March 2, 2019 7:00am by David Farrar

Anti-consultation activists

Self-identification was the process whereby people could change their gender marker through a statutory declaration.
This process is currently used when changing gender on passports and driver’s licenses, but changing it on birth certificates required an application to, and approval of, the Family Court. Self-identification aimed to streamline that process.

I agree the current process is too intrusive, especially requiring someone to go to court. It should be simpler.

But there is a valid argument that there is a difference between a current document and a historical document. A passport says what your gender currently is. A birth certificate says what gender you were born as.

I personally think one solution is to separate out sex and gender, recognizing them as different things (for some people).

In the statement on Monday, Martin said “significant changes” had been made to the bill regarding gender self-identification and that it had occurred “without adequate public consultation”.
But ActionStation director Laura Rapira O’Connell said further consultation was not required, as the changes were already endorsed by the Human Rights Commission, many LGBTQIA+ groups and the Privacy Commissioner.
“We don’t need consultation with non-trans people on what trans people need. We just need to listen to what trans people tell us they need.”

Wow that is an arrogant statement. It is basically saying no one who isn’t trans should be allowed to be heard on this issue.

If there was a petition on creating more boys only secondary schools, would one argue that no female should be allowed to be heard on that issue?