Calls to redefine sex in 'biological' terms pose a threat to all of our rights
By Heather Corkhill
Feminism has long rejected the idea that biology determines a woman’s role or worth, but the latest attacks on the trans community threaten to undo legal protections for all of us, writes Equality Australia legal director, Heather Corkhill.
Pieces like this one are free to read. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber so Cheek can continue paying writers for their insight and expertise.
As women, we all know what it’s like to feel unsafe in public places. A quick glance over the shoulder after hearing footsteps behind you at night. Thinking carefully about what to wear or how to act. Gripping our keys tighter in our fists. That momentary calculation of risk.
Women’s fear is real. I know it because I’ve felt it too. It should never be dismissed or minimised.
Commentary on a recent decision by the Full Federal Court upholding the rights of trans women to live free from discrimination has devolved rapidly into panic about bathrooms, changerooms and women’s safety.
Giggle v Tickle concerned access to a women-only social media app, not a physical space, and three judges unanimously found Roxanne Tickle was directly discriminated against when she was booted from the digital platform Giggle for Girls.
Yet almost immediately, the case was used as justification for renewed attacks on trans people and calls to rewrite anti-discrimination law so trans women must always be treated as men.
The Coalition has committed to redefining “sex” in “biological” terms in the Sex Discrimination Act and further restricting access to single-sex spaces. One Nation has pledged to reintroduce a bill that would remove all protections for trans people, while last week a Nationals MP brought a private member’s bill before parliament that would exclude trans women from a range of spaces and protections.
The framing of this debate is not only misleading — it is dangerous. It urges women to direct legitimate fears about violence and safety toward an already marginalised group, rather than toward the behaviours and systems that actually make women unsafe.
And it ignores a basic reality. Giggle v Tickle did not suddenly change Australian law, which has never treated sex as reducible solely to what was recorded at birth. For decades, our legal system has recognised the complexity of bodies, identity and lived experiences.
Long before gender identity protections were added to federal law in 2013, trans people were already protected under state and territory anti-discrimination laws. In fact, protections for women and protections for trans people have coexisted in Australia since the 1990s, without controversy, until recent years when trans rights became a convenient political and cultural battleground.
Trans women have always existed in public life, using toilets, changerooms, workplaces and public spaces alongside everyone else, often unnoticed. There is simply no evidence that trans women pose a threat to anyone.
In contrast, there is clear, well-documented evidence about where violence against women overwhelmingly comes from. A woman is killed by her male partner every 11 days in Australia, and ABS data shows that around 85 per cent of women who experience sexual assault by a male know the perpetrator. It’s also worth noting that trans women are among the women most likely to experience violence, abuse and public harassment.
All of us should be wondering how our lives will change if the law requires people to be strictly classified according to their biological characteristics alone. Will we need to carry identity documents to access toilets or change rooms? Will security, staff or strangers question our sex in everyday settings like shopping centres, airports or pubs? Will trans men, who already use men’s facilities without any issue, be forced into women’s spaces? What will any of this achieve other than confusion, discomfort and humiliation, especially for trans people?
Feminism has long rejected the idea that biology determines a woman’s role or worth. Women were once told they were naturally suited to caregiving and unsuited to leadership, education and independence.
As women already know, sexism is rarely about treating people unfairly because of their biological characteristics. It’s about stereotypes and gendered assumptions to do with the role we should play in society, in the workplace, what we should wear and how we should act.
Narrowing the meaning of “sex” in the primary federal law designed to protect both women and LGBTIQ+ communities would also undermine more than four decades of established sex discrimination law. Trans women are not asking for special treatment. They just want to live safely, be treated fairly and get on with their lives.
We do not need moral panic to make women safer. We do not need to rewrite anti-discrimination law to target a small, marginalised group that has coexisted in public life for decades.
We should be focused on what actually shapes women’s safety and freedom: domestic violence, sexual assault, housing, healthcare, childcare and economic inequality. Those are the issues affecting millions of women every day.
About the author
Heather Corkhill is a dedicated human rights and anti-discrimination law and policy specialist, who currently serves as Legal Director at LGBTIQ+ advocacy organisation Equality Australia. With combined qualifications and experience in law, mediation and film production, Heather is committed to promoting equity, diversity, and human rights for LGBTIQ+ Australians, addressing systemic issues through practical and innovative solutions.
