Hi, friends. In this week's post I've got episode three of the Veriditas podcast with my friend, Anna Kerr. Anna is founder and principal solicitor of the Feminist Legal Clinic, and she's been involved, in one form or another, in pretty much all of the major cases for sex-based rights in Australia over the last five years, including the definitive Tickle versus Giggle and the Lesbian Action Group cases. This podcast provides an overview of these cases, and changes to the law more broadly, and gets into some interesting terms like ‘legal fiction’ and ‘urinary leash’ (fascinating and important stuff!) and asks, what is the meaning of sex in the law in Australia? Spoiler: it increasingly means nothing as it is subsumed into the all-inclusive, ever-malleable term ‘gender’. Self ID is the official law of the land.
Please note, this podcast was recorded in October 2024, before the US election and so it does not take account of Trump’s executive order in January (2025) declaring that there are only two sexes in the law. It was also just before Alex Greenwich’s Equality Bill which passed in the NSW Parliament (50 votes to 30) in October, 2024 further entrenching gender ID. Anna flags this bill as important indicating its likely passage into law. Likewise, and perhaps most disappointing from the sex-based rights side of the aisle, the Lesbian Action Group, lost their exemption application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (part of the Australian Human Rights Commission) to host women only events and they lost their appeal (see here for the mainstream view). Of course, what they really lost, as with Sal Grover and her company, ‘Giggle’, was their — and thus our — right to define a woman as a natal female. The tribunal concluded,
In summary, the Applicants identify as a discrete minority within a group in the community that is already identified by their sex and sexual orientation, characteristics that afford them the protection of the SDA. They seek to actively discriminate against another group in the community identifiable by their gender identity, a characteristic also protected under the SDA. I have determined that endorsing overt acts of discrimination cannot be the intended effect of the s 44 exemption power in the SDA. DECISION 173. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
As the LAG note, and very few are aware, lesbians have been unable to hold single sex events since the 2000s, which has led to the destruction of their culture.
The Lesbian Action Group is based in Victoria, Australia. We are a group of lesbians who remember the days in the ‘70s, ‘80s and early ‘90s when there was a thriving lesbian community. You could go out any night of the week and find lesbian pubs, clubs, dances, balls, pool nights, dinner nights, sports teams, bookshops, cafes and even a lesbian adult shop. Some of these spaces have been documented in the Lost Lesbian Spaces project.
We have witnessed the demise of our culture and lesbian space since the early 1990s; either made extinct or subsumed under the mantle of “queer”. This is in part because of the rise of mainstream LGBTIQ+ and also because of diversity and inclusion laws which currently make it illegal for lesbians to hold public female-only functions without applying for an exemption with the Human Rights Commission.
In the early 2000s, lesbians applied for exemptions in order to run lesbian-only events. These were not successful, and the process became very stressful and expensive, and so we gave up. It was easier to go underground and become invisible and organise events through a closed network just as the gay and lesbian community used to do pre-1970s.
So for the past twenty odd years, the lesbian community in Victoria has existed underground.
As with all women only spaces, there is an erasure, ironically, in the name of ‘diversity’. Again, what is really at stake is not the promulgation of diversity but the redefinition — and erasure — of the category of woman. This is about redefining what it means to be human. As the lesbian action group note, ‘The irony of this is that we can now legally marry, but can’t legally assemble in single-sex space.’
You can listen to the podcast here on Substack as well as on Podbean and Apple podcasts and you can watch it on YouTube.
Show notes
In this episode of the Veriditas Podcast, hosted by Dr. Petra Bueskens, guest Anna Kerr, founder and principal solicitor of the Feminist Legal Clinic, provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of women's sex-based rights in Australia. Anna discusses key legal cases affecting women's rights, such as Tickle vs. Giggle and the Lesbian Action Group case against the Australian Human Rights Commission. The conversation covers important topics like the implications of changing sex markers on legal documents, the impact of sex discrimination and gender identity laws, and the contentious issue of conversion therapy bans. The episode also delves into broader philosophical and ideological aspects, highlighting the challenges faced by feminists between progressive and conservative stances. The discussion underscores the urgency for women to speak out to preserve and advance sex-based rights.
00:00 Introduction to the Veriditas Podcast
00:55 Meet Anna Kerr: Advocate for Women's Rights
01:46 Legal Developments in Women's Sex-Based Rights
02:39 The Tickle vs. Giggle Case
05:45 Lesbian Action Group's Legal Battle
10:49 Challenges in Defending Women's Rights
16:18 Impact of Legal Changes on Women's Spaces
38:08 Conversion Therapy Bans and Their Implications
43:11 Mastectomies and the Pharmaceutical Industry
43:52 The Impact of Binders and Hormones
45:46 Therapy and Legislative Challenges
49:27 Constitutional Conflicts and Legal Implications
56:31 Feminism and Women's Rights
01:10:41 Historical Erasure and Feminist Legacy
01:21:28 Concluding Thoughts and Future Outlook
Share this post