In the dark of night, forces promoting the rainbow ideology of gender fluidity have launched an historic offensive against the determinism of the chromosome, and its division of human beings into the binary identities of boys and girls.
As with offensives in the Great War, it was launched without warning, involves multitudes, is justified by propaganda, based on great force, supported by political officers, will incur casualties, and will endanger and impoverish woman and girls.
The onslaught, Guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport, was released in June by the Australian Human Rights Commission, partnering with the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPs) and Sport Australia.
COMPPS is comprised of the Australian Football League, National Rugby League, Football Federation, and Cricket, Netball, Rugby and Tennis Australia.
Multitudes are affected. Over nine million Australians participate in COMPPS sports through 16,000 clubs, and the Guidelines will give everyone ‘from grassroots participants … to governing bodies’ the ‘opportunity … to reflect on how they can … welcome and encourage transgender and gender diverse people’ into their sports.
According to the ideology, gender is determined by feelings not chromosomes. Diversity means ‘all the different ways gender can be experienced and perceived’. Transgender means ‘identity…different from the sex…assigned at birth’.
Transition to another gender ‘may or may not involve medical treatment’ including hormones and surgery: declaration of gender identity will suffice.
Propaganda prevails. Despite a reported prevalence of around 1 in every 50,000 adults, the Guidelines suggest a gender neutral team could be comprised of 40 per cent boys, 40 per cent girls and 20 per cent gender diverse, as if one in five athletes would qualify.
The weasel words ‘opportunity to reflect’ underplay the compulsion to obey, but the answer to the question ‘Why should I follow the Guidelines?’ explains that the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 renders discrimination against women illegal, and the Amendments of 2013 include the interests of the transgendering and gender diverse.
The magnitude of legal force that can be applied is, however, not revealed: the Guidelines warn mere adherence to their dictates will not protect from as-yet undefined acts of ‘unlawful discrimination’. And, because the onus of proof has been reversed, guilt is assumed.
‘Inclusion officers’ will be appointed to police the Guidelines. They will supervise the ‘complaints process’, and ‘outline’ how complaints can be lodged and rendered effective while preserving anonymity.
Though probably unable to control adverse thoughts, they will be prepared for any expressions not supporting ‘positive discrimination’ for the ‘disadvantaged’.
There will be casualties. First will be young people confused by yet another, authoritative proclamation for gender fluidity.
Once rare, gender dysphoria is now epidemic, with many youths pursuing characteristics of the opposite sex through social affirmation, hormone therapy and possibly surgery, under a lifetime of medical dependency.
Next will be women’s sport because the introduction of male bodies into female events will render playing fields uneven.
Almost always, in most events and ages, males outperform females, as confirmed by NSW Department of Education publications of sporting records in track, field and swimming events by children from 8 years old. Of 172 best performances only 6 were by girls.
Boys identifying as girls are likely to win and make girls wonder if it is all worthwhile.
Originally, the Act protected women from discrimination but on the sporting fields the Amendments enable the opposite.
The final casualty will be sporting clubs, intimidated by the Act, concerned to maintain sponsorship while avoiding bad publicity and unhappy parents.
Added will be the financial burden of providing separate dressing rooms, uniforms, security and indemnity. Will duty of care extend to prevention of male bodies from violating the privacy of girls?
Clubs will be stressed interpreting the practical suggestions of the Guidelines, obscured as they are in the fog of ideological war. How can they ‘create gender neutral teams’ not based on ‘competitive sporting activity’?
How can players join the team of their gender choice without affecting ‘competitive sporting activity’? Will not tall boys end up as netball goalies?
Given gender fluidity, how frequently will the tide be allowed to turn? Could a boy win a girl’s race and then follow his feelings into his own?
The Guidelines portend chaos, but would that concern ideologues seeking to impose gender fluidity on the masses? The Guidelines may deliver the greatest victory that ideology has thus far enjoyed.
Related stories: