“Are you really though?” When your trans spirit guide knows you better than you do

Excellent analysis of a youth produced films, to recruit youth into transgender identities..

The Lady Kit Kowalski

This post is about 2 short films from Momentum Studios – a small social justice film studio in Australia.

Masked‘ deals with a young woman’s journey of discovery that she is ‘trans’. The follow-on film ‘Still Me‘ deals with a young woman finding the courage and support to claim her non-binary identity.

Both films present a stylised discomfort with gender stereotypes and both young women are rescued by a spirit guide character who brings them to the trans pathway, thus solving their discomfort.


By Knox City Council and the ‘Free To Be Me’ Knox LGBTQIA Youth Group. The youth group is for 11-14 year olds.

MASKED follows the story of High Schooler, Zoe, struggling to come out as a trans man. After knowing who they truly are for a while, Zoe finds themselves fatigued by their fear of whether others will accept them or…

View original post 1,682 more words

How TransHub is Selling Experimental Drugs to Australian Children

Excellent [ost as usual from Kit Kowlaski on the puberty blocker scam

The Lady Kit Kowalski

TransHub is an informational source owned by ACON. They have lots of pages dedicated to children and how to transition children. They even look at the legal landscape in some detail.

I’ve made 2 videos on TransHub’s material on Puberty Blockers.

TransHub do not mention how dangerous these drugs are

TransHub perpetuates a myth that these regimes are too expensive (so that it will become easier for children to access experimental sterilizing treatments)

View original post

‘we can stop this drug, and your body goes back to how it would have been with no long-term consequences’ [reblog]

ABC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a sponsor of ACON, and promotes LGBQTIA ‘inc’. gender ideology propaganda, as a nationally owned media outlet it does Australian’s a serious dis-service misrepresenting the impact of puberty blockers.

The Lady Kit Kowalski

Reblogging this piece from another author. This text has been sent to Media Watch, the journalists who investigate our media. It is in regards to a special-interest piece by our dear national broadcaster about the Michelle Telfer who heads up Australia’s premier gender id clinic for children. Dr Telfer believes she can “give [a girl] a boy’s body”. Note the timecodes in ().

I’ve just sent this tip-off to Media Watch: ‘A Balancing Act’, Australian Story. ABC, 24/5/2021. This broadcast covers up and misrepresents what Dr Michelle Telfer did in 2014.

There are two issues here:

  • long-term consequences of puberty blockers
  • effect of puberty blockers on bone density

Long-term consequences

In 2014, Dr Tefler told the Langley family that if Isabelle decided to ‘go back to being Campbell’, ‘we can stop this drug, and your body goes back to how it would have been with no long-term…

View original post 475 more words


Here is the wonderful Kit, with a few words for ABC pushing lesbians to accommodate males wishing to f*ck them. Do I need to state these are adult human females that are ONLY attracted to adult human females??
This is part of rape culture.

The Lady Kit Kowalski

Our dear national broadcaster, the ABC, has a delightful show called You can’t ask that where people from certain groups answer the questions that are considered. Muslims have answered “are you all Jihadi?” nudists have answered whether they are all swingers, clergy have opened up about their sex lives and HIV+ individuals have shared their stories of life with a death sentence. It breaks down barriers and is quite nice.

Finally, lesbians have their day!

Except, there’s one little snag. Almost literally, there is a sausage in the works. A self-declared lesbian male has shown up to tell lesbians what’s what.

Mostly he’s a bit clueless with statements such as “labels do work for me. Having the labels lesbian and trans-woman really helped me get to my current identity”. Well, that’s obvious mate. When you are searching for identity over substance, labels are all you will get.


View original post 851 more words

The Australian Puberty Blocker Market is Worth $27M

Execellent post Kit

The Lady Kit Kowalski

You might have the impression that accessing Puberty Blockers is prohibitively expensive. You may have heard that they are unfairly withheld from children, and how they should be subsidised by the government.



For this post, I have relied on data published by TransHub, which is an informational website owned and operated by ACON.

TransHub is the place trans people, children and parents go for their data about transitioning.

The Cost of Blocking Puberty

TransHub advise that there are 3 types of puberty blockers, and that these are prohibitively expensive. Goserelin, Leuprorelin and Triptorelin are each medications that are taken periodically 3-5 times per year.

These drugs are subsidised for conditions such as – endometriosis, chemical castration, prostate cnacer – and are limited for short treatment periods only.

