Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The HN title here has been re-written to change "transwomen" to "males" and to remove the qualifier "from its public events."
Does that description not include those who are female and homosexual?
> The commission argued that granting the LAG an exemption from usual gender discrimination laws could contribute to heightened health risks among transgender lesbians.
I wonder what their reasoning is here. How would excluding individuals who are male and heterosexual from lesbian events cause risks to their health?
Why should an anti-discrimination law allow a lesbian group to exclude bisexual women (trans or otherwise) from a public event?
If you think that's okay, then you are fine with gender discrimination. If you think that's an issue, then apply the same logic to transwomen.
You should bear in mind a few comments from the link to the previous reporting, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/sep/... :
> But Dr Daye Gang, the commission’s counsel, said taking trans women out of the protections of the SDA was a high bar to meet.
> She said every group under the SDA was guaranteed the same bundle of rights and there was no “hierarchy” of protected groups. “This is not a contest of who is most marginalised,” she said.
as well as:
> The tribunal heard that there were many subsets of lesbians, some more exclusionary than others.
> Dr Elena Jeffreys, a sex worker advocate and academic, told the tribunal that lesbians who believed transgender women were men, were not a large group.
Why should one marginalized group get to discriminate against another marginalized group for public events?
Since most of those who are "female and homosexual" regard transwomen as women, you really shouldn't use the broad category of "female and homosexual" to justify discrimination against transwomen at a public event.
From htps://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/lesbian_rights_australia_submission_1.pdf:
> On that note, I would also like to once again point out the comparatively preferential treatment that men have received when they apply for exemptions to protect their spaces on the basis of sex, sexuality and gender identity. Often little more than anecdotal evidence has been considered compelling enough to support such applications for men. The Peel, The Laird and The Sircuit Bar operate venues and events where they can rightfully exclude would-be patrons on the basis of sex, sexuality and gender identity. The Peel, a venue exclusively for gay men, even happily advertises itself as "exempt from anti-discrimination laws". Meanwhile, in regards to the Lesbian Action Group’s application (and other similar applications in regards to lesbian-only events), dozens of submissions from experts, containing tomes of studies and references on the subject, are apparently not compelling enough to the Commission. The irony is not lost on me that the Commission's sexist double standards will be a primary reason for refusing this exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act.
So on the same basis, why should an organisation set up for the benefit of those who are both female and homosexual not be permitted a similar exemption from anti-discrimination laws, so they can legally exclude from their own public events all others who are not both female and homosexual?
> But a lawyer for the Australian Human Rights Commission said the Peel hotel’s exemption had been granted under Victorian state law to help gay men achieve equality, unlike the Lesbian Action Group’s application, which discriminates against transgender women. ...
> The organization 'maintains that transgender women are men and seeks to discriminate against them under provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) that carve out space for lawful discrimination for the purpose of achieving equality.'
I am a programmer with no experience in Australian law. Find and read the decision yourself rather than caring about my ill-informed views.
Seems to apply to public events only