Posts

Commissioner Doesn’t Get XX/XY

,

“I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around XX and XY ….”

— Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, during Senate Estimates.

How can you advise the court on sex-based rights if you don’t understand the science? Seriously!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to go to Dr Cody, and the intervention in Tickle v Giggle, please. Thank you for appearing, Dr Cody. Tickle v Giggle is the case of someone who was born a biological male being stopped from joining a women-only app. What are you arguing in your intervention? How much are you being paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men to be allowed into women’s spaces?  

Dr Cody: The role that we have within the case Giggle and Tickle is intervention, or amicus curiae: helping the court to understand the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendments from 2013, and also how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women applies, whether or not there are special measures, and their understanding of section 5 and section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We were given leave by the court to assist them to understand those issues and also the constitutionality of the Sex Discrimination Act. In terms of the cost, we have two counsel who were briefed. Both agreed to appear on a capped fee basis, so that’s a reduced fee. One was paid $13,000, and the other one was paid $10,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I actually asked, Dr Cody, was how much are you paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men?  

Dr Cody: My salary is similar to that that you mentioned for Commissioner Sivaraman.  

Senator ROBERTS: About $400,000 a year, plus 15.4 per cent super?  

Dr Cody: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Just so I can be clear, your position is that the law means a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman can enter a female-only space?

Dr Cody: I would question whether or not Roxanne Tickle is not a man. She is a trans woman. She has gone through various processes and has transitioned, and she’s a trans woman. So she has access—or sought access and was provided access—to the Giggle for Girls app, and then was taken off the access to the Giggle for Girls app.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of chromosomes does she have—XX or XY?  

Dr Cody: I can’t answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t?  

Dr Cody: No, I can’t answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Can someone who was born with XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes—a male change to a female?  

Dr Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist. There are many variations of chromosomes. There are hormonal variations, there are chromosomal variations, there are genitalia variations—there are a lot of variations which are along a spectrum.  

Senator 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’re born with XY chromosomes, they’re a man and they stay a man?  

Dr Cody: No, I would not agree.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t agree?  If a woman took a case to court today trying to stop a person with a penis who identified as a female going into a women’s bathroom, which side would you be arguing for if you were there as a friend of the court?  

Dr Cody: No.  I would need to know more facts. I can’t make a judgement on that in particular.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your previous answer, you talked about XX and XY and how you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?  

Dr Cody: The issue 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.  

Senator ROBERTS: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Someone born female is XX.  

Dr Cody: Not always.  

Senator ROBERTS: No?  

Dr Cody: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an example of when not?  

Dr Cody: Because there are also people who have innate variations of sex characteristics, so they may be identified as male at birth, but in fact later find out that they have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes. So it is more complex than just XX being female and XY being male.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll agree with that, but it’s a very, very tiny proportion of the population. Someone who was born a man, a boy, has XY chromosomes and cannot change to XX—is that correct?  

Dr Cody: If their chromosomes are XY, then I don’t believe their chromosomes can change. But, I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change it.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, if you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?  

Dr Cody: I’m not taking a side within a court case. Our role is as amicus—that is, to provide clarification and help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.  

Senator ROBERTS: So how can you clarify if you don’t understand?  

Dr Cody: I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around the XX and XY, unless the evidence is before the court. So my role is to assist the court with understanding the legal argument.  

Senator ROBERTS: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?  

Dr Cody: What would you like me to explain, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: What your position is.  

Dr Cody: On which issue? 

Senator ROBERTS: The Human Rights Commission’s position on biological males in female spaces. Could you please explain your position on that.  

Dr Cody: What do you mean by ‘biological males’, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: Someone born as a male, XY chromosomes. 

Dr Cody: If they are a man, and depending on which space they are wanting to enter and why that space has been created—if it’s a special measure, for example, for ensuring the quality of women—then there may be good reason to exclude men from that space.  

Senator ROBERTS: What would be some of the reasons?  

Dr Cody: For safety reasons, for example.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of safety reasons?  

Dr Cody: There is certainly a reason why men would be excluded from a domestic violence refuge for women.  

Senator ROBERTS: Female prison?  

Dr Cody: Female prisons are also made for women, and therefore men would be excluded from a women’s prison.  

/7 Comments/by

Questioning the Commissioners

,
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.

Questioning the commissioners by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

Protecting Women’s Rights

, ,

On Tuesday morning, 2 September, One Nation senators signed a pledge to protect women’s rights.

Identifying as a women can’t mean biological women suddenly have their rights taken away from them.

One Nation is the only party who isn’t afraid to define what a woman is.

Media ReleaseDownload
/1 Comment/by

Standing With @BillboardChris: Protecting Our Kids with Compassion & Support

Grateful to be able to offer my support to Billboard Chris in person at Parliament House today after the concerning events in Queen Street Mall Brisbane.

As I’ve said many times in Senate speeches and other forums, gender dysphoria should be met with compassion and understanding, not a scalpel or hormone drugs.