PBS – https://www.pbs.gov.au/medicine/item/1454M

Doctors can prescribe “off label” so the consumer can buy them, but will not receive a subsidy…

View original post 483 more words

CRITICAL ANALYSIS of NSW Department of Education Bulletin 55 – Transgender Students in Schools

CRITICAL ANALYSIS of NSW Department of Education Bulletin 55 – Transgender Students in Schools

By Katherine Deves

This article is in response to deep concern caused by the proliferation of gender identity ideology that is being taught in our schools. Bernard Lane, the investigative journalist at The Australian, is the only mainstream journalist in Australia willing to cover this contentious issue1.

In NSW, Bulletin 55 (referred to as “the document”) is the official policy of the Department of Education in relation to trans-identified (“transgender”) students. It was conveniently published in December 2019 just before the holiday break, and it is in the keeping with the IGYLO strategies designed by global law firm Denton’s for the regulatory and institutional capture by gender identity ideology lobbyists. The timing was likely purposeful in order to avoid any media scrutiny or public debate in implementing such policy and legislation that favourable to the efforts of these ideologists, as it is favoured tactic to achieve that aim when it likely would be rejected or criticised by the vast majority of the general public had they been made aware.

The document contains a number of discriminatory and alarming policies:

• It deliberately conflates ‘sex’ with ‘gender’, and omits to refer to the single-sex exceptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth);
• It continually prioritises one protected characteristic (‘gender identity’) over others, contrary to Commonwealth sex discrimination legislation;
• It fails to satisfy Australia’s international treaty obligations under CEDAW Art.10 in relation to education;
• It fails to meet basic safeguarding requirements by promoting mixed-sex changing rooms and residential accommodation;
• It treats concerned parents as a safeguarding risk;
• It disregards the rights of all pupils to safety, privacy and dignity in single sex spaces;
• It disregards the rights of teenage girls to compete in sports on a level playing field as per Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 42, Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 NSW s38 and CEDAW Art. 10(g).

1 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Bernard+Lane

Reliance on Erroneous and Ideologically Informed Language

The policy begins by upholding the ideological stance that sex is “assigned” at birth. This is factually untrue, sex is observed and recorded at birth. Sex is determined at fertilisation with the absence or presence of the Y chromosome and SRY gene, with observation in utero possible from the beginning of the second trimester, and via genetic testing from 7 weeks via a blood test of the mother. The word “assigned” has been co-opted by gender ideologists from the now outdated practiced of “assigning” a sex to an infant born with ambiguous genitalia due to a Disorder or Variation of Sex Development. The current protocol for such a situation is that scans and a blood test are conducted in order to ascertain the sex of the infant, as Disorders of Sex Development conditions (colloquially known as “intersex”) are conditions that arise from either one sex or the other.

In relation to birth certificate, the document erroneously refers to “gender”, because it is “sex” (not “gender”) that is recorded on the document, and this opens up the broader implications of people being able to retrospectively alter a core identity document to reflect a factually untrue status.

The document repeatedly refers to “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”, without including a definition within the document. “Gender identity” has been defined in federal legislation2, and is based on a definition promulgated in the Yogyakarta Principles3. The concept of “gender identity” is unable to be defined without resorting to circular reasoning and relies on offensive and restrictive gender stereotypes (i.e. a little boy likes “Frozen” and wants to grow his hair therefore IS a girl, instead of just being a child who may be gender non-conforming, or is simply exploring his personality as a normal part of child development), which is contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act (Schedule) and CEDAW Art.5(a) where sex based stereotypes are specifically rejected in order to eliminate prejudice.

Toilets and Change Rooms

“The need for the student to be safe is a paramount concern in these circumstances. Students should not be required to use the toilets and change rooms

2 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 4
3 “[T]he Yogyakarta Principles have no legal force either internationally or within Australia. They were developed by a group of human rights experts, rather than being an agreement between States” Responses to questions on notice provided by the Attorney-General’s Department on 21 May 2013 in The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee pg. 26 used by persons of the sex they were assigned at birth if they identify as a different gender.”

This statement privileges the needs of the trans-identified student over the rest of the student body. This is particularly problematic in the situation of a male student identifying as female and then using the girl’s facilities. Girls are entitled to privacy, dignity and safety, particularly during puberty with the additional burden of managing menstruation (or pregnancy), without having to deal with a male-bodied person in this space.

