Post

https://twitter.com/michaelkoziol/status/1515871920713248771

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

More from @KatKarena

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Feb 7

Stephanie Blanch V Kirralie Smith – Local Court – Sydney – 07/02/205

Lawyers & Barristers:
Ruth Nocka and Julia Leeds from Dentons Law Firm are representing Stephanie Blanch.
Blanch’s barrister: Charles Gregory.

Kyle Kutasi from Solve Legal - is representing Kirralie Smith.
Smith’s barrister: Faraz Maghami
Deputy Chief Magistrate: Sharon Fruend

(NOTE - I've checked this as well, as I can, it was hard to hear at times as Maghami had is microphone pushed away from his mouth)

-----------------------------------------------

First, a bit of background to this case as it was discussed back and forth with Deputy Chief Magistrate and Gregory at the beginning. The case of Blanch v Smith initially began in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). Kirralie Smith, who runs the advocacy group Binary Australia Ltd, was accused of "transgender vilification" under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act after her organisation highlighted the participation of transgender males in women’s sports.

Stephanie Blanch, a transgender athlete, claimed that this constituted vilification.
However, the case was dismissed in NCAT—not because Smith was found innocent of the charge, but because the Tribunal itself lacked jurisdiction. Recent High Court rulings, particularly Burns v Corbett (2018), established that tribunals like NCAT cannot rule on cases involving constitutional issues. Smith’s legal team argued that her statements were protected under the Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication. Since constitutional matters were at play, the Tribunal could not decide on the case, as reaffirmed by Senior Member Andelman.
As a result, the matter was redirected to the Local Court, where it was re-litigated today, February 7, 2025.

/1

Overview of yesterday's (7/2/2025) proceedings:
At today’s hearing the Blanch’s team presented their case first. Then Faraz Maghami put essentially a 3-point argument as to why Kirralie’s case was not vilification. Then Charles Gregory cross-examined Kirralie for 47 minutes. Kirralie team did not call Blanch to be cross-examined, (when I asked as to ‘why not?’, they said the case stood on its own).
Teams went out to discuss responses, strategies etc. amongst themselves a few times in between four breaks over the day. At the end of the day, they organised a time to meet for a judgement on the 7th of May.

Opening Arguments for Blanch’s side:
Gregory summarised the key points of Section 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) that were most relevant to today's court proceedings. That Transgender Vilification is Unlawful. It is illegal for a person, through a public act, to incite hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule against an individual because they are transgender. He mentioned some exceptions where it was not unlawful. Certain public acts are not considered unlawful, including public acts done reasonably and in good faith for purposes such as:

* Academic, artistic, scientific, or research discussion
* Religious discussion or instruction
* Public interest debates or discussions, including the discussion or exposition of an act or matter.

Key Takeaways for Today’s Case
The case seems hinged on whether Kirralie Smith’s statements met the legal definition of "inciting hatred, contempt, or ridicule" against a transgender person (Blanch).
The exception under 38S(2)(c) was particularly relevant—Smith's defense argued overall that her statements were part of a reasonable and good faith public discussion on women’s sports, which is a matter of public interest.

My understanding is that section of the law is central to whether Smith’s speech was unlawful or protected under the public interest exemption.

/2

Charles Gregory – Dentons Lawyers’ Opening Argument

Gregory argued that the public acts in question were not carried out for academic, religious, or other legitimate purposes and that they were not done in good faith or reasonably.

He asserted that the defendant, Kirralie Smith, used Blanch as a “kicking horse for transgenders in sports”, alleging that Blanch was “used to whip up vitriol”, adding, “we take issue with that.”

Gregory contended that over a number of months, Kirralie repeatedly posted Blanch’s image on social media, referring to him as “a man,” “a bloke in a frock,” and associating him with Wingham Football Club, where he played soccer.

Gregory stated that before Kirralie’s involvement, Blanch had been playing for that club for decades, before he transitioned. He emphasized that Blanch had even played for the women’s team while still a man, before transitioning eight years ago, and that “she was good friends with other members of the team and was very comfortable playing in the soccer club.”

Gregory further speculated that when Kirralie first saw a photo of Blanch, she did not immediately know if “she was male, female, or a transwoman” but then reacted by saying to herself:

“WOW! That is a man in a dress! I am going to use this as a centrepiece of transwomen in sports.”

