• Royal Commission into treatment of trans and gender-diverse Australians
    As of 2023, trans and gender-diverse Australians cannot identify on any intake form at any RTO because of the current data set by NCVER / DEWR. The Workplace Gender and Equality ACT excludes the participation of gender-diverse people, It only collects information on cis-gendered men and women. This affects every medium to large business in Australia. Nearly Every data set in Australia excludes gender-diverse people including studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Suicide, and first-year indicators in schools. Orchidectomies are given to cis-gender men in the public health system but denied to trans women who need to get off testosterone blockers and affirming their gender. Mastectomies are given to cis-gendered women in the public health system but denied to trans men who need this so they can stop binding, avoid scoliosis and affirm their gender. Breast Surgery is given in some public hospitals to cis-gendered women after mastectomies because it is important to their mental health, gender and well-being but denied to trans women who also need this for mental health, gender and well-being. To my knowledge, no politician or report has stood up to say we could be doing these gender-affirming surgeries right now. And they could be done right now! If the government provides gender-affirming leave and supports trans and gender-diverse people but then there is no way that they can get medical interventions then they are forced to go overseas and sometimes put their lives at risk for surgeries that are substandard compared to Australia. If they can afford them at all. Medicare has an ongoing review process and according to them, no one has ever put in a submission to ask them to review Medicare based on the needs of trans and gender-diverse people. The Sexual Discrimination ACT was updated in 1984 to say there are legally more than 2 genders and yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics which affects all the other data sets I have mentioned failed for 40 years to update their dataset. Thus forcing every other dataset that relies on it to be discriminatory Still to this day, they will only allow us to identify if their stakeholders ask for it, if an average Australian can fill out the question and if politicians ok it to happen. (How can this be in 2023, surely this is sexual discrimination?) Pathology forms across Australia are still behind in allowing us to identify and there are currently no pathology profiles for trans men and trans women. GP software like Best Practice for doctors cannot pull gender identity onto a pathology form which leads to gender-diverse people being misgendered and at times receiving the wrong reference ranges. The Australian Human Rights Commission has failed to advocate adequately and so there is no one else to hold the Government to account why has this happened? Public Health Systems across Australia still don't have pathways for gender-diverse people and to my knowledge, not one of them provides medical interventions for adults. There is no suitable training for doctors, surgeons medical staff in our training establishments. We suffer many forms of discrimination at Services Australia, Medicare and other departments. Many Public Hospitals systems have only recently started to make attempts at updating their computer systems to include gender and to find ways to reduce misgendering but there is no uniform adherence to the 2020 ABS Dataset for sex and gender. And datasets across the medical sector are not unified. The government's own AIHW website contains no health data on trans and gender-diverse people in Australia because we don't have population data because the ABS has never included us in the census. And finally, the Australian Defence Force has a suicide rate of 8.8% which is twice the national average. They have 85,000 serving members. For that, they get a Royal Commission, and over 50 reports + millions of dollars in funding. Gender-diverse Australians number at least 700,000 (equal in number to Indigenous Australians) with Transgender youth alone having approx a 48% attempted suicide rate and we have never had a royal commission or a federally funded report of any kind that I know of. How is it that the Government can be so apathetic towards a mental health and health crisis for more than 700,000 Australians? It was as recent as 1989 that the last Trans woman was fined for wearing the 'wrong clothing' Before that Trans and gender-diverse people were harassed, locked up, fined and had acts of violence inflicted on them. This has never been apologised for. Psychiatry and Psychology pathologised trans and gender-diverse people for 80 years but then reversed this and there has not been to my knowledge an apology. There is no current federal department for LGBTIQ+ people and no independent organisation to hold media accountable when reporting. We need to stop studying Trans and Gender diverse people and start studying the reasons behind being excluded and ignored and why there is and has been a complete and continuing lack of human rights for this cohort. We must address one of the biggest factors in poor mental health which is a lack of medical intervention and there appears absolutely no initiatives to fix this. That is a complete lack in duty of care. It doesn't take time to make change. It IS time to make change.
    6 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Cloé Sophia
  • Stop Mark Latham's Anti-Trans Education Bill!
