Biological men should not play in women’s sports

We quiet Australians might be forgiven for thinking we have reached peak madness when Sport Australia needs a definition of the word “woman” and a senator cannot opine that transgender women (biological males) shouldn’t be included in a female rugby team (“Females want a sporting chance”, 2/10).

However, I suspect the peak is yet to come. It is in the nature of academia to push boundaries. This is its purpose and it’s crucial in science, medicine and engineering. So, when academics in the field of gender studies want to push boundaries, publish papers and sell books, they necessarily must continue to devise ever more radical ideas, ideas that are then eagerly and uncritically incorporated into woke ideology. And from there such ideas move into a mess of policies that defy common sense.

I defend the right of any bloke to call himself whatever he likes, but it’s madness to allow him to pull on a jersey and play rugby on a women’s team. I await my cancellation.

Jane Bieger, Brisbane, Qld

Tasmanian Liberal senator Claire Chandler is to be commended for making her views known on “the reality of biological sex” and implications for women’s sports. No female sporting teams in Australia should be threatened with the inclusion of transgender players who are biologically male and thus very likely to be stronger and bigger.

Although transgender people have had their lives complicated at birth their situations should not be allowed to complicate the lives of many more people in adulthood. However, they strongly merit consideration by the community as to how their sporting aspirations might best be met.

David Dale, South Perth, WA

Women’s toilets and change rooms are for females and women’s sport is for biological women. It’s just common sense. Rugby Australia is ignoring comprehensive guidelines from World Rugby about the dangers and unfairness to female players if biological men are allowed to play in a female competition. This decision was taken with little or no input from female players.

Duncan Baillie, Kangaroo Point, Qld

Claire Chandler rightly points out World Rugby’s finding that women tackled by biological men (who identify as women) face significant risk of injury compared with a tackle by another woman. That Rugby Australia has ignored the world body’s advice shows it is still not “in touch” with the public. While the complaint against the senator that she breached Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act has been withdrawn, her concern the Act treats “insult” or “offend” in the same way as “humiliate”, “intimidate” or “ridicule” has not been addressed.

Paul Nolan, Lota, Qld

Senator Claire Chandler’s criticism of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act (“Feds urge state MPs to amend ‘stifling’ law”, 1/10) is well founded. I have long argued that, in countless ways, it is perhaps the most discriminatory piece of legislation on Tasmania’s (Australia’s?) books. The law should not be a vehicle for sectional interest groups to silence dissenters and impose their will on the rest of the community. Chandler correctly identifies the removal of the words “offend” and “insult” as a good starting point, but the Act is so riddled with flaws that the only way to achieve justice would be to repeal it and start from scratch with legislation that protects, rather than infringes, our rights.

Eric Lockett, South Hobart, Tas

Anti-discrimination law in Tasmania is an acute example of the kind of anti-freedom legislation that has become prevalent (Cut & Paste, 1/10). The almost unbelievable nature of that law was revealed during the same-sex marriage debate when Hobart Archbishop Julian Porteous was told he had a case to answer because he wrote an article advocating the Marriage Act remain as it was. It seemed even supporting the law, which had been confirmed more than once by federal parliament since the turn of the century, was considered an offence.

David Morrison, Springwood, NSW