A biological female who identifies as a man got pregnant, gave birth, and is mad that doctors called her “ma’am” and “mom.” Meanwhile, Sall Grover a woman who built a female-only app has spent years in Australian courts, been ordered to pay damages and legal costs, lost appeals all the way to the High Court, and watched her business get destroyed for refusing to let a biological male into women’s spaces. One side: pregnancy and birth are somehow not female. Other side: women no longer get female-only spaces if a man identifies as one. Same ideology. Same erasure of biological sex. One side gets media sympathy. The other gets sued into the ground. Biology isn’t optional. Sex-based rights aren’t bigotry.

“The judiciary has just shown they’re happy to redefine a word, and use it against the very people that word defines, and this should both terrify and motivate everyone to loudly say the word NO.”

“I’m NOT sympathetic” to women who want FEMALE-ONLY businesses. Small Business Minister Anne Aly has made her position clear. 🤯 This is not ok! 🙅‍♀️ When asked about the Giggle for Girls (not a dating app🙄) Federal Court outcome and proposals to define biological sex in the Sex Discrimination Act, so women can run female-only businesses, Aly refused to engage. 😑 Instead, insisting “there are much more important things to talk about,” waved the issue of single-sex spaces aside, and declared herself unsympathetic to any argument that does not treat every person the same “regardless of gender.” 🚻 Aly talks about equality for everyone, yet it is well established that equality for women requires the right to female-only spaces. Without the ability to exclude males, women lose privacy, safety, fairness and dignity in the very places created for them. By insisting we are all the same, Aly has effectively decided that women do not need, and should not have those spaces. 🫢 Women who want the right to run female-only businesses are not “far right.” They are women who simply want the law to recognise that sex is real and that female-only spaces matter. Aly’s response treats that basic request as unworthy of serious discussion. 😤 Women who have built businesses for women are already paying the price under the current law. They are forced into court, face death threats, and carry the financial and personal cost of defending the right to operate female-only spaces. The Minister for Small Business has now confirmed she has no interest in fixing it. #FixTheSDA 💜🤍💚

If a politician wants to ignore men in women’s spaces, dismiss women’s sex based rights & instead talk about domestic violence, she should be damn sure there are no men who claim to be women convicted of domestic violence in women’s prisons, because there are, & not knowing that makes you look like an ignorant idiot.

In a liberal pluralistic society, the guiding principle is "live and let live": people are allowed to live/look/love as they choose. But they cannot harm others. If a man wants to live as a woman, that's his choice. But he cannot force others to believe he is a woman and he cannot abrogate/appropriate women's rights. TRAs frequently say that there is no difference between gay rights and trans rights. Wrong. If people want to be with members of their own sex, that's their choice. The only harm that causes is that it offends some people. But offense per se cannot itself count as a harm that restricts freedom in a liberal pluralistic society. To the extent that TRAs seek to require the rest of us to believe that "gender identity" can, as a matter of fact, trump or supplant biological sex, and to accept that men-however they identify-can abrogate or appropriate women's sex-based rights, they threaten to abolish women as a sex class and that is a harm that is inconsistent with a liberal pluralistic society.

We’ve long taught our daughters that trusting their gut is the keenest survival skill they have. That they should never prioritize a man’s feelings over saying NO. That if any man seeks to be in a place where girls are undressing, that man is not safe. Gender ideology teaches girls that if they follow these lessons, THEY are the ones doing “harm.” It is the reversal and inversion of the most universally taught safety standards of women and girls. Which makes it the perfect Trojan horse for predators.

