Leah Blyth (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Infrastructure) | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the fundamental responsibilities of government is to uphold people's rights, but what happens when the rights of two groups come into conflict? That was a question that I put to the Australian Human Rights Commission during Senate estimates last month, following the recent Federal Court decision in the Giggle for Girls versus Roxanne Tickle appeal.

Biological males who identify as women are entitled under the current legal framework to access spaces and protections traditionally reserved for women. When I asked the commissioners how competing rights should be balanced when the rights of biological women and those of men who identify as women come into conflict, I did not receive a clear answer. Women have fought long and hard for sex based protections. Those protections exist to preserve safety, fairness, dignity and privacy in sport, prisons, toilets and change rooms. Yet, when women raise concern about those protections being eroded, they are too often dismissed, ignored or labelled as bigoted or transphobic.

During questioning, Dr Cody suggested that a biological male who identifies as a woman could face discrimination on the basis of a potential pregnancy. Many Australians find that impossible to reconcile with biological reality. Women should not have to apologise for seeking protections based on biological reality, nor should their concerns be treated as any less worthy than someone else's identity claims. This is a question of common sense. When institutions are unable or unwilling to balance competing rights using clear and practical definitions, parliament has a responsibility to act. That is why the coalition will support changes to restore definitions of men and women based on biological reality to the Sex Discrimination Act.