There is ample evidence of girls being adversely affected at school via rebranding of female toilets as “gender neutral” or allowing biological males access to this space; there are reports of girls electing to self-exclude, being subjected to period-shaming, and refraining from eating and drinking (with a commensurate rise in UTIs).

In QLD there was a huge international public outcry when a new school in Brisbane was promoted as having “gender neutral” toilets, which forced Premier Palasczuk to step in and revert the policy to single sex provision4.

Sanctions for Objecting to Overriding of Boundaries

“If other students indicate discomfort with sharing single-sex facilities (toilets, change rooms, dormitories or overnight accommodation for example) with a student who identifies as transgender, this should be addressed through the school learning and support team.”

Our society takes great pains and invests significant time, energy and resources to educate our children about safeguarding from a very young age (particularly for girls), and we encourage them to speak up if they feel uncomfortable, intimidated or frightened, particularly by the presence of a male in a space where they are vulnerable. Yet the document completely dismisses this basic safeguarding tenet by telling children that if they raise concerns or assert their boundaries, the child who is rightfully expressing their fear or discomfort with an opposite sex child being in a confined and private space with them, will be the student who will be removed, reprimanded and re-educated to acquiesce to gender ideology because the trans- identifying student’s needs have been given priority. It also promulgates a false narrative that the male student is actually “female” and has every right to be in that

4 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/genderneutral-toilets-at-brisbane-high- school-cause-outrage/news-story/aedcfd3787f58b943eff624c3b4b4aa8

space, essentially we are asking to children to ignore the reality of their own senses and to accommodate a falsehood despite their own distress or discomfort.
It is particularly egregious and concerning to presume that a male student should be allowed to share sleeping quarters with female students – this is a significant safeguarding issue, and completely disregards the rights of girls to safety, privacy and dignity in spaces where they may be in a state of undress or asleep.

School Sport

The section completely misrepresents the protection for sex-segregated sport under Sex Discrimination Act (Cth) s42 where sports can be segregated by sex after the age of 12 years if “strength, physique and stamina” are relevant. These factors are relevant to all sports, particularly as most children have begun puberty by age 12, which is when the biological advantage of males over females is in arguably apparent.

“Most students will be able to continue to participate in competitive sport in their identified gender after they have turned 12”.

The implication is that there is presumption that the needs of the trans-identified student will again take precedence, without any due consideration for safety and fairness of the girls, and the trans-identified student’s need take priority without any application of the legislative exemptions that allow for a player to be excluded solely on the basis of sex in NSW, and upon consideration of the factors of “strength, physique and stamina” under Commonwealth legislation., the legislation is silent on either elite and community sports.

“It may be lawful to exclude students aged 12 and over from competing in certain sports at the elite level in certain circumstances”.

The legislation does not differentiate between elite or community or social sports, in fact the legislation is entirely silent on distinguishing the differing levels of sport. The safety, privacy, dignity and fairness for girls in sports, fought for by women over many decades of activism, to ensure equal participation in sport has been completely disregarded. Investment, resource allocation and media coverage of women’s sports remains woefully inequitable and has only been further adversely impacted by COVID-19.

A high-profile case is currently being heard in the US in relation to Title IX violations where the state of CT has allowed males to compete against females5, and the Department of Education has stated that any institution allowing biological males to compete in the female category is violating Title IX6.

Teaching Gender Identity in the Cirriculum

The document states that “gender identity may be discussed in many curriculum areas”, this is deeply concerning due to highly contentious nature of the topic, and it is arguing that NSW school children should be taught factually untrue and ideological concepts such as human beings can “change sex”, or “boys can be girls, or have periods” and some “girls have penises”. A recent example of this is the “genderbread” managing to find its way into NSW classrooms, despite gender identity being explicitly excluded from the formal curriculum7.

There is a case currently pending in Canada where a 6 year old girl was deeply distressed at being told girls aren’t real.8

The document goes on to state that “Teachers should treat the topic in a manner that is respectful, inclusive and positive”, however based on the current method of silencing or shaming critics of the ideology, it is strongly doubted that the opinion of any student criticising the dogma would be welcomed, and would in fact require reprimanding for failure to unquestioningly accept the ideology should they dare to critique, or even question. It is also asserted that “inclusion” in this instance, excludes girls, as by accepting this ideology they are being compelled to subsume their needs to those biological male students.