Our children need support during adolescence, not automatic affirmation that could lead to irreversible harm. Given that children are not mature enough to consent to treatments that will result in permanent infertility and damage, a total ban on such treatments for anyone under 18 is necessary.

We must protect our children as they navigate this challenging period in their lives.

I stand with Billboard Chris and commend his dedication to ending this abuse of our children.

Above all, free speech and the right to peaceful protest must be safeguarded at all costs.

/4 Comments/by

Urgent Review Needed on Transgender Care for Children’s Safety

The COVID Inquiry Report highlighted the need for greater transparency in decision-making around pandemics.  The same criticism also applies to transgender care. Suppressing critical information has led to physical harm being committed to our children.

Australia must implement a moratorium on irreversible treatments for gender dysphoria and conduct a exhaustive and thorough public review of the science behind these practices.

Our kids deserve care based on data, not by the profits of the medical industry.

Photo credit: Gender Dysphoria Alliance

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html

/7 Comments/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show

In the wake of Channel 7’s shocking Spotlight investigation on Sunday 3 September 2023 into the transgender epidemic, join me as I talk to a mother who has successfully fought the BigPharma gender cult to protect her two daughters.

/1 Comment/by

Stop telling 12-year-olds they were born in the wrong body!

Listen to this brave young woman who has come forward to talk about her firsthand experience of one of the biggest medical scandals in human history.

Ideological gender affirming “care” is not caring. It’s not compassionate.

This barbaric pseudoscience doesn’t answer the mental health needs of young people today. In fact, it does the opposite.

Although we know statistics show that suicide in teens confused about gender is elevated, it is far higher in those who’ve transitioned.

The “fix” makes it worse.

Puberty is a rite of passage to adulthood, not a disease to be mitigated. It’s hard enough without wealthy doctors preying on the insecurities of pre-teens.

In her own words: Stop telling 12 year olds they were born in the wrong body.

/by

The Outrage Brigade Strikes Again 😉 😲

,

The left are trying to cause fake outrage with an edited video of me quoting the bible in a speech, falsely claiming I’ve called for the execution of trans people. It’s absurd, given I’ve already talked about trans people I call my friends.

As Labor tries to implement its new “ministry of truth” against misinformation, you can bet the wave of victimhood claims will drown out any of the real truth.

Voltaire said “Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”

/14 Comments/by

Medical Transitioning of minors is child abuse

Medically transitioning children is experimental. Long term benefits are not clear and detriments are mounting. Our children are not fodder for experimentation and advancing research outcomes for the medical profession.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’m speaking to the answers Minister Gallagher provided—or, rather, failed to provide—to my questions on gender dysphoria treatment.

In avoiding the answer to my questions, the minister tried weakly to say, ‘Nothing to see here.’ Yet the world is waking up to the profoundly inhuman medical and psychological harms that children with gender dysphoria are experiencing when referred to gender clinics. The international trend is moving away from prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children under 18 years. Britain’s infamous—and the world’s largest—gender clinic, Tavistock, is now closing, following a review that found it failed vulnerable under 18s: it failed vulnerable under 18s! It follows the clinics in Finland, Sweden and France suspending the availability of puberty blockers and sex hormones to children unless under strict clinical trials.

How did we get to this place, where the power of ideology and trans activism is greater than the rightful duty and obligations of parents, and of the medical and legal professions to provide whole-of-person care for children with gender dysphoria? This woke ideological movement is suffering binary dysphoria. Apparently, for some, a binary world is not sufficiently colourful. Some parents are now forced to abrogate their parental responsibility to the power of the medical state. Fundamental facts are being ignored about children and child development. Fact: contrary to some views, sex is assigned at conception—not birth. We all know that adolescence is a highly challenging time, marked with a preoccupation of the discovery of self. It’s okay that a percentage of both genders don’t conform to traditional stereotypes. This doesn’t need correcting through irreversible medical treatments.

Ideologically-driven activists have intimidated the medical profession into silence and compliance with the affirmation model rather than making a stand for our children who are in distress during adolescence and who need holistic or whole-of-person care. When puberty blockers are administered we know, firstly, that a child cannot develop fertility—the latter stages of puberty do that—and, secondly, that they will not have full sexual function. Essentially, this child’s body becomes frozen in the early stages of puberty, with testosterone or oestrogen treatment adulterating the child and committing the child to a lifetime of hormones and drugs. It’s unknown what effect puberty blockers have on brain development, and only now is The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne conducting research in this area. Too bad for all those children who have already passed through, and those currently receiving treatment. Endocrinologists traditionally treated diseases, yet in gender clinics they take perfectly healthy children with no diseases and inject them with puberty blockers to suppress normal hormone levels to treat, not an endocrine disease but the mental distress the child is experiencing.

How has this gone unchecked for so long? Why are these medical professionals not subject to disciplinary action for deliberately harming our children? What are governments doing while this is going on? Endocrinologists know the importance of puberty to the full development of a healthy human being. Today gender clinics give medical professionals a licence to offer up puberty as an option to children. The transgender lens has compromised the full care of our children. Gender clinics in Australia need to close and follow the lead of the Tavistock clinic in anchoring whole-person-care back to localised clinics within the mental health system.

