Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 (VIC) | with Kath Deves

[@lumianderson2910]

Great discussion. Thank you for giving your attention to this!

[@janetinglis1493]

Bernard Lane in The Australian has been on top of the dangers of transactivism, particularly for children, for years. It isn't a left or right wing issue and people whom are GC need to stop characterising it as such. It is a women's rights issue. It is a child safeguarding issue. Those issues transcend partisan politics.

[@hollylawford-smith]

did we characterise it as a left-wing issue? or are you just making a general comment. (we talked about the left wing media refusing to publish criticism of the bill, but that's a different point).

[@janetinglis1493]

@@hollylawford-smith Just making a general comment on how this issue is presented by so many participants (L&R). Your comments about the left media being reluctant (to say the least) to be critical of transactivism prompted the comment. I'm so frustrated about how often talking points and useful progress through the media are so often prefaced with 'sorry about the origin of the article' if it comes from right of centre media. Apologies for not making that clear.

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@janetinglis1493 gotcha. and yup, totally agreed.

[@manawahinekorero9534]

Absolutely!

[@natasham8027]

Thank you for explaining this in such a clear and concise way. The bill is so obfuscating that it is difficult to fully grasp the problems of the bill. Thanks for pointing out the use of "denounce". That is really concerning. Thanks.

[@brittanyw7546]

The timing of this bill and c6 here in Canada is suspicious tbh...

[@janetinglis1493]

Victoria - legislating the enforcement of outdated sexist stereotypes that will overwhelmingly disadvantage women and children. The reach of this proposed bill is frightening. It's goal is to enforce the positive participation of everyone in the cult of transactivism. Women and children would be the biggest victims. The definitions used by transactivists are based on circular logic, denial of reality and instilling confusion. This Bill is based on those confusing definitions. At the most basic level, there are so many people who do not understand that 'transwomen' are actually men. So they don't understand fully the problem with the term TWAW. This bill is intended to take advantage of that fundamental lack of knowledge about what transactivism is all about. We need to make a bigger noise in Australia to dispel the misconceptions.

[@hollylawford-smith]

i totally agree. but how?!

[@janetinglis1493]

@@hollylawford-smith You make the point that UK women are so much better at organising and creating ways to publicly resist this awful winding back of rights and safeguarding. We need to take lessons from them. Letter writing to our MPs Public speaking - as Kelly-Jay Keen has really taken brilliant advantage of Grass roots women's rights meetings to explain exactly what the issues are. You're a crucial part of that. And you're right. We all slept through the 90's and 00's as far as our rights were concerned. Resting on our laurels, so to speak. We need to divorce women's rights from left and right politics and keep it purely about women. I don't know the first step though. How do we break the first stone and really get the attention? Whatever we do, it probably has to be in Victoria, which is a hotbed Australian of transactivism. Covid has distracted us. Probably rambling now, so I'll stop.

[@janetinglis1493]

@C J great points. Transactivist Language is designed to confuse and create false agreement based on misunderstanding. I know from speaking to a lot of people (face to face) that they think TW are females who are trans. So there is confusion around the resistance to the holy grail of transactivism - TWAW. The very language of trans is our biggest stumbling block to beating this movement. We've lost the war on the meaning of gender now. That one's not worth fighting any more imo. We need to take advantage of that now and push the 'sex not gender line'. Try to divorce the language and sentiment and goals of transactivism from sex. Restrict it to a purely gender based movement. We keep our sex and everything that goes with it. You can have your gender, but we want no part of it. Trans people must be afforded every right in law and must never be discriminated against or treated as lesser on the basis of being trans. But sex based rights are an entirely separate and inviolable class of rights.

[@janetinglis1493]

@C J all well and good if you're going to be consistent with the meanings of words. Which transactivists aren't. It was very clear what 'trans' meant when it was applied to transvestites. Cross-dressing. That term itself has been deemed tRaNsPhObIc by transactivists, so a new meaning of trans had been pushed, and largely accepted. 'Trans' is now accepted as being a shortening of 'transitioning'. Lending credence to the false notion that it is possible to actually change sex. Transactivism has been brilliant at queering the language around sex and trans issues. And it happens every day. Whenever a piece of their circular logic is exposed, they are adept at changing meanings and creating new terminology to camouflage the failings and keep the accusations of tRaNsPhObIa alive.

[@janetinglis1493]

@C J Yep

[@happynjoyousnfree]

What Holly said about the TRA's overstepping the needs of other groups: this is why the T doesn't belong with the LGB! Our needs/wants are NOT the same-and often conflict-and governing bodies assume that when the do what the TRA's want, they are serving all of us.

[@themissingmile]

I know this is serious but seven minutes in and I’m laughing out loud. It’s so ridiculous that you’re having to talk about this in 2020. Great video so far. I’m going to continue watching now.

[@hollylawford-smith]

as you'll see, i ended up laughing a lot too! it's completely absurd. glad you enjoyed the video :)

[@gingercat2879]

this bill is even more sinister than i thought. s3(2) says it is the intention of parliament (a) to denounce and give statutory recognition to the serious harm caused by change or suppression practices (b) to affirm that a persons sexual orientation or gender identity is not broken and in need of fixing and (c) to affirm that no sexual orientation or gender identiy constitutes a disorder, illness, disease deficiency or shortcoming. First, the bizarre and colourful language, is disturbing, which underpins the fact that we now have trans activists (as admitted on hansard) writing our laws!! The definition of "sexual orientation" is said to be the same as that set out in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. That act only refers in passing to sexual orientation in s82 and that act is not an act about sexual orientation. That act defines sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. But any of those groups can include paedophiles. And the very broad language of people not being broken or needing fixing and not having a disorder illness disease etc seems to be a direct reference to the common view of paedophilia as a disgusting practice which we now need to embrace and if we dont and if we are not enthusiastic proponents and supporters we are in breach of the act!

[@carolinenorma4596]

"We want all the women in gaol." "Ok, sure."

[@hollylawford-smith]

right?! it's so fucked.

[@RB-jl2qb]

Did any of the points that Kath makes about this Bill get changed before it was legislated? There was a few changes that the state Liberals managed to push through but not as many as Kath brings up. The you Kath for standing up against this insanity.

[@ginalouise3478]

Ashamed to say I did not see this until today. The first thing that strikes me is the these definitions can be applied to "Minor Attracted Persons" too. I feel quite ill now.

[@juliemoss3753]

Excellent and informative interview. Thank you both. This is a shit weasel of a bill.

[@hollylawford-smith]

it really is!

[@TheGhanem112]

If you are having suicidal thought just call the hotline they'll help your fried brain