Undermining of Family Integrity and Parental Authority

The most alarming part of the document is found in Support for the extended family of the student and Reporting Requirements; if the parents of the trans-identified child do not “affirm” the child and refuse to provide “consent” to the school to facilitate the transition (“to help with decision making, planning, assessment or service provision”), the school is informed that they can rely on the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to circumvent the parent’s rights and authority and they are encouraged to report the parents to Community Services for this “harm”.

5 https://www.adflegal.org/selina-soule-track-athlete-story
6 https://www.nationalreview.com/news/education-dept-concludes-that-connecticuts-inclusion-of- transgender-athletes-in-womens-sports-violates-title-ix/
7 https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6157675480001 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8333507/Controversial-transgender-education-tool- Genderbread-Person-pulled-NSW-school.html
8 https://www.jccf.ca/school-sued-for-telling-six-year-old-girl-that-girls-are-not-real/

There is a growing group of concerned parents9 who have suffered already due to this policy; ordinary, caring, diligent parents whose children have come to believe “transitioning” is a solution to their problems. Many children “diagnosed” with “gender dysphoria” have pre-existing mental health issues, are on the autism spectrum or are simply gender non-conforming and would likely grow up to be gay or Lesbian if they are left alone.

Managing Risk of Harm

The document states in its introduction: “Schools have a legal duty to protect students from foreseeable risk of harm and to do what is reasonably practicable to ensure their safety”.

However, it is clear from the guidelines that the concerns and rights of girls and non- trans identifying students have been completely disregarded and dismissed. The Guidelines explicitly say “The welfare and educational needs of the student are of primary importance and should be the focus of all actions taken by the school”, It is remarkable that the needs of the trans-identified student take priority over the needs of the rest of the entire student body, to their detriment, with girls’ needs failing to be given any consideration whatsoever.

A school’s exposure to liability may be increased if biologically male students are entitled to access spaces that have been set aside for female only use when the girls may be vulnerable, asleep or in a state of undress. Additionally, it appears no consideration has been given to the known and foreseeable increased risk of injury and concussion to girls playing sports should they have to compete against a biological male.


It begs the question, who were the advisers to the Department of Education in relation to this Bulletin? Why has there been an obvious failure to consider the needs of the overall student body against those of a single or very small group of students? Why were the needs of female students ignored? Why has this policy and regulatory capture occurred with no media scrutiny or public debate, except

9 https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Community/Australian-Parents-Questioning-Gender- 109605477037918/

coverage unilaterally in favour of gender ideology? Why were students, particularly female students, and parents, not consulted?

Recently in the UK, school districts and the CPS implementing similar guidelines were threatened with judicial review and legal action, have now been withdrawn. It will only be a matter of time before similar legal action occurs here in NSW, should these issues not be addressed10.

Bulletin 55 is an egregious example of policy capture by transgender ideologists. It is deeply concerning that such guidelines are being implemented in our schools with little oversight or public scrutiny when it has such a significant material impact on the student body, particularly girls. This has gone far enough, our children deserve better.

10 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8301769/Schoolgirl-13-wins-court-fight-forcing- Oxfordshire-council-scrap-transgender-toilets-toolkit.html https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2020/05/08/council-ditches-trans-guidance-on-lavatories-after- girls-victory-the-times/

The new ‘Pronoun’ practice is neither inclusive nor respectful of diversity

50 pronouns

“Are we letting American Universities dictate Australian cultural norms?” 

On the topic of language, I was chatting to an Indian Australian woman, she found the push for the use of pronouns offensive as it was against her original culture’s norms.

Which gave me pause, I would imagine that applies to many others. In a place like Sydney, approximately 40% of the people come from other countries, cultures and are of many religions.

Not to mention the many different Australian Aboriginal cultures that have already had their cultures (yes, 290+ cultures, there is not just one) ravaged by Western traditions. Isn’t this again an onslaught by western culture conforming to traditional tendencies to homogenise expression? Insisting we conform to some new virtue signalling trend without the input from all Australians?

According to the LGBTQIA resource centre, there are at least an additional 50 pronouns for example instead of his, her or their you have cos, ens, eir, hir, yos, zir and ver. Instead of herself, you can have coself, enself, emself, hirself, yoself, zirself and verself.

