If you thought the RDB was bad, wait til you hear about Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill. Last week, we had some rare good news: the Commonwealth Government’s RDB stalled in the Senate, & now seems unlikely to pass before the upcoming federal election. alastairlawrie.net/2022/02/14/if-…
Unfortunately, that relief is short-lived, especially for LGBTIQ people in NSW, because the NSW Government’s response to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Mark Latham’s Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 –
otherwise known as his anti-trans kids Bill – is expected at any point in the next three weeks, and must be delivered by March 7 (the Monday after Mardi Gras).
This legislation is actually worse than the Religious Discrimination Bill, in particular because it so specifically targets the most vulnerable members of our community.
What’s in Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill?
The primary purpose of Latham’s legislation is to erase trans and gender diverse children from classrooms and schoolyards across NSW. It does this by inserting the following definition into the Education Act 1990 (NSW):
gender fluidity means a belief there is a difference between biological sex (including people who are, by their chromosomes, male or female but are born with disorders of sexual differentiation)
and human gender and that human gender is socially constructed rather [than] being equivalent to a person’s biological sex.
It then prohibits not just ‘the teaching of gender fluidity’ (proposed section 17A), but also any ‘instruction, counselling and advice provided by’ teachers, support staff, counsellors,
principals, contractors, consultants and even volunteers at any school in the state, public or private (proposed section 17C).
The punishment for teachers who breach this prohibition is immediate de-registration (ie being fired).
In effect, the Bill would impose an official silence on anything to do with transgender people – even the fact that they exist.
This includes everything from exclusion from the health and physical education syllabus, through to banning school counsellors from discussing gender identity with struggling students who are at risk of self-harm or suicide.
Trans and gender diverse kids would be made to feel invisible, with nowhere to turn to for help.
The Bill then *also* includes provisions to harm LGBTQ kids more generally. It does this by inserting a definition of matters of parental primacy:
in relation to the education of children, moral and ethical standards, political and social values, and matters of personal wellbeing
and identity including gender and sexuality.
Before introducing a range of provisions to limit the teaching of anything to do with these issues. Chief among them is proposed section 17B:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Hilton & Lundberg article is an argumentative essay, but it has been incorrectly interpreted by the deer's in the headlights as a scientific review, with severe impacts on trans women’s participation in elite sport @RogerPielkeJr@DrRyanStorr
Methodological Concerns Regarding Hilton & Lundberg (2020) Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage.
This is a condensed detailed analysis of the methodology and integrity of Hilton & Lundberg (2020), especially important because of the impact of this single paper on sport policies regarding trans women.
@KatyMontgomerie@Scienceofsport@Hazunki@EggAccount1648@FondOfBeetles Given the scientific research on trans women (especially in sport) is incredibly limited, even if the view of current science presented by the WR Working Group’s policy represents the best consensus view that could exist, the accuracy of this consensus view is far from guaranteed
@KatyMontgomerie@Scienceofsport@Hazunki@EggAccount1648@FondOfBeetles The WR guidelines developed by Tucker & co justify the ban on every single trans woman playing women’s contact rugby on two grounds: firstly, that the risk of injury is too great; secondly, that there is a retention of meaningful performance advantages to
@KatyMontgomerie@Scienceofsport@Hazunki@EggAccount1648@FondOfBeetles trans women rugby players compared to cis women rugby players following what is currently considered an acceptable period of appropriate testosterone suppression. (Tucker & co made this assumption without testing a single trans rugby player not one).
What are the symptoms of androgen deficiency?
Adulthood• Mood changes (low mood and irritability)
• Poor concentration
• Low energy
• Reduced muscle strength
• Increased body fat
• Longer time to recover from exercise
• Decreased libido (low interest in sex)
• Difficulty getting and keeping erections
• Low semen volume
• Reduced beard or body hair growth
• Breast development (gynaecomastia)
• Hot flushes, sweats
• Osteoporosis (thinning of bones)
Later life (after 60 years)• Mood changes (low mood and irritability)
Nothing performance enhancing there (unlike what Tucker and crew advocate) In fact a male athlete who suffers from androgen deficiency is granted a TUE for T to allow this XY male to bring his T levels up to the same level as his same sex counterparts.
The airforce study even though it had many flaws actually confirms the reduction in athletic performance. The reduction doesn't stop after two years eventually HRT takes you completely out of sports. Post operative it's an immediate loss.
This study from the U.S. Air Force looked at trans men and trans women in three fitness tests before and after their transition. The tests were a 1.5-mile run and the number of situps and pushups that can be done in a minute.
After 2 years of hormone therapy, the trans men matched the cis men in the 1.5-mile run and in the number of pushups per minute, and they exceeded the cis men in the number of situps per minute.
Don't listen to the online rhetoric & gaslighting going on. 90% or more is untrue. This distinct 180 pivot from the IOC is an admission of a historical record & incomprehensible abuse by trauma handed down over many years, in our sporting history it is very dark & many actors.
The veil has been lifted. There was no science to any of these policies. None, PERIOD. The 2015/16 policy was designed too answer to the legal in Toronto. Period. K Worley was able to jurisdiction outside the CAS, where ‘sex reassignment’ was removed as a prerequisite to sport.
Government participated to hide and protect those individuals national and external that created such enormous harm, enormous collaboration between them to hide it.
To be a fascist, one must support the revolutionary, usually violent overthrow of the entire govt/Constitution, & reject democracy entirely. In 2015, none were comfortable saying Trump went that far.January 6 2021 he incited a violent attack on American democracy he is a fascist.
Trump like the fascist leaders of the past, not only pursues right-wing policies, he has built-up a violent mass-mobilizing parties and paramilitary organizations with the goal of sweeping aside alternative movements and...
establishing single-party dictatorship under the guise of making America Great Again