Gregory asserted that, as a result, Blanch suddenly 'became the centre of a media storm because of the way she looked.'

Over the following months, Kirralie’s continual references to Blanch as “a male” and “a bloke in a frock”, along with references to concerns from other club members about being ‘scared to have a man in the changing room,’ were framed as painting Blanch as a predator.

Gregory stated that this characterisation “painted (Blanch) as a terrible person—a predator who would cause harm to others in the club.”

Finally, Gregory argued that all of these instances were "public acts of vilification", and "the key issue before the court was whether they constituted vilification against a transgender person".

(Note to self: It was difficult to hear this final point clearly, but he appeared to be raising the question in order to answer it.)

/3

Read 20 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Sep 16, 2024

WHICH RALLY BROUGHT THE NEO NAZIS TO MELBOURNE’S PARLIAMENT ON THE 18 MARCH 2023?

I. The neo-Nazis did not ‘attend’ or participate in the Let Women Speak Rally but were present on the steps of Parliament House for a Protect the Children rally (PC Rally) being held in front of Parliament House at or about the same time as the LWS Rally.

EVIDENCE:
1. Approximately 11:38 am, See: (Platform Melbourne) Between the start of the footage and 1 second into it, and again at the 59 second mark Thomas Anthony Sewell of the National Socialist Network (NSN) is seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'PROTECT OUR CHILDREN STOP THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY SILENCE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION' Banner, that was located on the speaker system of Matthew Raine Trihey of the Australian Unified Movement, (also known as Grass Roots Rally, Freedom Rally, Freedom Fighters)

"Thomas Anthony Sewell is not seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'Let Women Speak' banner."

2. By 11.44 am in LuluHeart’s video the NSN are stretched across Spring Street by the Protect Children Rally with their banner unfurled. See timeline.

3: At approximately 12:18pm after the Victorian Police had removed the line of officers that had been positioned across Spring Street just to the south of Turnbull Alley, the NSN moved from the north into the area on Spring Street where attendees of the AUM Grass Roots Rally were located. They formed a line across Spring Street facing the south, backs to women, facing ANTIFA, roughly in the same location that the Victorian Police had been previously.
See videos at timeline:

Although the way was clear, the (NSN) did not make their way through to the 'Let Women Speak' event."

4. At approximately 12:24 pm AEST on 18 March 2023, one of the organisers of the "A stand to protect the children. A stand against the moral decay of society" AUM Melbourne Protest says the following:

[Pointing to members of the National Socialist Network (NSN) that are standing in a line across Spring Street, facing towards the north and holding the banner "DESTROY PAEDO FREAKS".]
"Yeah, so ok here's the thing. They're here to support us right. They're here to support us these guys right, in the black."facebook.com/watch/?v=19706…
docs.google.com/document/d/1QT…

II. The neo-Nazis did not speak or display their banner or make their Nazi salute in respect of the LWS Rally but spoke and displayed their banner and made their Nazi salute in respect of the Protect the Children Rally.

EVIDENCE:

3. "Thomas Anthony Sewell is seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'PROTECT OUR CHILDREN STOP THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY' Banner, which was located on the speaker system of Matthew Raine Trihey of the AUM."
"Sewell is not seen pointing in the direction of the 'Let Women Speak' banner." see: (1 second and 58 seconds in) 4. In Randell Ceetwo’s live-stream he interviews the NSN 35:12 minutes in: “Hi guys. You wanna tell the public what’s going on? Tell the public what’s going on here guys.[pause] What are we doing?

35 mins/12 secs - NSN Members Nathan Bull and Stefanos “Stefan” Eracleous say simultaneously: “Protecting the children. We are here to protect the children.”

35 mins/ 26 secs - NSN Member Jimone Lyle Roberts states: “We're here to smash the child grooming here in Melbourne.”

