Posts

New South Wales State MP Alex Greenwich has introduced two horrific anti-human bills in the NSW parliament. These bills are so bad I had to raise my concerns in a Senate speech.

In 2023 women are becoming simultaneously invisible and exploited. Women’s rights are being removed by the Left under the cover of ‘inclusive’ gender diversity and a ‘progressive’ facade. This attack on femininity is taking the women’s movement backwards, which will come at a terrible cost to our society. When public figures are too cowardly to even define what is a woman, society is in trouble.

In a nutshell, Alex Greenwich proposes legalising sex self-id, making official documents reflect the individual’s self-image rather than biological reality. This undermines the safety of women and girls in female only spaces. He also seeks to fully deregulate prostitution, removing protections for all prostituted persons.

In a bid to make it easier for the gay community to become parents, Alex Greenwich’s proposed bill also seeks to remove bans on commercial surrogacy if it happens outside NSW. Although it’s an understandable goal for gay couples to parent a child, this would make it legal for NSW residents to use foreign baby farms.

Such a bill would encourage the exploitation of poor, vulnerable women. It reduces them to the status of a womb for rent and turns children into products for sale. We’re living through the beginnings of a modern day handmaid’s tale. Bills such as these would remove many of the protections in law women have worked so hard to achieve.

This attack on women’s rights is also an attack on society’s values and religious freedoms. The final thing this bill seeks to introduce is that religious belief will no longer be an acceptable employment criteria for religious schools. If someone from the LGBTIQA+ community wanted to infiltrate a religious school then woe betide that school for turning them down. It’s clear that those responsible for the moral decay of society see Christianity as the resistance and want it destroyed from within.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw the Senate’s attention to the New South Wales parliament, where independent MP Alex Greenwich introduced two bills, the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023 and the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2023. Both bills are anti-women and anti-children. The proposed changes include, firstly, introduction of sex self-ID, allowing anyone to change their legal sex on official documents such as driver’s licence and birth certificate. These documents will no longer represent physical reality; they will show mental self-image. Men will be able to legally identify as women and access female-only spaces including bathrooms, changing rooms, refuges and prisons, undermining the rights and safety of women and girls. Women and children escaping domestic violence will be forced to share emergency accommodation with men. Imagine the additional trauma this will create. A recent Victorian event in Dame Phyllis Frost Correctional Centre shows the danger of these laws. A biological man convicted of violent assaults against women was transferred into a female prison. Female prisoners unsuccessfully petitioned to remove him. A wider public campaign raged for weeks before the transfer was eventually reversed.

Many women in jail have suffered abuse from men that lowers women’s self-esteem and then they go on to drug abuse, crime and illegal behaviour. To TIGA+ campaigners, the mental and physical effect on female inmates from having men in with women seems irrelevant. It appears that many in the TIQA+ community believe women are only to have rights that do not compromise men’s rights.

Secondly, fully deregulated prostitution will remove protections for prostituted persons, mostly women, as well as the wider community. While many may enter this line of work willingly, prostitution is the world’s oldest form of slavery and exploitation. To remove penalty based regulation is an insane idea that will remove the rights of exploited women to enjoy the protection of law. This is despite the global movement to combat, not foster, this abhorrent form of sexual exploitation, violently making women’s bodies commodities.

Thirdly, removing bans on commercial surrogacy if it takes place outside New South Wales, legalising the actions of New South Wales residents using foreign baby farms. This bill will encourage the exploitation and commodification of vulnerable women who will be reduced to the status of a womb for rent, and children reduced to products for sale. This is a modern-day form of human trafficking that’s broadly opposed among human rights defenders. I understand that the homosexual community want to parent a child, and the research on this issue is generally supportive. Yet allowing poor women in Third World countries to be exploited for the benefit of gay couples in the West is an outrage. Women are more than just uterus owners and chest feeders. Women have the right to be protected from exploitation, not to have exploitation enshrined in law.

