Saying harmful things about

other people is as old as our ability to speak. Things said cannot be taken back. They can hurt and they can do harm. It is why we have laws about defamation. It is why truth is supposed to be a defence against defamation. It is also why there are standards imposed on all of us, particularly anyone making a public comment about anyone else.

The past few weeks have had me pondering this. Learning that one victim of a particularly vile but supposedly "comic" skit on television is now taking the perpetrators to court pleases me. Yes, this person can afford to do it. Taking perpetrators to court can be a very expensive business. 

I would be even more pleased if the entire issue is not settled by "mediation" but a court case and the perpetrators lose. The perpetrators in this instance are paid by the tax payer and there is increasing disquiet even among their supporters that, this time, they have gone too far. 

Those of you who live in Downunder will know what I am talking about but I am not going to repeat the vile remarks which were made about a very wealthy woman.  They were completely and totally inappropriate and the "apology" given was not an apology at all. As I write the material is still available on line. It was not funny. Contrary to the statements made I do not believe it was meant to be funny. 

This case is just as harmful in its own way as the three "discrimination" cases currently in the media. The first I knew about was the one which was brought after a person who "identifies as female" was denied entry to a "women only" space. The second is the one where another person who "identifies as female" was referred to by their biological sex and claimed damages for "hurt". The third case involves a person who "identifies as female" being denied access to a group which is only for female pole dancers. 

The first case is now the subject of "leave to appeal" to the High Court. The appeal in the second case failed and is being reviewed. The third is in the more early stages of what could be another protracted battle. 

Not one of these cases should ever have been brought before the courts. The legislation intended to protect women should have protected them. It does not. 

Let me be clear here. This is not about the rights or otherwise of  transgender people. It is about the right of the majority of those impacted to safe places. I have absolutely no problems with people who, as adults, choose to dress and act in ways which vary from the sex they were assigned to at birth. That is their choice. I do have a problem when they demand access to all spaces which vary from the sex they were assigned at birth. 

There is growing evidence that not everyone who is identifying as the opposite sex is doing so with good intentions. That the cases above lead naturally to men being able to access shelters intended for women and into prisons intended for women is alarming. That it means that people with a distinct physical advantage can cause not just physical but psychological harm on the sports field is genuine cause for concern. When it means that women who have been abused and are seeking help have no safe place to turn to then all the work done to provide those places has gone for nothing. 

There is a "men's coffee and chat" group run by one of the local churches. Not all the men who attend are church goers. I am told it is a place where the sort of discussion rarely available to men is available. It is a "safe" place for them.  It is somewhere they feel supported.  I do not know any woman who would believe it was appropriate to attend it. I would not even consider trying to push my way in. Why should it be any different for a women's group?

Restricting access does not always mean that discrimination is occurring.  There are places all of us cannot enter at times. This can be on safety grounds, religious grounds, security grounds or other grounds. There are other things we do not allow on age and safety grounds. Is there any reason to suppose that, despite these things, all spaces must be open to someone who chooses to identify in a manner at variance with some physical reality? So far the law is saying there is reason to grant someone the right to enter these spaces but it might be that this is the detriment of us all.  It may end up doing even more harm to those who identify "differently" as well. Do we really want that?