    Young transgender people face enough hardship without the attacks of transphobic politicians. More than half of non-binary and transgender youth have considered suicide, according to studies [1] - and that's why it's vital that we ensure this harmful bill is voted down. The Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 would "prohibit schools, teachers, and training courses from teaching gender fluidity", which the bill defines as “a belief there is a difference between biological sex and human gender and that human gender is socially constructed.” This means that a teacher or counsellor would be sacked and disaccredited if they: a) used a students' preferred pronouns b) mentioned transgender issues in the classroom c) opposed transphobic bullying in the playground d) did not hide that they themselves were transgender Although Mark Latham may seem like a fringe crackpot, he is a powerful figure in state politics. Latham's anti-trans bill now has the open and uncritical support of the NSW Liberal parliamentary secretary for education. [2] In December 2020, he got his way with a "clean out" of 42,000 professional development courses for teachers based on whether they taught gender and sexuality content. [3] A second bill by Latham, which acts as a state version of the federal government's proposed "Religious Freedoms" bill, would give bigots in public positions immunity from consequences of spouting their anti-LGBTI, anti-abortion and anti-women bigotry. This bill has been supported by 11 of 14 members of a parliamentary committee, including 3 out of 4 ALP members on the body. [4] All of this shows that this is not a matter of letting the politicians stop him. If we do not challenge Latham publicly, his bills will only appear more and more safe for other MPs - especially the huge Liberal majority - to entertain them, and eventually pass them either in part or in whole. The community must come out publicly and in large numbers to defeat this bill, and put pressure on all politicians to back down from his discriminatory legislation. References: [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2020/07/15/largest-survey-of-transgender-and-nonbinary-youth-says-more-than-half-seriously-considered-suicide/?sh=2444b33f3404 [2] https://alastairlawrie.net/2021/03/11/nsw-liberal-parliamentary-secretary-for-education-supports-bill-to-erase-trans-kids/ [3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/20/is-mark-latham-running-education-policy-in-nsw-no-but-the-direction-is-concerning [4] https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/shield-not-a-sword-committee-backs-new-religious-freedom-laws-20210331-p57fni.html
    605 of 800 Signatures
    Created by Community Action for Rainbow Rights
  • Kmart: Replace the "boys" and "girls" clothing sections with an inclusive kids' section
    Young children are told which colours, clothing styles and even interests they are permitted to have through the choices they have available in their respective gender’s clothing department. Many parents of young boys will tell you their son loves pink, rainbows and flowers but simply cannot wear clothes in these styles like girls do without taking them from the girls’ section, which sends them a strong message that the things they like are “wrong”. Similarly, many parents of girls lament the lack of dinosaurs, trucks, and non-frilly styles in the girls’ section. This is a problem that has already been addressed by many smaller and independent retailers, who have done away with “girls” and “boys” sections entirely, in favour of an inclusive children’s one. It is time for Australia’s biggest retailers to follow suit. Nobody really believes that boys’ interests are limited to cars, diggers, dinosaurs and sharks. Nobody honestly thinks girls only like rainbows, flowers, unicorns and ice cream. Nobody reasonably considers certain colours to belong exclusively to a certain gender. Enough. Get rid of the gender separated clothing sections, and let kids choose exactly what they like without arbitrary boundaries. _________________________ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ***Why can’t you just pull things from the opposite section?*** Firstly, that’s not always possible. Cut and style are issues (consider e.g. a boy who wants a colour or pattern from the girls’ section but doesn’t want the fitted cut). More importantly, having the clothes separated in the first place sends a strong message to kids that there is an appropriate or a “normal” way for them to dress based on their gender. Any child who wants to wear something from the “other” section gets a strong message that their desire is, at the very least, “weird”, and at worst, straight-out wrong. We can’t expect a young child to overcome these arbitrary barriers on their own. If we truly believe that it’s OK for boys to wear pink, and for girls to like cars and trucks, then let’s do away with two sections and let them pick exactly what they like. ***But sizing for boys and girls is different!*** What many refer to as “sizing” is really a difference in the style and cut of clothes. There is no difference at all in sizing for young children (in fact, designers use one form/mannequin for girls and boys). As they get older, children’s bodies change shape - but they change as much from each other as they do from those of the “other” gender. We are all very different from each other in our body sizes and shapes, which is why sometimes we struggle to find things that fit even though it is made for our gender. When clothes are sorted by style (e.g. fitted t shirts on one rack; box cut on another), and then by size, there is no issue in sizing at all. Consider the multitude of unisex kids’ and adults’ clothing companies (a quick google will return lots of them), who have no trouble with sizing. ***Won’t it be hard to find what I want to buy?*** Not at all! Clothing is organised by type, then by style or colour. Some shops already organise their clothes this way. So do a ton of online retailers of kids' clothing. We already organise toys by type, which used to be separated by gender. ***What do other parents think?*** Since this campaign began, parents have shared many examples of times they were frustrated with the kids' clothing options available in store - from a toddler's hat with a whale on it labelled "boys' hat", to the lack of bright colours in the boys' section, to the lack of practical, durable clothing in the girls'. ***I just want more variety; I don’t want to put both sections together.*** We agree that more variety in children’s clothing is absolutely needed generally. That is part and parcel of this campaign. Having two sections is a bit of a self-perpetuating gender loop - before designers even begin they have to choose if they're designing for the "girls" or "boys" section, which immediately limits their options and makes it more likely for them to "over-gender" the clothes. If we unify the sections we are encouraging much more variety in children’s clothes generally, and on the way we’re taking down any barriers that might cause a child to feel “wrong” for wanting clothes that previously “belonged” to the other gender. Win-win! ***Isn't it natural for girls to like e.g. pink and boys to like e.g. blue?*** No, it isn't. A hundred years ago it was the exact opposite - pink was considered "robust" and suitable for boys, and blue "softer" and appropriate for girls. Before that, parents dressed all young children in dresses - it was considered distasteful to gender them with clothing as this brought attention to their sexuality at such a young age. This all began to change in the middle of the 20th Century, largely as a reaction to male homosexuality. People believed that dressing boys like "little men" would stop homosexuality. Ha! In any case, we know that girls are not born with a love for glitter and unicorns. Similarly, infant boys show no aversion to pink, and no preference for dinosaurs over bunny rabbits. It's all made up. Why don't we let them have exactly what they like - glittery, neutral, bunnies or bulldozers?
    1,261 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Sarah Rogers
  • Preventative Health Screening - Group Bookings
    People tend to delay their own check ups because they don’t have others holding them accountable to make and attend appointments. If we were able to shift the focus from individualised health care to “get everyone together” and collectively book longer group sessions with friends, family and/or colleagues; and even combine the appointment with something fun and community-focused like a morning tea, a lot more people would probably make an effort to keep up to date with preventative/early diagnostic testing.
    2 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Eleanor Rhynsburger
  • COURT OUT! LOVE ALL!
    Everybody deserves to be loved, and sport should not be a platform to support and spread misinformation and discrimination against anybody. Full recognition should be given to sportspeople who promote inclusion and love, such as Evonne Goolagong Cawley, and the arena should be renamed after her, or, at the least be called the Love All Arena. The supporters of this petition stand in solidarity with the people of Burundi, especially in the LGBTQ+ community, and people all over the world who have endured human rights abuses and persecution. COURT OUT! LOVE ALL!
    69 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Ant Benedyka