Fourthly, this bill removes religious protections in current antidiscrimination laws. It will be illegal for religious schools to discriminate against an LGBTIQA+ person, allowing an openly trans person to apply for employment and to prevent discrimination against their employment. Religious belief will no longer be an acceptable employment criteria for religious schools. It seems that people responsible for society’s moral decay see Christianity as resisting that moral decay and therefore they want to destroy Christianity.

Turning to the second bill, the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2023, this bill criminalises medical professionals and parents trying to help those suffering with gender dysphoria in a way that doesn’t simply affirm a person’s gender identity. As one constituent, a qualified psychologist, said to me recently, ‘If a child presents to me believing they are a giraffe, I must treat them as though they are a giraffe.’ In the TIQA+ world, this masquerades at health care. This bill ignores mounting medical evidence that the affirmation-only approach is causing gender dysphoria, harming children through irreversible medical transitioning leading to shattered lives filled with regret, regrets the 7NEWS Spotlight show brought to mainstream Australia last Sunday.

Women’s Forum Australia has launched a campaign to protect women, children and our community from these harmful measures. One Nation supports that campaign. Every person deserves respect, equality and care under our laws. Alex Greenwich’s measures are counterproductive to these principles. In 2023, women are becoming invisible handmaidens, servants, with their identity as women being taken from them. One Nation stands opposed to this antihuman agenda. (Time expired)

In the Senate today the Coalition has split over whether Australian children should access irreversible transgender treatments. 

 

The Government granted their Senators a conscience vote on the motion brought by One Nation Senator Roberts and it is the first conscience vote on a motion since 1987.

 

Senator Roberts said, “The Liberals call themselves conservatives and today we have seen five liberal senators, including ministers, cross the floor to support Australian children accessing irreversible treatments and surgery.

 

“My motion was about protecting children from these irreversible treatments at a time when a therapeutic pathway should take precedence over a medical pathway.

 

“It’s a travesty when we let children under 16 years have double mastectomies in Australia”, he said.

 

Sweden’s leading gender clinic has recently ended routine treatment of children with puberty blockers and hormonal drugs citing concerns around cancer and infertility.  In Australia children as young as 10 years of age have been prescribed puberty blockers.  

 

“It’s a sad day for all Liberal voters when their leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, crosses the floor and aligns himself with Labor and the Greens against the true conservatives in his party.

 

“The gang of five must be called to account for their sellout of conservative liberal values. These are Senators Birmingham, Hume, Payne, Bragg and Colbeck.”

 

Speaking after the vote Senator Roberts said, “Adolescence is a confusing time and this is not the time for our children to make irreversible life changing decisions.

 

“It is no wonder that the Australian curriculum is loaded with anti-humanist, ideological rubbish when the former Minister for Education voted against my motion to protect children.

 

“Shame on him,” he said.

My motion last month calling on the government to ditch Gender neutral language passed the Senate. Despite this, the government style guide still includes these gender neutral terms. The Digital Transformation Agency creates the style guide, I asked them why they were defying the will of the Senate.

Original Motion: https://web.archive.org/web/20210331123928/https://7news.com.au/news/social/one-nation-pushes-motion-through-senate-banning-use-of-distorted-gender-inclusive-language-c-2379125

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to ask questions about the style Manual, which is produced under the auspices of, the digital transformation agency. It’s something very dear to the chair’s heart. I don’t know, she’s stated this in public, language is crucial as a very powerful driver of behaviour and it’s been shown to be influential, for many hundreds of years now. So our office recently investigated the origin of the style manual and we got this advice. These quote, “The Australian government style manual was produced under authority from the Australian government. It is a government publication, but there does not appear to be, any specific regulatory or legislative framework under which it was produced,” Is that correct?

I would need to take that on notice, Senator I’m sorry.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, my understanding is, there’s no specific regulatory or legislative framework. So I noticed that this seventh edition, was compiled by working group with 167 different agencies. There you go Senator Gallagher, you’re always helpful, 167 different agencies, some of whom are organisations, some of whom are individuals, some are voluntary, some are paid part time. How much did edition seven of the Star Manual cost? And what is the annual budget of the style manual unit?

