It is not uncommon to find popular assertions , in relation to the legal treatment of transgender persons, that the law requires that a person who asserts they are of a different gender to their biological sex, be allowed to use bathrooms set aside for their chosen gender, or that they have a “right” to be addressed by the pronoun corresponding to that gender. In this post I want to point out that it seems quite arguable that the law in most of Australia does not have this effect. (I will comment briefly on recent changes in Tasmania which may have, though even there, the question is debatable.)
I am presenting a paper today at the IVR2019 conference in Lucerne, Switzerland (a law and philosophy conference), entitled “Respecting the Dignity of Religious Organisations: When is it appropriate for Courts to decide Religious Doctrine?” For those who are interested, the paper can be downloaded here:
An important decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal, The Queen (on the application of Ngole) -v- The University of Sheffield  EWCA Civ 1127 (3 July 2019) has ruled that a social work student, Felix Ngole, should not have been dismissed from his course on the basis of comments he made on social media sharing the Bible’s view on homosexuality. The court says in its summary at para , point (10):
The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.
The decision is a welcome one, which will hopefully provide guidance in similar situations.