35 mins/ 35 secs - NSN Member Graham Connolly states: “You know they have, ya have jobs and stuff like that. But we’re here to protect the children” 5. Later at approximately 12:33 pm Thomas Anthony Sewell, along with other members of the NSN made their way onto the steps of the Victorian Parliament, Spring Street, Melbourne, Australia. At approximately 12:36 pm, Thomas Sewell gave a speech outlining why they were there. The speech focused on their presence to defend against a globalist homosexual agenda, which aligns with the Protect the Children rally messaging."
[51 mins/51 secs]
Also see Timeline.
facebook.com/watch/?v=19706…
facebook.com/10007837422990…
facebook.com/10007837422990…
docs.google.com/document/d/1QT…

III. The Protect the Children Rally was not associated with the Let Women Speak Rally but was promoted and held in Melbourne in association with a PC Rally being held in Sydney on the same day, 18 March 2023.

EVIDENCE:

6:"On Saturday 4 March 2023, Yosra Alyateem placed an advertisement for a protest in Melbourne on her Instagram account. The protest was titled 'A STAND TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN A STAND AGAINST THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY,' and it was held at the Victorian Parliament, Spring Street, Melbourne, on Saturday 18 March 2023."

7:"On 2 March 2023, an advertisement was posted for a 'Protect Our Kids' protest in Sydney, scheduled for 18 March 2023. This was the same day as the Melbourne protest, showing the rallies were coordinated events but separate from the Let Women Speak rally."

8. On 20 March 2023, Sewell stated in a public interview on titled ‘The Vanguard – Anti-Paedo protest with Tom Sewell’ ‘…there was a Liberal Party MP that went to the Let Women Speak Rally which was a rally that was going on simultaneously to ours, and she’s being removed from the Liberal Party right now, because she wanted to let women speak and have their say…’

9. On 28 March 2023, Sewell on his Telegram account of the Let Women Speak rally he said: “We do not care for the opinions of a bunch of childless 40 something wine- aunts, they are an irrelevant side effect of a dying society. We do not care for their complaining; we do not care for the symptom vs band- aid politics of arguing over whether a dick-less freak is a woman or not and which bathroom they can use. Our politics is focused on the cause. Straight to the point. We advocate for the LEGAL arrest, trial and capital punishment of every single person involved in pushing this sickening degeneracy on our children and society as a whole.”Odysee.com

Read 12 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Sep 13, 2024

🧵1/ Back to LAG vs AHRC:

Recapping what I've done thus far:

Day 1 - Preliminaries:
docs.google.com/document/d/1UO…

Day 1 - The cross examination of Carol Ann - Part 1 and 2
docs.google.com/document/d/1ec…

Day 1 -The Cross examination of Elena Jeffreys
x.com/KatKarena/stat…

Day 1 - The Cross Examination of Sheila Jeffreys
x.com/KatKarena/stat…
docs.google.com/document/d/13w…

2/ Day 2 Preliminaries:
Prelude to the Cross Examination Elena Jeffrey – 2nd Day.

On the morning of the second day there was first a conversation that was a prelude to the cross-examination of the expert witnesses, Elena Jeffrey. Leigh Howard and Stewart Fenwick discuss the role of expert testimony, the application of law, and the weight of evidence.

Key Points:
1. Dr. Blake and Dr. Jeffrey:
Leigh Howard notes that Dr. Blake's evidence will stand as is without cross-examination, and they are now prepared to cross-examine Dr. Jeffrey. However, Dr. Gerber's affidavit and expert report are also discussed, with Howard objecting to certain parts.

2. Role of Experts in Law: A central theme is Howard’s argument that questions of law should not be addressed through expert testimony, as this is the domain of the independent tribunal and the bar, not witnesses. Howard emphasizes that law should not be treated as if it were a subject for experts, which could create a misleading sense of authority.

HOWARD:
"So, questions of law is for Dr. Gang and me, the independent bar and the independent tribunal. Not the witness in this box. So, I'm not cross-examining anybody about questions of law."…."The danger of pretending, which it is, that law is the field of an expert, not the independent bar, not the independent tribunal, gives it a superficial wrong and incorrect air of authenticity."

3. CEDAW and Legal Interpretations:
Fenwick mentions a contradiction between positions, specifically the Al Salam perspective on CEDAW, and asks if this should be accepted without opposing viewpoints. Howard insists this is a matter for legal submission, not something for witnesses to address, and that it is the role of the bar to clarify legal issues.

4. Distinction Between Law and Facts:
Howard repeatedly emphasizes that witnesses can provide facts, but not legal interpretations, which should come from legal counsel. Fenwick agrees but notes that as a tribunal member, he must gather information from various sources, including written submissions and independent research.