So I will need to look behind me to see, if we have anybody with the numbers, for the the cost of producing the style manual.

So just, we’ll get the numbers for you as soon as we can Senator, but the the actual style manual team is very small. It is purely on a sustainment footing right now, which means the sustainment is just minimum support. So we have a digital edition, which we have produced, which you would be well aware of. Some are very keen still to get paper copies, as you would expect and lots of very enthusiastic participants, but the the investment in the style manual has largely ceased.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, someone has got to keep going with this, because there’s a document on the website, that says help us improve the style manual. So someone collects this feedback and then actions it, So there is an ongoing cost. So have you worked at how much it is going to cost to go through all the federal government business and implement the changes called in this style manual?

Yes Senator we have released the latest edition and beyond that, the feedback that we take, will potentially make incremental improvements. The benefit we have though, with the style manual being digital is that, it is much simpler for us to make minor refinements than it is where you have a physical document. So it is, as I said, a very small team, it’s one or two people, and they respond to feedback and ensure that the product is maintained with very small sets of changes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So if it’s not a referable document that can be referenced, how do you maintain the integrity of the document? How do we make sure that no one can just walk in and change it when they so want to?

And so we put controls around changes to the document. If it’s helpful, we’ll provide on notice a summary of the team, the level of change, and then how we’re ensuring that the actual product is change controlled in the way that you would expect it to be.

[Malcolm Roberts] So correct me if I’m wrong, the document only exists on a web page at the moment, there’s no printed copy authorised?

So other than the copies that we have produced for editing and so on, there are no hard copies.

[Malcolm Roberts] But there’s not a copy that the minister authorises or anyone has authorised or anybody has authorised?

Sir we had, as you demonstrated many stakeholders who were participating in the refinement of the style manual in the latest edition, I’ll come back to you with the details as to how that process was undertaken to the point at which this is the specific person who authorised the final copy and the how do we manage it.

[Malcolm Roberts] And who is the guardian of changes in future. And what about, has anyone in the government done the costing of what it would cost to change thousands of web pages to make sure that language is complied with, thousands of forms? Has anyone done the costing of that? The implementation cost of this?

I wouldn’t have thought so, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. At the end of the development process did the minister approve the final format?

Also I’ll come back to you on notice on that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. I note that the style manual prevents the use of the word junior to describe an adolescent. Have you told all the foot junior footy clubs around Australia that they have to change their name to adolescents?

I don’t believe we have said adolescent footy clubs.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I’m even told that the word youth, let me better get this right. The word youth is okay. The word young people is okay, but the word junior or juniors or youths is not okay. So I noticed the style manual also requires federal government employees to find out the user’s preferred pronoun. Now you didn’t follow your own manual, because nobody asked me what my preferred pronoun was. So, is it more than a recommendation or is that all it is?

Senator it’s a reference for good writing. And in order for us to provide that advice, there is a level of discretion that can still be applied at the individual author level. This is good practice guidance that has been updated to be more contemporary than the last edition.

[Malcolm Roberts] Based upon what a lot of people have inputted but no reference to the English language or dictionaries or custom and practice of what our language means. Just a lot of opinions going in. You don’t look familiar with the process, okay. My Senate motion number 1055 sought to remove use of gender neutral language from federal government business. I asked the office of digital transformation to update the style manual accordingly and they advised it wasn’t necessary as the specific language expressions in my motion were not contained in the style manual, is that still your position?

I will come back to you Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, now your web pages are not numbered for reference in the section on language, your web page advises use gender language, to use gender neutral language. Now federal programmes are being changed to gender neutral language and your style manual has given us the reason, but apparently the department refuses to remove or qualify this gender neutral requirement, is that correct?

Senator, I’m going to need to come back to you with.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I’ve got a few final terms chair, that I’d just like to check, which is recommended by the office of digital transformation for these common terms, breastfeeding or chest feeding.

Senator, I have not.

[Malcolm Roberts] Breast milk or chest milk? Father or non birthing parent? Mother or gestational parent? My motion has the effect of about preventing this language, and now your proposing use of this language. Does that mean you defying the will of the Senate? It did pass.

