights of Australian citizens are torn to shreds.
Yes, we can still ask questions about these topics – but the quality of the answers we receive speaks volumes about the ingrained nature of the bureaucratic double-speak quagmire we need to dismantle before real change can be made.
So let me try to understand this: we are paying $400,000 pa to someone who can’t answer a question that any 8 year old can answer. I wonder whether she is related to the female Supreme Court judge in the US who had two children but herself was unable to answer the question. With this level of intelligence in evidence, there is obviously way too much fluoride in the water in Canberra.
What is the defination of Sex? Ater all we pay $400k ofr a sex commisioner.
From the dictionary – clear and simple. “either one of two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divded on the basis of repoductive functions.
So if sex is fluid then, how on earth can there be discrimination?
Some days are diamonds and other days are just unbelieveable, and these people have leadrship roles in this country!? You keep nailing them senator an I’ll bang my head on the wall for you!