5. Gerber's Report:
Howard questions the relevance of Professor Gerber's input, asserting that it has been rendered irrelevant by the court's decision in Tickle v Giggle and that Gerber is not an authoritative interpreter of law.

i.e.

LEIGH HOWARD
Dr. Gerber? No. Right. No. So, questions of law for Dr. Gang and me, the independent bar and the independent tribunal. Not the witness in this box. So, I'm not cross-examining anybody about questions of law.

STEWART FENWICK
You don't want to cross-examine about different perspectives of international law, which is not common fare?

LEIGH HOWARD
No.

STEWART FENWICK
Right.

LEIGH HOWARD
That's not the province of a witness. It's just not. I have a lot to say about it.

STEWART FENWICK
I look forward to that, Mr. Howard. Thank you. Thank you. I think we will sink out to the end. You're aware there's a slight contradiction in that we've got the - one way or another -we've got the Al Salam position paper and perspective on CEDAW. Should I just accept that without contrary opinion?

LEIGH HOWARD
That's a legal submission put forward by Ms. Chaligoy yesterday. And it's Dr. Gang's responsibility to inform you about its correctness. This is really problematic. It's very problematic. For centuries, tribunals have operated this way. To say that questions of law for the witness box is very problematic. Very problematic.

STEWART FENWICK
But what's the difference between written and oral evidence? I'm saying written documents speak for themselves and I just digest them and then form my own opinion.

LEIGH HOWARD
Or fact.

STEWART FENWICK
Yeah.

LEIGH HOWARD
Facts. Finding facts, not law.

STEWART FENWICK
Well, what's the law?

LEIGH HOWARD
That's for me to assist you with.

STEWART FENWICK
Sure.

LEIGH HOWARD
And that's why the bar exists and why you exist. That's how we've operated for centuries
Tickle v Giggle Case: Howard highlights that certain issues in this case have been overtaken by the Tickle v Giggle jurisprudence. While Howard acknowledges that some of the arguments may be problematic or wrong, they remain binding legal authority, and political debates should not interfere with legal obligations.

STEWART FENWICK
Well, I need sources of information to inform the decision, if I need to make it, about the scope of CEDAW, don't I? I can do my own research, but if it's not discussed openly in the hearing, it might be wrong.

LEIGH HOWARD
But it's my duty to tell you what it means from Dr. Gang, the air of experts; it gives a wrong, legally wrong, procedurally actually, jurisdictionally wrong air of authenticity. It's advocacy; it's advocacy of the witness- is being an advocate.

I will address this in further detail once I understand whether and what is to be made of Dr. Gerber’s report, because I don't, I cannot seek to convince you out of Tickle and Giggle. It's binding; it's plainly wrong. I accept it's not plainly wrong in the sense that I can't and convince you that it's just so wrong that you can't have regard to it. Of course, I can't when it's not assumption, I'm going to make. It's just it's a court authority that we have to accept; we'd like to discuss it politically, that's another point so why are we even hearing Dr. Gerber on the meaning of sex well I think..

STEWART FENWICK
It was all prepared in advance of the decision, but anyway I'm fine, I'm not like wishing to be difficult, I'm just trying to find out, given the flexibility afforded the tribunal about informing itself from the - you're telling me it's fine,

LEIGH HOWARD
So, let's deal with that.

6. Rights of Different Groups:
Both Howard and Fenwick recognize the human rights of the transgender community, with Howard asserting that the dispute is not about denying rights but about balancing them, particularly in the context of protecting lesbian rights under CEDAW. Howard emphasises that there is no hierarchy of rights in this case.

Agreements:

Leigh Howard and Stewart Fenwick reach a general agreement that the role of expert witnesses is limited to providing factual evidence, not legal interpretation. Legal questions must be addressed by legal counsel and the tribunal, not through expert reports or testimony.

They also agree on the importance of balancing human rights and the need for a clear legal framework, rather than relying on potentially misleading expert opinions.

Fenwick acknowledges the challenge of navigating international law and rights-related issues but appreciates Howard's clarifications.