I think it did.

Where do you think our transgender kids will end up? Children who present with a felt sense of being born into the wrong body are given licence to make irreversible decisions that will affect their brain development and scar and mutilate their bodies.

When we start to accept that boys at 10½ can take puberty blockers, girls at 14 can have double mastectomies, and parents can be criticised and shamed when they attempt to counsel their children against these life-altering decisions, then lunacy, neglect and savagery are prevailing.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I raise a deeply troubling issue for all Australians. We know that feelings arise and pass, especially through adolescence. No feeling is final. Yet children who present with a felt sense of being born into the wrong body are given licence to make irreversible decisions that will affect their brain development and scar and mutilate their bodies. This is the life ahead for too many young people on the transgender highway.

There’s been an undeniable explosion of young females presenting with gender dysphoria. A hundred years of diagnostic history indicates this predominantly impacted males, yet in just 10 years we have witnessed a social contagion running rampant through our teenage girls—girls with no childhood history of gender dysphoria. In the United States, females requesting gender surgery in 2016-17 quadrupled. In the UK, females presenting with gender dysphoria over the last decade has risen over 4,000 per cent. In Australia, the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne has seen referrals rise from one in every two years to 104 in 2014.

In spite of the horrendous outcomes for many of these children—and I’ve met some—solid statistics are hard to come by. It seems this area of medical practice would prefer to keep their bad news under wraps. Gender dysphoria, as many eminent medical professionals will agree, overwhelming presents with pre-existing mental health conditions. In today’s highly politicised environment, when a child shares their distress around comfort with their gender, parents are challenged and even shamed if they attempt to take a comprehensive therapeutic approach to help their child. Instead, parents are labelled abusive and accused of harming their child when they refuse to consent to their child’s self-declared transgender identity.

Many of us may not remember our own teenage years, but those of us who have raised children through to adulthood will recall our own children going through adolescence. Parents walk a very fine line between nurturing their child’s emerging independence and supporting their child’s fragility. What we do know is that teens become super sensitive during this time. They hate people looking at them, they often loathe their newly emerging adult bodies or even feel revolted by them.

Everything is magnified, and they’re easily embarrassed. Being part of a tribe is powerful during this time, and that’s a perfect concoction for a social contagion. To make matters worse, the process of neural pruning during this time means their executive function is compromised, which is where we make our most effective decisions.

It’s irresponsible that we’re surrendering these life- and body-altering decisions to our children, putting them on a medical pathway of puberty blockers, sex hormones and irreversible surgery. An adult brain is required to balance the consequences of these life-changing decisions. We’re charging our children and, equally abhorrent, our courts with these enormous decisions. It’s our children, as young adults, that will left to face the horrendous consequences.

The medical pathway for children presenting with gender dysphoria is widely accepted as experimental. There’s no evidence that it’s safe. This is a call to all parents: your children are being used in an experiment where there’s no evidence it’s safe and plenty of evidence it’s not. Overnight, Sweden’s leading gender clinic stopped routine treatment of minors with hormone drugs due to safety concerns, citing cancer and infertility risks. There are concerns around bone density, memory, development of grey matter and cognitive impairment. These treatment are not proven safe, and yet our children can quite easily be prescribed puberty blockers and sex hormone treatment to then land on the operating table for irreversible surgery with grossly inadequate counselling. The counselling instead is left for the parents, for them to come to the terms with the loss of a child of one gender and welcome the emergence of another.

There’s another Sorry Day coming. That Sorry Day will be for all those vulnerable children that struggle through adolescence, as so many do, and we did nothing to protect them. When we start to accept that boys at 10½ can take puberty blockers, girls at 14 can have double mastectomies, and parents can be criticised and shamed when they attempt to counsel their children against these life-altering decisions, then lunacy, neglect and savagery are prevailing. These children will have every right as adults to turn to their parents, medical professionals, hospitals and the judicial system and demand compensation for our negligence because we lacked the courage, we lacked the will, to protect these children when they needed it the most.