‘Not the laws of Australia’: Sex discrimination chief reacts to UK ruling on definition of a woman | SBS News

Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner has expressed support for the “trans and gender” diverse community following the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s ruling on the legal definition of a woman.

“Human rights belong to everyone. Trans and gender diverse people should be safe, respected and legally recognised,” Anna Cody said on Thursday.

“The laws in the UK are not the laws of Australia. Our laws should reflect inclusion, respect and the right of all people to live with dignity.
[Ed: Let us never forget the betrayal by this woman tasked with the job of protecting our sex-based rights. Where is her support for women who know what a woman is?]

Source: ‘Not the laws of Australia’: Sex discrimination chief reacts to UK ruling on definition of a woman | SBS News

One thought on “‘Not the laws of Australia’: Sex discrimination chief reacts to UK ruling on definition of a woman | SBS News”

  1. What a pity that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner does not appear to have read the UK Supreme Court judgment, nor the shortened press release version, nor listened to the oral presentation of a shortened version. The Supreme Court made undeniably clear that the UK law does extend human rights and equality affirmation and protection to transgender individuals. The distinction it made was that ‘sex’ has a biological meaning. As transgender persons are not claiming transsex identity then it is difficult to understand the Sex Discrimination Commissioner’s statement. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasised that it would be unfair to draw a distinction between those who possess a ‘gender recognition certificate’ and transgender persons who do not possess that certificate: the Court was clear to affirm that those holding a ‘gender recognition certificate’ and those not doing so do have human and equality rights. Why the Sex Discrimination Commissioner seeks to traduce the UK Supreme Court is a mystery. Perhaps she has watched demonstrations which make it clear that there is confusion and lack of understanding of the decision – and conflates that into her own confusion and lack of understanding. Her view is, in reality, not one that gives confidence in the Australian Human Rights Commission nor in its jurisprudence if this is reflective of the AHRC’s jurisprudential capacity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.