Our children are making decisions that they can’t possibly understand—decisions with lifelong consequences. They are being sterilised and denied full sexual function, and their brain development is likely compromised. They are being made sick when they’re not physically sick. They are being denied the therapeutic support they need to help them with their distress. Instead of asking why there has been an explosion of girls presenting with gender dysphoria in Western countries, the medical profession has bowed down to the trans activists and grabbed the opportunity to create profits and research outcomes at the expense of our children—inhuman!

Adults in Australia’s gender clinics must not be allowed to hide behind a statement of operating to the standards of care. There is no care when the medical profession does not fully deal with the mental health issues that children are experiencing. There is no care when the medical professional takes physically healthy children and sends them on a pathway of drugs, infertility and arrested physical, sexual and neurological development for the rest of their lives. There is no care when state government legislation denies parents their rightful place in support of their children in distress. Our children are not fodder for experimentation and advancing research outcomes for the medical profession. Our children are not profit centres for pharmaceutical companies.

We are one community, we are one nation and this child abuse must stop now.

/1 Comment/by

Labor Government abandons children, languishes investigating medical transitioning of minors

Australian gender clinics are under fresh scrutiny and face calls for an independent review of their prescription of puberty blockers to teenagers after British clinic Tavistock was closed down over safety concerns. Further coverage in The Australian: ‘Calls to review transgender treatment for kids after British Tavistock Clinic is closed’ (paywall).

The Labor Government is either ignorant or negligent in not intervening in these practices in Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:32): My question is to Senator Gallagher, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The Tavistock gender clinic in the UK, a leading provider of gender dysphoria services, will close in 2023. Britain’s National Health Service asked Dr Hilary Cass, past president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, to review the treatment of children with gender dysphoria. The Cass review found that Tavistock gender clinic has failed vulnerable children, and it recommended closing Tavistock. Finland, France and Sweden have taken the same decision for their gender clinics. Here in Australia, Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital has many links with Tavistock. Minister, will you review Australia’s gender clinics to ensure that these clinics are not causing the same harm to vulnerable children that the Cass review found at Tavistock?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:33): As the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, if there is further information I can provide after question time, I will do so. I would say that the Royal Children’s Hospital has an excellent reputation in paediatric care in Australia. It is staffed by world-renowned medical professionals providing first-rate care to younger citizens in the state and also around the country. I don’t have close knowledge of the services they would provide to children with gender dysphoria, but I have no doubt that they have the professional standards and the professional skills that are required to provide those young people and their families with first-level advice and health care. We have no information available to the government, to my knowledge, that we should see it any differently to that—that is, that where there are children who require health services they access them through a children’s hospital; that those services are accredited, there are professional standards in place and there are appropriate ethics and various advisory bodies that inform the delivery of those services; and that if there are concerns around them they are dealt with through the appropriate channels—not necessarily by politicians, who have particular views about certain things, but actually through the delivery of health services—as we do in a whole range of other areas of paediatric care.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:35): So you can’t say whether you will review? Evidence shows that the use of puberty blockers sterilises children, and the impact on brain development is unknown. The Royal Children’s Hospital is currently studying the impact of puberty blockers on children. We are literally offering a treatment we do not know is safe. Minister, when will the Australian government intervene and demand the closure of all gender clinics in Australia until gender treatment in children is proven to be safe, if ever?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:36): The government has no intention to intervene and ban particular services, health services, that are supporting families and supporting children to access the type of care that they need for their individual situation. If there is further information I can provide—and I would say, as a former health minister, that health services in this country, and we are very fortunate, are heavily regulated. The professionals who provide health services are heavily regulated. There are professional bodies in place, there are complaints mechanisms, and there are a whole range of avenues, if there are concerns about any health service, that those would go through and be dealt with. They are not normally dealt with on the floor of a parliamentary chamber.

There are many families that need services. The Australian government is about providing health services, not taking them away. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:37): Minister, One Nation listens to people and this is what we’re hearing, so we speak up for constituents. Minister, a child who has not even reached puberty is incapable of knowing their own mind. Doctors, and sometimes parents, are taking these decisions on the child’s behalf. Has the government considered the legal liability it is incurring for the government’s part in this medical malpractice?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:43): Well, I don’t agree that it’s medical malpractice; nor do I agree with the proposition being put forward in the question, which is that there are professionals and parents making decisions that are harmful to young people. Perhaps, Senator Roberts, it might be good for you to go and ask the health professionals who are providing these services how they provide them and how they support young people, rather than just taking a particular view. I’ve always found that going in and asking questions and being open-minded—not necessarily just taking one individual’s view about it but actually learning from the health professionals—is useful.

I also think saying it’s medical malpractice goes too far. When we’re looking at the vulnerability of the young people and children who are needing this kind of support through the health system, we should be very sensitive in how we deal with it, and as a government we’re keen on making sure that we are able to provide health services to anyone who needs them, regardless of their circumstances.

/1 Comment/by