The ideology of gender fluidity, in which the binary reality of male and female is not fixed, may secure its greatest victory thus far by the release of Guidelines for the Inclusion of Transgender and Gender Diverse People in Sport by the Australian Human Rights Commission in partnership with the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS) and Sport Australia.  COMPPS comprises the Australian Football League, Cricket Australia, Football Federation Australia, National Rugby League, Netball Australia, Rugby Australia and Tennis Australia, in which it declares more than “9 million people participate … through 16,000 clubs”.

The victory will lie in the imposition of the ideology and some of the practices of gender fluidity on almost 33% of Australians.  In its letter of endorsement, COMPPS proclaims the Guidelines “provide a significant opportunity for all involved in Australian sports, from grassroots participants and clubs to governing bodies, to reflect on how they can facilitate diversity and inclusion”.  But, from the Guidelines, it is clear the “opportunity for reflection” really means “time to prepare for obedience” to the dictates of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act which, though intended in 1984 to protect biological females, was amended in 2013 to include the gender diverse.

In sport, the amendments will discriminate against the sex the Act was meant to protect.  The Safe Schools Programs proclaimed the ideology of gender fluidity to children under the camouflage of anti-bullying.  Under the banner of anti-discrimination, its beliefs and doctrines will be imposed by legal force on the mums and dads, their children, and all teachers, officials and volunteers responsible for the running of sporting competitions across the nation.  By including males transgendered to females they will remove protection of the “safe space” of female sport through participation of people whose nature-endowed strengths will belie any psychological claim for parity.

By including natal males in dressing rooms of their choice, they will threaten the “safe space” of female privacy.  As we know it, women’s sport is a recent phenomenon.  It was only in 1900 that a few women participated in the Olympic Games.  In the 1928 Games, their number had increased to 2.2 per cent of participants and, by 2016, to 45 per cent.  This emancipation from male-dominated culture has been rightly welcomed and it is hard to comprehend that society could, one way or another, submit to the return of male domination, if not by boys and men in trousers, by natal males in leotards.

The Guidelines are addressed to everyone involved in sport: “from management committees, to coaches, staff and volunteers, umpires and officials, and to members of the public, including parents and care givers of players”.  Pointedly, the Guidelines are directed to anyone “interested in the new legal obligations of sporting organisations”.  The Guidelines define “gender related identity” as including the “appearance, mannerisms, or other gender related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not) with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth”.

Gender diversity “includes transgender, gender queer, non-binary, gender non-conforming and many more”.  The Guidelines declare “it is unlawful” to discriminate against such people in regard to membership, participation and off-field facilities, or to ask for personal information that might lead to discrimination.  The details of what might actually constitute discrimination are not clear and clubs are warned:  “The Guidelines do not provide a definitive legal answer to all of the issues of discrimination, and an organisation or individual will not be protected from a finding of unlawful discrimination if they claim that they complied with, or relied on, these Guidelines”.

Implementation of the Guidelines will merely “minimise the likelihood of a successful discrimination claim being made”.  The Guidelines do make it clear that both an individual or an organisation which has been found to discriminate, and a person who aids and permits that discrimination, can be held liable under the Act.  They emphasise it is “important to note that a sporting organisation can be liable for the actions of their employees or agents” who are discriminating, or making “an unlawful request for information”.  To make things even more intimidating, under the Act the burden of proof is reversed, rendering the accused guilty until innocence is proven.

A miracle within that miracle should not be overlooked.  The prevalence of gender dysphoria in adults is reported by the Diagnostic and Scientific Manual of Mental Health (DSM) in 2013 to range from 0.005 per cent to 0.04 per cent in males, and from 0.002 per cent to 0.003 per cent in females.  The Guidelines of 2019 suggest the numbers have increased to the point of filling an allocation of 20 per cent in sporting teams.  The new religion has its own loaves and fishes.  To this nonsense, the Guidelines reassure us that the power of the devil, testosterone, in the veins of natal men transgendered to women is overestimated.

Source: Article by Dr John Whitehall, Professor of Paediatrics at Western Sydney University written in the  Quadrant Magazine.