You can end up with a sentence like; “Ze reminded zirself to pick up zir umbrella before going outside”. Actually, this language contradicts principles of Accessibility that the Australian government has been pushing through all its departments. Relevant principles of accessibility revolve around readability, semantics, and meaningful information. Accessibility is specifically about the language of inclusion and this language is not inclusive of all.

I found some of this language inherently disrespectful to the wider Australian population, are men to be called AMAB/DMAB? Or women AFAB/DFAB? Why is the language of a tiny sector of the population used to define the wider population? How is that inclusive or respectful when the language that the wider population has for itself, is ignored?

I was curious where this new fad came from, I researched the card below. As I suspected it came out of a University department. <insert eye roll emoji?>. The card below “came out of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee LGBT Resource Centre in 2011 has been widely reproduced and distributed across the US.”

I’m guessing what happened, is some academic dude probably in Philosophy thought he’d be clever, with nothing better to do; writing a dumb blog post, which got picked up by someone else and that was put in a book or paper. From the look of the ‘words’ most likely the author/s were into D&D or did futuristic fantasy role play in his/her spare time. Language making or (appropriating from other cultures) is often a part of that.

I found somewhere that the discussion that led to this creation was that in trying to be inclusive of women and marginalised youth (not including those of different race or religion though, of course <insert another eye roll emoji? > is that even when people say ‘they’ for themselves – (which is wrong by the way ‘they’ is plural not singular) that people think ‘male’.

Good intentions, I like it. But I don’t see how appearances are going to change that when the default setting of everything IS male. (see Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, by Caroline Criado Perez ) In other words, this was not designed to be a fix, for a deeper problem. It’s just a paint job continuing to hide a serious infection in a wood-like structure of inequality. So, it gives the appearance of doing good, without doing good at all.

So what is ‘inclusiveness’? ‘The quality of including many different types of people and treating them all fairly and equally.’ Awesome. On the 23rd October ‘Play by the Rules’ ran a panel discussion around Diversity and Inclusion in Sport, Dr Ben Gauntlett, (Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission) said: “In Australia, at the moment we really do have a segregated model for the treatment of people with disability, unfortunately, we have segregated education, we often have segregated workplaces, often we have segregated sports clubs.”

Dr Ben Gauntlett does wonderful work in the disability space. This segregated model, however, is a model my company rejects. We work with disadvantaged youth (18-22) across a range of mental and physical disadvantage; autism, bi-polar, high anxiety, migrants, poverty, gay, occasional trans, physical disabilities etc.

Each course, each class we run is a mixed bag of disadvantage. I don’t segregate those with Autism, out from those who have a history of suicide, high anxiety, live in poverty, etc. These problems are what knit our class of youth together. They all have an ‘identity’ or really more like a label stuck on them that impacts whom they’re seen to be and if they buy into those labels, limits what they’re capable of. They’re vulnerable but they learn they have each other, and though have different issues they are in the same boat.

Poor mental health for a lot of these kids is derived from an expectation of certainty in the world, and stress when they find that there is none. 

They’re right, we work in conditions of uncertainty. So, in Test-Ed one of many things we do is train them to ask questions to discuss and gain clarity around uncertainty and with that clarity effectively navigate their world. We ground our mental activity in facts, reality, truth, critical thinking, and attitudes of empathy and compassion towards each other as we fail often, learn, and succeed in a continually fast-changing world.

Words and the use of words are critical in the work I do. Words must reflect how things are or have been from the evidence we find in the material world. Words dealing in the future, which may seem nebulous are words around promises and agreements and the development of trust as I keep my word and they learn how to keep theirs. And the development of trust is key.

I checked with a few of these youth to find out how they feel about this new ‘language’. For those on the spectrum, in particular, it freaks them out, it’s very unsettling. For others it doesn’t make sense, it’s confusing.

My youth and I included are a percentage of people who do not fit the mould of whatever society thinks we should be. I know from the contribution of wonderful people from the tech’ and humanities space that most Australians want my people to be happy and not demeaned. They want us to live a decent life, a meaningful life. And I would say Australians are willing to make some accommodation, some public accommodation for everyone. (Politicians suck but most Aussies I say are okay.)

Ours is an organisation that is non-segregated and diverse in the area of marginalisation and disadvantage. These pronoun practices do not respect the principles of diversity and inclusion. Diversity and inclusion are about including ALL people, which means you poll and discuss these things in any society with all people, not have some new fad from predominantly white American Universities dictate our cultural practices.