3/
📰⭐️Day 2 - The Cross Examination of Elena Jeffreys (part 2)
(This is new)

docs.google.com/document/d/15a…

Read 17 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Sep 3, 2024

🧵#LAGvsAHRC - The closing arguments of Leigh Howard (LAG Barrister)
LH = Leigh Howard, SF = Stewart Fenwick

LH started with appreciation of SF to continue to offer to people who are members and supporters of LAG accomodation to hear and see the proceedings...

1/
Leigh Howard:
"So, the conclusion of that cross-examination points.

First, is that LAG means no harm to anyone.

Secondly, all LAG wants to do is to exercise the same human rights that we do.

Thirdly, all LAG wants to do is to exercise the same human rights to expression, association, culture, sexual health that others have in the LGBTI community and society more broadly.
The third point is that LAG is not asking for anything else; no assimilation, no resources, nothing.

Fourthly, that there is no harm. There are groups that don't want that to happen. And that includes the Human Rights Commission."

2/ Leigh Howard continues:
"So, my closing, I'll just address in two topics: what's fallen out of the evidence in light of cross-examination, and then secondly, apply that evidence to the legal principles that I've set out in my SOFIC. And the SOFIC's a really good guide to the disposition of the dispute and how to address the dispute.

So, turning to the evidence, the commission's questioning covered three topics.
The first was why is LAG associative?
And why does it need to associate in all public events?

That's answered comprehensively by Ms Anne's annexure, where she annexes the constitution of LAG. And that's answered comprehensively by Ms. And it's not really a matter for debate, given that's the source document. Now, that's at page 21 of Ms. Ann's statement, page 22, and the Constitution states, and I quote, 'Freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, freedom from violence, and freedom in law.' That's their purpose.

And then they articulate a dozen ways to fulfill that, the first being a political advocacy group asserting their biological fact, that sex is binary and immutable, so on and so forth.

So, this is a political lobby organisation, but also, as you see in the middle of the dot points, an organisation wants to promote outlets for lesbians to meet, to have discussion and organise events for political, social, cultural, physical and mental wellbeing of lesbians specifically.

So that's answered. That's the finding.

Read 35 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Aug 22, 2024

Tickle vs Giggle - Notes from today
(Open to corrections I can't find the published summary as yet. Will expand on each point, once I've translated my hand writing)

1/ 🧵 Case Overview: Roxanne Tickle sued Giggle for Girls & its CEO for gender identity discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The dispute involved the Giggle app, a platform exclusively for women, which excluded men from joining. #GenderDiscrimination #Legal

2/ Key Issue: The central question was whether Ms. Tickle’s exclusion from the app was unlawful gender identity discrimination or based on her sex, which the respondents argued was male. #LGBTQ #Equality

3/ Court Decision - Direct Discrimination: The court found no direct gender identity discrimination. The exclusion was based on visual criteria that couldn't distinguish between cisgender men & transgender women—not an intention to discriminate based on gender identity.

Read 24 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Jun 25, 2024

I looked at that document All Gender Sanitary Facilities Consulation several weeks ago.
Heres notes on background, current status and proposed ammendments for your submission

Current Provisions and Issues
Background (Page 2)
NCC 2022, clause F4P1 Personal hygiene facilities:
Suitable sanitary facilities for personal hygiene must be provided in a convenient location within or associated with a building, to the degree necessary, appropriate to:The function or use of the building
The number and gender of the occupants
The disability or other particular needs of the occupants

Issues with Current Provisions:
Current Deemed to Satisfy provisions designate toilets as female, male, or unisex accessible. All-gender facilities could only be provided in addition to the existing minimums, incurring additional project costs.

Proposed Amendments

Change in Terminology (Page 2)Update terminology from ‘sex’ to ‘gender’ and ‘unisex’ to ‘accessible’ to modernize and standardize the language used in the NCC.

F4D3 Calculation of Number of Occupants and Facilities (Page 3)Unless the premises are used predominantly by one gender, sanitary facilities must be provided on the basis of a proportionate distribution of occupants.
In calculating the number of sanitary facilities, an accessible facility required for people with a disability may be counted once for each gender.

F4D4 Facilities in Class 3 to 9 Buildings (Page 3-4)Separate sanitary facilities for all genders must be provided except in specific permitted situations.

Specific Situations:
If not more than 10 people are employed, an accessible facility may be provided instead of separate facilities for each gender.

If the majority of employees are of one gender, not more than 2 employees of the other gender may share toilet facilities if the facilities are separated by walls, partitions, and doors for privacy.

