Tasmanian people were never asked about this

Caption: Tasmania: two heads, 76 genders, zero sense.

Whatever the merit or otherwise of same-sex marriage, the most striking feature of the affirmative campaign was its mendacity. Their arguments almost all consisted of trite slogans – what philosopher Daniel Dennett calls “deepities”: statements that sound profound, but are both trivial and meaningless. “Love is love”, and so on. At the same time, valid objections were airily swept aside.

One major objection was that the campaign wasn’t really about gay marriage at all. What it really represented was a Trojan horse for a raft of Cultural Marxist and Queer Theory nonsenses. For instance, in Britain and Canada, same-sex marriage was either accompanied by or quickly followed with repressive legislation criminalising objections to transgender ideology and more.

Now the same is happening in Australia. To my embarrassment, in my very own home state. Quote:

Tasmania is set to become the first state to remove the sex of a child from birth certificates, in a major win for transgender people that has been attacked by critics as “abolishing gender”. End of quote.

The Tasmanian people never voted for this. They were never even asked about, let alone told about this. Like so much of the Cultural Marxist agenda, this nonsense is being foisted on us by creepy activists sidestepping the normal democratic process. Quote:

A vote is expected in Tasmania’s lower house next month, as amendments to a bill ending the need for trans people to divorce before they can change their gender on official documents.

While the bill’s central aim has tripartite support, the Liberal government, Christian groups and feminists fear it has been “hijacked” by the transgender lobby via a series of Labor and Greens amendments.

The Hodgman government relies on the casting vote of Liberal Speaker Sue Hickey, who was elected to the position with Greens and Labor support and votes as an independent. End of quote.

Sue Hickey used the uncertain election result of last year to go behind her party’s back and make a naked grab for personal power. Quote:

Ms Hickey, a Liberal moderate, said as a matter of policy she did not declare her voting intentions until debate concluded.

She said she was broadly supportive of measures to end discrimination against trans people. “I’ll be listening to every word possible,’’ Ms Hickey said.

“I do think the world is changing and we need to be open to considering things that might discriminate or harm somebody. I’m very open.” End of quote.

This is blatant double-speak. Anyone who thinks Hickey hasn’t already made up her mind is deluding themselves. Quote:

Transgender activist Martine Delaney said removing gender from birth certificates would be a significant win that would harm no one. End of quote.

More doublespeak. Delaney is the same activist who used lawfare to chill dissenting voices during the gay marriage debate. There is very real risk of harm from this idiocy: not just the creeping Lysenkoism of subjugating biological reality to crazy Queer Theory ideology, but the harm to children whose developing bodies and fragile psyches will be damaged by sleazy ideologues.

Finally, as many feminists are belatedly realising, transgenderism is systematically undermining the rights and status of women. Quote:

[Australian Christian Lobby] state director Mark Brown said the changes threatened to destroy the sanctity of women’s “safe places”, from refuges to sports teams. “If you are ­legally a transgender woman, even if you have a penis you can go wherever you want in terms of women’s safe spaces,” he said.

This concern is shared by feminist group Women Speak Tasmania. “If you have birth certificates issued with no sex marker on them, how then are ­female-only services and spaces — like girls’ schools, or the girl guides, women’s domestic violence shelters — able to maintain the female-only integrity of their service?” spokeswoman Bronwyn Williams said.

“It puts female-only organisations and services at risk of breaching anti-discrimination law if they say ‘No, you can’t become a member’.” End of quote.

Finally, as journalist Rowan Dean aptly put it, it’s “a major win for insanity”.

If a man wants to believe he’s Marie Antoinette, as long as he’s not harming anyone, he’s welcome to his delusion. That doesn’t mean that the government can or should legally appoint him the queen of France.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

Who is Lushington D. Brady?

Well, a pseudonym. Obviously.

But the name Lushington Dalrymple Brady has been chosen carefully. Not only for the sum of its overall mien of seedy gentility, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly disreputable gentlemen of letters, but also for its parts, each of which borrows from the name of a Vandemonian of more-or-less fame (or notoriety) who represents some admirable quality which will hopefully animate the persona of Lushington D. Brady.

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.

Listen to this post:
Voiced by Amazon Polly
32%