Women are unlikely to back ‘transgender’ sports bill
NOT if they know what’s good for them. There is a reason the so-called conservative side of politics ‘struggles’ to attract female candidates. They won’t be protected by the ABC or the sisterhood and leftist men have a pass to abuse them. For the same reason, it will take genuine courage to endorse Tasmanian senator Claire Chandler’s ‘Save Women’s Sport’ bill. The media is already gas-lighting her for drafting legislation to head off at the pass disturbed men literally muscling in on women in pools, races and rings, on courts, track and field. Instead of arguing these men are really women – something Chandler’s attackers know the public has never believed – or that men don’t really have a physical advantage, they’re saying instead that administrators haven’t requested such a law and none have rushed to welcome the bill.
The menaces are Putin-esque and unmistakable: sporting boards that do welcome the protections on offer will be vilified and commercially harassed to the point of bankruptcy. Bunnings won’t buy jerseys for the juniors, Harvey Norman will take back their jumbotron and Nick the Local Grocer – fearing a secondary cancellation – will keep his oranges to himself. We all know how this thuggery works by now. It’s no surprise that one of the bill’s already obsessed critics is Peter FitzSimons, the Nine ‘writer’ who produced dozens of columns chasing black rugby prodigy Israel Folau out of the game. His counsel to sportswomen – more or less – is to submit and cook the cross-dressers some eggs. Disregard the ‘transgender’ lobby’s unconvincing chortles. Senator Chandler’s proposal – if enacted into law – would K-O the compulsorily polite lie of ‘fluidity’ and ensure women and girls have the protection and exclusivity they deserve. It’s a shame Scott Morrison only sees an eleventh hour electoral wedge where civilisation is at stake. It deserved better.
There is a very good reason why males and females haven’t competed against each other in swimming races ever up till now, and that is because the latter don’t have the speed and strength of males.
And having your your tackle lopped off, or declaring that you are female doesn’t make you one.
An important point. The trans-lobby hectors people about pronouns for a reason. If you control language, you begin to control culture and eventually ‘truth.’ Every newspaper in this country now requires its journalists to use the ‘preferred pronouns’ of men who aren’t men and women who aren’t women. This is delusional, gutless and very damaging. Even some ‘conservatives’ now make these ‘little’ concessions to ‘civility.’
I was amazed to hear Jenna Clarke the other night not back the legislation. She was on PML with that Labor woman from Sydney City Council (her name escapes me) and it was no surprise that the Labor woman was heavily against it. But I thought JC for all her talk of feminist credentials from a “liberal” background would have supported it.
I could understand (but not approve) misogynistic men supporting this male takeover and domination of women’s sport, but why women too?
I suspect that given time, and surveying the ruination of women’s sport, even many rabid lefties will have an epiphany.
By then it will be too late.
And yet…
Tonight on PML, Murray had a deluxe segment on girls’ sport (meant to support the Chandler bill) that was sponsored by Harvey Norman.
OK but the angle was the importance of girls playing rugby league. No emphasis whatsoever on the more traditional female sports. One poppet after another spoke of how important it was to play this boys’ game.
This is another variety of masculine = better.
What would the ‘conservative side of politics’ be in Australia now? Lib/Lab/Grn all left of centre.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation comes to mind on the conservative side. Not female enough?