The most authoritarian branch
Thanks to Rev David Brindley for alerting us to this gem:
And how will we be defining “vilifying”? “discriminating against”? “the rights of trans people”? How will we be knowing when it’s “unnecessary” to prioritize “sex characteristics” over “gender”? How will we be knowing why sex has “characteristics” (which there’s no need to prioritize) while gender doesn’t? How will we be defining “transition care”? How will we be defining “leading questions”? How will we be defining “harms”?
Shorter Vic Greens: we forbid disagreement. Fucking yikes.
My reading of bullet F is that it forbids considering “sex characteristics” as more important than “gender”; that is, prioritizing A over B, not establishing a set of priorities for the things that constitute A. Still nonsense, just a slightly different nonsense.
Sackbut – yep, F is rather chilling. ‘Unnecessary’ and ‘prioritization’ are both terms that allow an enormous scope for rendering judgement.
Well yes it can mean that or it can mean the other thing or it can mean both and more – it’s gibberish. The whole clause amounts to “it is forbidden to dispute The Holy Gibberish.”
Well, at least we know what they think transphobia is, now.
I vote Labour in State elections, but Greens in Federal because of Labour’s racist refugee policy.
Obviously have to re-consider how I vote in Federal elections now.
Regarding f. — Don’t medical concerns require prioritizing biological sex? I don’t understand what they mean by “promoting,” unless the generic terms a lot of these organizations have been using, instead of woman, girl, female, etc. is some kind of attempt to *avoid* “promoting?” Most of this can be filed under compelled speech.
There is also this, a mild censure of a nazi loving paedophile in their own ranks. Women are tossed out routinely for believing in the binary of sex, Bianca Haven (one of the authors of the above policy) is mollycoddled because “Trans”.
https://twitter.com/AustralianJA/status/1638490217299722240