The Triumph of Biological Reason in Queensland: A Shift in Policy and Perspective, By Mrs Vera West

In a significant policy shift, Queensland's Minister for Women, Fiona Simpson, has restored the state's official definition of a woman to "an adult female human being," reversing the broader, identity-based definition introduced by the previous Labor government. This change, announced in response to a question from Katter Australian Party (KAP) Leader Robbie Katter on September 16, 2025, marks a return to a biologically grounded understanding of sex and gender in Queensland's legislative framework. The decision reflects a growing global debate about balancing biological realities with gender identity considerations, and it carries implications for policy, rights, and societal discourse.

Under the prior Labor government, Queensland's definition of a woman was expanded in the Queensland Women and Girls' Health Strategy 2032 to include "all people who identify as a woman or girl." This change aligned with broader amendments to the Human Rights Act in June 2023, which took effect in 2024. These amendments simplified the process for changing one's gender on official documents, such as birth certificates. Notably, children as young as 12 could alter their recorded gender without requiring medical treatment or surgery, provided certain conditions were met. For those under 16, parental consent or a Children's Court order was required, while those over 16 needed a statement of support from an adult who had known them for at least 12 months.

The Labor government, led by then-Women's Minister Shannon Fentiman, argued that these changes would not compromise women's rights or safety, citing a lack of evidence from other jurisdictions to suggest otherwise. However, the centre-right Liberal National Party (LNP) and the conservative-leaning KAP opposed the reforms, expressing concerns about their implications for biological women and the integrity of sex-based protections.

Following the LNP's rise to power on October 27, 2024, the new government signalled a shift toward prioritising biological definitions of sex. Minister Simpson's response to Katter's question clarified the state's stance: a woman is defined strictly as "an adult female human being," and a transgender person is recognized as someone whose gender identity differs from their biological sex at birth. This definition rejects the broader, identity-based approach of the previous government, emphasising biological reality over self-identification.

The decision has sparked both support and criticism. Proponents argue that it restores clarity to legal and policy frameworks, ensuring that sex-based rights, particularly for women, are protected in areas such as healthcare, sports, and single-sex spaces. Critics, however, contend that the change may marginalise transgender individuals by excluding them from the legal and social category of "woman," potentially affecting their access to certain services or protections.

Katter also inquired about the number of individuals who had changed their gender on birth certificates since the LNP took office, specifically asking for breakdowns by age (16 and under, and 16–18). Attorney-General Deb Frecklington's response highlighted a key challenge: the Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (RBDM) does not formally report on such changes, as they are considered "sensitive information." This lack of public data makes it difficult to assess the scale of gender changes under the new government or to compare trends with the previous administration's policies.

Frecklington did outline the legal requirements for changing one's recorded sex. For individuals under 16, applications must come from parents or legal guardians, or be supported by a Children's Court order, with a developmentally informed practitioner confirming the child's understanding of the change's implications. For those over 16, a supportive statement from an adult acquaintance is required. These safeguards aim to ensure that such decisions are made thoughtfully, but the absence of detailed statistics leaves questions about the policy's real-world impact unanswered.

The restoration of a biology-based definition of a woman in Queensland reflects a broader global trend in some regions to reassert the importance of biological sex in law and policy. This move aligns with debates in places like the United Kingdom, where similar discussions about single-sex spaces and sports have gained traction. Supporters of Queensland's policy shift argue that it protects the rights of biological women, particularly in contexts where physical differences, such as in prisons, domestic violence shelters, or competitive sports, can have significant consequences. They also contend that clear definitions prevent the erosion of sex-based protections under the guise of inclusivity.

On the other hand, transgender advocates argue that such policies risk excluding trans women from critical services and spaces, potentially increasing their vulnerability to discrimination or harm. The debate is further complicated by the lack of comprehensive data on how many individuals, particularly minors, are affected by these policies. Without transparent reporting, it's challenging to evaluate claims about safety, rights, or societal impacts.

For those of us who choose biological definitions, Queensland's policy shift represents a triumph of clarity and reason in a complex and often polarised debate. By grounding the definition of a woman in biological terms, the LNP government seeks to provide a stable foundation for sex-based rights and policies. However, this decision also underscores the ongoing tension between respecting individual gender identities and maintaining protections rooted in biological realities. As Queensland navigates this contentious issue, the lack of data and the sensitivity surrounding gender changes will likely continue to fuel discussion.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/queensland-lnp-government-restores-biological-definition-woman