F4D4(12) All-Gender Sanitary Facilities (Page 5)
All-gender sanitary facilities may be provided to meet the requirements where:
The building is only required to be provided with two individual closet pans, two separate all-gender sanitary facilities may be provided.

The building is required to be provided with three closet pans or urinals, these may be replaced with one male closet pan, one female closet pan, and one all-gender sanitary facility.
The building is required to provide four or more closet pans or urinals, up to 50% of all required fixtures may be converted to all-gender. The conversion to all-gender sanitary facilities must be taken equally from the provision of male or female sanitary facilities.

Rationale and Benefits

Rationale for Proposed Changes to Section F (Page 5-6)Improving inclusivity:
Gendered bathrooms are exclusionary and discomforting for gender-diverse individuals.
Additional benefits: Improved access for people with medical conditions, parents with young children, and high volume bathroom use situations.

Red tape reduction: Introduces a new Deemed to Satisfy pathway, reducing time and cost associated with developing and assessing a performance solution.

Voluntary and cost-effective: A voluntary solution that maintains the current project cost profile.

Privacy and safety: Provides a private and safe space for individuals uncomfortable or unsafe in gender-segregated facilities.
Maintaining accessibility: Reduces reliance on unisex accessible facilities, maintaining intended access levels for people with disabilities.

Gender diversity awareness and acceptance: Helps broaden community understanding and acceptance of diverse gender identities.

Rationale for Change in Terminology from ‘Sex’ to ‘Gender’ (Page 6)

Improving inclusivity: The term ‘gender’ is more encompassing and recognizes a spectrum of identities beyond binary male and female.

Gender diversity acceptance: Use of ‘gender’ respects diverse gender identities.
Contemporary language: The term ‘gender’ increasingly recognizes individuals according to their self-defined identity.

These sections of the document outline the proposed changes, the rationale behind these changes, and the intended benefits, focusing on inclusivity, privacy, safety, and the efficient provision of sanitary facilities.

@deves_katherine @KirralieS @anonotanon @angijones @feministbirther @LouiseElliotM @TheMilkBarTV @Bernard_Lane @celinevmachine_ @MoiraDeemingMP @JohnRuddick2

https://twitter.com/MollyBe44568117/status/1723487210782261754/photo/1

Here are notes on the WHY we need single sex toilets (unfinnished blog post I'll use for the submission):

The existence and preservation of single-sex toilets address significant concerns related to safety, privacy, and comfort for women, men, the disabled, the elderly, and children. Adding gender-neutral facilities alongside existing bathroom provisions is a positive step towards diversity and inclusion. This approach advances the interests of men and women who identify as something else without compromising everyone else’s needs.

Safety Concerns
One of the primary arguments for maintaining single-sex toilets revolves around safety. These facilities often provide a secure space where individuals can feel safe from potential harassment or assault. This concern is particularly acute for women and girls who feel vulnerable in mixed-sex environments. Although not all fears are realized, the perception of safety significantly affects comfort and ease of use.

Studies from 2017-2018 in the UK report 134 incidents of sexual assault, voyeurism, and harassment in swimming pool changing rooms, with 120 occurring in gender-neutral facilities and only 14 in single-sex facilities (Gilligan 2018; Hosie 2018).

Mixed-sex facilities may exacerbate sexual harassment problems at work. In Australia, 39% of women have experienced workplace sexual harassment (Judd 2021). Single-sex spaces often provide a respite for women from their harassers. Making these spaces gender neutral can lead to women avoiding bathroom use, potentially causing health issues like kidney infections.

Discussions with Welsh school children revealed that girls were avoiding drinking water to reduce bathroom use due to period shaming from boys (Petter 2019).

Single-sex bathrooms serve as one of the few safe spaces where women can escape violent partners or inappropriate advances and seek help (AIHW 2018).

Privacy Needs
Privacy is another cornerstone in the debate over single-sex toilets. These facilities provide a level of privacy that is both expected and appreciated by users. In cultures and communities where modesty and separation of the sexes are valued, these toilets are essential. Moreover, managing medical or health-related needs such as menstruation, miscarriages, and incontinence is more discreet and comfortable in single-sex facilities.