If government can change the ordinary meaning of the word “woman”, they can change the ordinary meaning of any word you rely on for your rights. They have proven that. Women’s rights are the canary in the coal mine of an ideology being imposed upon people by the state. 👇

Australia, where the judges are telling us the ordinary meaning of “woman” includes men & the ordinary meaning of rape includes “limited insight into societal norms in Australia.” May I suggest that judges are helping to destroy the societal norms & this needs to be addressed…

The trans activist argument to get men who claim to be women into women’s spaces is that, basically, bad men will be bad men no matter what so there is no need to have any safeguards for women & girls. *ahem* First of all, so then why do men who claim to be women so desperately want access to women’s spaces for *their* supposed safety? If there is nothing to be done to keep the bad men out, how TF are you safer in women’s spaces? Your own stupid argument undermines your other stupid argument. Next, laws against allowing men into women’s spaces work in a number of ways, including allowing women to get him removed or him being stopped from entering in the first place. Take an example like PlanetFitness, where a man just waltzed on in to a woman’s change room and [allegedly 🙄] sexually assaulted a woman in there. Now imagine that anyone watching him go in could have said, “against the rules, buddy” & stopped it. Reception, management, fellow gym goers, a passer by. But they couldn’t, because transgender based laws have removed that safeguard as they have said that *any* man can simply claim to be a woman & thus go into a woman only space, and guidelines have been changed to accommodate that. The end result of that is any man can go into a woman’s space & at the very least it can be assumed that he thinks of himself as a woman by the act of going in. That’s enough. Damage done. It’s all pretty unworkable, isn’t it? It’s your fault, boys. Finally, every man who goes into a woman only space goes in as a man. Because he is a man. If they were women, no laws or guidelines would have had to be changed to accommodate them, they would have been included under the preexisting laws for women, but they weren’t because they’re not. And it wouldn’t have opened the door to bad men following them in, because there would be no confusion about which men are women & which ones are men. They’re all men. Good men abide by the long standing social contract to not go into women only spaces, and don’t require laws to reinforce their position. It’s only bad men who go into women only spaces, and that includes men who claim to be women who demand access to them. They’re not women. They’re bad men.

Men who beat their wives can now follow them into the crisis centre that was designed to provide safety. All he has to say is "I identify as a woman". That crisis centre can't do a name background check or anything. He is now legally a woman. This is not a culture war. It's our safety on the line.

In Australia, men can be women in law, female only spaces are unlawful if they don’t include men which claim to be women, men convicted of sex offenses against women & children are in women’s prisons because they say they’re women, men are in women’s sport, and the prime minister says it’s just a “culture war” & he is focused on the budget instead, but with the latest interest rate hikes he is even failing at that. It’s all a mess that could be fixed if reality was prioritized over ideology.

Pretty sure women have been warning that men will enact laws to imprison us for our hurty words for a while now. @Katherine_deves @salltweets @RedSvars Beth Rep FLC Jasmine Sussex @aytchellesse Can I get some ancient Greek styling for Australia’s Cassandra’s? ⬆️ canberratimes.com.au/story/9…

I think they see their purpose as deciding who gets human rights, and making sure it isn't women. It's just impossible to have believed before it happened.

There is something deeply satisfying about watching the giant fog machine fail. A judge does something absurd, dresses it up in the language of compassion and theory, then discovers that an American Senate hearing is one of those inconvenient places where someone may actually read the words aloud and ask what the hell they mean. No euphemisms. No activist jargon. No institutional shrug. You wrote it. You defended it. Now explain it in public. More of this. Much more.

Women’s spaces were not invented because so-called TERFS “hate” trans people. They exist because a significant minority of men - including a proportion of those who claim they’re women - pose a safeguarding risk. Self-identification does not make that risk vanish. Follow the statistics, not the slogan.

He can now go into any female bathroom or change room he wants. Of course, it’s still illegal for this to physically sexually assault any girls in there, but he can watch. The only way for women & girls to ensure they are not in this situation is self exclusion.

If the witness accounts are accurate, “male assaults two female staff members” is a considerably more accurate headline than “brawl between female patrons.” Why hasn’t the public been told exactly what happened? Female-only spaces exist for very legitimate reasons. Women and girls should be able to access female-only swimming sessions, change rooms and other intimate spaces with their privacy, dignity and safety protected. It is deeply concerning when those boundaries are no longer clear or even seemingly enforceable.