Over the weekend I was invited to attend a local Nationals meeting by a good friend of mine who is a member of the party. I am not a member, but I was able to go as an observer and share my experiences and insight into gender identity ideology in Australia.

My friend moved this motion that was discussed, voted on and unanimously accepted. My local MP David Gillespie whole-heartedly endorsed the motion and now it can be submitted to conference for further debate and be voted on at higher levels.

MOTION: To reinstate the definitions of the terms “sex”, “male/man” and “female/woman” into the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, that were removed by the Gillard government in 2013.

The following are some of the thoughts I was then able to share at the meeting. You could do the same in your local area.

A week or so ago Senator Malcolm Roberts questioned Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody who was visibly uncomfortable with many of the questions. Straight up she admitted that ‘man, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ are not defined in the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA).

Cody squirmed as Roberts questioned her about the nature of biological reality versus gender identity ideology.

We are in a ludicrous situation in Australia where the Sex Discrimination Act does not refer to or protect a person according to their sex.

What do you think when you hear the words “Sex Discrimination”?

You probably think of unfairness and inequality on the grounds of sex: men and women, male and female.

Throughout history, and in 1984 when the Sex Discrimination Act was written, sex has always referred to males and females, but in its current form the Sex Discrimination Act contains no definition of biological sex – that was taken out of the Act by Labor in 2013. Who would’ve thought we’d need a legal definition of man and woman?

So who exactly does this legislation protect? Now, it’s not about protection at all. It’s a politically charged law used as a weapon by radical activists to threaten politicians, the media and everyday mums and dads into compliance with their extremist political ideology.

As a result of removing the definitions of man and woman, male and female, people – especially politicians and bureaucrats – are terrified of answering the most basic question, “what is a woman?”

Not one female minister for women in this country can answer this very simple question. Not at a federal level, not at a state level. They all fear falling foul of the anti-discrimination police. It would appear that they have more power in this country than the government itself.

When asked in writing, the most fundamental question that even a small child can answer, some politicians ignored the question, while most stated “anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman”.

The same goes for the definition of men. It is a ludicrous statement that makes no sense. How can you identify as something if it is not defined? How can a woman have a penis? Can men really get pregnant? Is being a woman just an emotion? What exactly does it “feel” like to be a man? Does facial hair really sum up what it is to be male?

References to men and women, male and female were removed from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 via amendments in 2013 under the Gillard government. The sex discrimination act no longer refers to a person’s sex!

If sex is not a protected characteristic in the Sex Discrimination Act, how can we defend and promote sex-based rights? If sex – that is male or female – is not referred to or defined, how do we know discrimination has or has not occurred?

There are no other sexes. Sex is binary: male or female. No law can change this fact, but laws not founded in biological reality are doing untold harm to our children and our communities.

Women and children suffer the most with males now allowed access to women’s sport, services and private spaces. This dreadful Act allows males to play in women’s sporting categories. They have unfair advantages due to their size, strength and stamina – all evidenced by science. Yet because politicians capitulated to extremists, we are left with terrible laws that allow this travesty.

I have faced six legal challenges for calling out males in female sports, even right here in our electorate. I have won all six but the activists are relentless. It cost a lot of money to defend myself while the blokes have received tax-payer funds and still get to compete in female sports.

Two male soccer players tried to take out apprehension of violence orders against me because I identified them as male! They then tried to file vilification complaints against me for referring to them as male.

Males are increasingly insisting they can enter female spaces such as change rooms, toilets and women’s refuges because they ‘feel’ like it. They are protected by the Sex Discrimination Act that allowed them to claim they are women simply because of feelings, a costume, daily pill popping or body mutilation surgery. As a direct result of this bad law, full-bodied male criminals can now seek to be placed in female jails.

This is happening in Australia right now. This legislation protects the appropriation of sex, but not biological sex. This is why it is so important to define the terms male and female, man and woman in law.

Julia Gillard was recently asked to define the term woman. She knows precisely what a woman is. She is one. But instead of answering she stumbled and waffled and refused to do so.

She knew that if she answered the question truthfully she would betray her own actions in removing sex-based rights from the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 when she was Prime Minister.

Currently the Human Rights Commission believes sex can be changed after birth. Anna Cody has submitted documents to the Federal Court stating this as “fact”. It is not fact, it is fiction. No one has ever or could ever change their sex. It is written on every single cell in their body.

A very important court case will be heard in April in the court to determine whether sex or gender identity should prevail.

Tickle v Giggle is a case of a man who claims to be a woman, Roxy Tickle, taking Sall Grover to court because she refused him access to her female-only app called Giggle. This is all because women and children can have their rights trampled on because the Sex Discrimination Act no longer protects sex.

The only way to solve this problem is to reinstate the definitions in law and into the act.