One in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, often requiring immediate and private care, which single-sex bathrooms can provide.
Menstrual accidents, such as leaks or the need to clean menstrual cups, are more comfortably managed in the privacy away from men, especially in workplaces where women may face sexism or harassment.

Menopause can bring about symptoms that women prefer to manage privately, away from men.

Comfort and Accessibility
Comfort in using toilet facilities also extends to parents with children, the elderly, and those with disabilities. Parents often find it easier to assist their young children in a single-sex toilet that aligns with their gender, especially when helping opposite-sex children. The elderly and people with disabilities benefit from tailored facilities that can be more effectively provided in single-sex setups.

Cultural and Social Considerations
As a multicultural society, Australia supports single-sex toilets through long-standing social norms and values deeply ingrained in many communities. The abrupt removal or reduction of these facilities can cause significant distress and discomfort. A UK poll from 2017 found that 65% of respondents—mostly women—said they would not use a unisex toilet, and men often feel uncomfortable in such facilities because they worry about making women uneasy (McClintock 2015).

A Balanced Approach
While the conversation about toilet facilities must also include the rights and needs of transgender and non-binary individuals, finding a balance that respects and accommodates everyone's comfort is crucial. Solutions such as providing gender-neutral toilets alongside single-sex ones could be a way to address the diverse needs of all individuals in a respectful and inclusive manner. As long as the ratio reflects the population size.

In conclusion, the importance of single-sex toilets extends beyond mere convenience. They encompass crucial aspects of safety, privacy, and comfort that are vital for us all in our daily lives. As society continues to discuss and navigate this issue, it is important to consider all perspectives and strive for solutions that maximize comfort and safety for everyone.

References
· Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. ‘Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018’,
· 28th February 2018. Gilligan, Andrew. ‘Unisex changing rooms put women in danger’, The Times,
· 2nd September 2018. Hosie, Rachel. ‘Unisex Changing Rooms Put Women at Danger of Sexual Assault, Data Reveals’,
· The Independent, 2nd September 2018. Judd, Bridget. ‘Sexual harassment affects workplaces across Australia. So, what can we do better?’
· ABC News, 1st March 2021.McClintock, Elizabeth. ‘Why Some Welcome Unisex Bathrooms, and Some Steer Clear’,
· Psychology Today, 17th September 2015. Petter, Olivia. ‘Unisex toilets put schoolgirls at risk of sexual harassment, claims women’s rights group’,
· The Independent, 19th February 2019. 1Adapted from Lawford-Smith, Holly. ‘Should companies install gender neutral bathrooms?’, archived at
· Adapted from Fair Play For Women, ‘Miscarriages in pub toilets. Is gender-neutral ready?’,
· 5th December 2017. Online at
· Schoolgirls sexually assaulted in gender-neutral toilets
· The Telegraph - 29 June 2023, ByHayley Dixon and Louisa Clarence-Smith, The teenage boy's alleged attacks occurred just as the Department of Education readies its transgender guidance
· …Suzanne Moore, 6 May 2024, “Gender neutral” has meant, in reality, fewer facilities for women and more for men. But that’s part of the current stupidity that calls restricting women’s access to safe, private spaces progress. In reality, there is nothing neutral about shutting down women-only spaces.”
· Unheard, "Gender-neutral toilets deserve to go" Victoria Smith, 7 May 2024
· The Gazette - "Quebec bans new co-ed toilets and dressing rooms in public schools" "It's a question of well-being, intimacy and respect for privacy," Bernard Drainville, May 1, 2024 ?
· The Telegraph –“ Girls developed urinary infections because school had gender-neutral toilets, says Badenoch” Genevieve Holl-Allen, May 2024
· Courier mail, Iwan Jones and Tayla Couacaud, April 19, 2024 "Department of Education confirms unisex toilets installed at Brisbane State High School", Allegations of students urinating on toilet seats and sanitary bins have emerged after it was confirmed that a prestigious Brisbane high school has gender-neutral toilets on campus.
· hollylawford-smith.org/should-compani…
fairplayforwomen.com/miscarriages-p…
telegraph.co.uk/columnists/202…
unherd.com/newsroom/gende…
montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/qu…

https://twitter.com/MollyBe44568117/status/1723487210782261754/photo/1

NOTE - the notes are in their languaging - adjust accordingly in your replies.

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @KatKarena

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!