Source: The Courier-Mail.
IN 1948, as he wrote his most famous novel 1984, George Orwell foresaw a world in which truth was completely flexible, and subject to rewriting should the need arise.
The Queensland Government has released for discussion a proposal to remove the requirement for a person to provide medical confirmation that they have undergone sexual reassignment surgery before changing their sex on their birth certificate.
Under this proposal, it would be possible for a biological female to wake up tomorrow, decide she is a male, and require a change to her birth certificate to reflect that decision.
It would also make it possible to change the description of a person to categories other than male and female, such as “unspecified”, “intersex” or “indeterminate”.
The proposal would bring us dangerously close to the post-truth world Orwell foresaw. Determining a person’s sex would cease to be a medical, factual observation and instead become a proxy for the expression of an adult’s feelings about the gender they identify with.
It would allow a person who was born a male to – without a single physical change – demand that he be treated as a woman. Anyone who failed to do so would breach discrimination laws.
The consequences of this approach need to be properly considered. Will we allow biological men who have decided they are female to use women’s domestic violence shelters? What about competing in women’s sports? Will women’s prisons now also contain biological men?
What risks do we expose vulnerable women and children to when these new “rights” are exercised by a person who decides to use them in an unfair or predatory way?
This is about more than just who uses which bathroom.
Since 2003, a person has been able to update their birth certificate to make a note of a sexual reassignment procedure.
The current proposal would go much further, and turn a birth certificate into a “gender fluidity card” that allows a person to deem themselves to be something they anatomically are not, and require the rest of society to accommodate that revision or face a breach of discrimination law.
One must also ask how a newborn child could possibly be medically assessed as being of “indeterminate” sex at birth – an option also foreshadowed by the proposal. It’s not a concept known to medicine, and it suggests parental ideology will be allowed to override the obvious facts.
Allowing fiction to override medicine is surely to the detriment of affected children.
No one wants to be intolerant of the desire of an adult to live their life in the way that they wish. But there must always be a limit on that freedom when it negatively impacts upon the freedom and safety of others.
There is a real risk that, by only very briefly asking for feedback on the proposal, the Palaszczuk Government will make this law without the public fully understanding and having a say on its implications.
I can’t help but think many people would be concerned to know that facts and common sense have been so abandoned in the pursuit of extreme post-gender ideology.