Senator Questions Pregnancy Discrimination Protections for Trans Women

Did you ask the federal court to extend pregnancy protections to people, to transgender women?

Senator, not from my recollection.

No, I just want to understand the status of your submission.

In the submissions we talked about the meaning of pregnancy

and potential pregnancy and how that may apply to transgender.

How do you see that applying in the Act currently to trans women?

For trans women, if someone who applies for a job, for example, and it is a trans woman,

and she may be asked whether or not she intends to have children, and if she replies,

yes, I do, and then doesn't get the job because that employer doesn't want to employ women who

may be of childbearing age, then she may have been subjected to unlawful discrimination

on the basis of potential pregnancy.

I'm very confused. A biological male can't become pregnant.

But the grounds of pregnancy include potential pregnancy as well as pregnancy.

But if they can't become pregnant, how can you then become potentially pregnant?

It's about the unlawful treatment by the employer.

If someone is treated unfairly on the basis of pregnancy or potential pregnancy,

then that is unlawful discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.

So if a bloke came in and they said, are you going to have children,

which is the same question, really, and he said, oh, yeah, maybe,

are you saying that he could also claim that ground?

If he didn't receive the job because...

But they can't get pregnant.

No, not a man who is seeking a position, then it's not going to apply to a man.

They're both biological men. It makes no sense.

A biological man can't get pregnant, am I correct?

Because if I'm not, I've got to go back to school. I seriously do.

Because I missed that lesson in biology.

I went to a convent school. The nuns may not have told me about it.

But you said a biological man can't get pregnant.

That's correct, Senator.

But someone who is a trans woman may be assumed to be pregnant or to be able to be pregnant.

So what stops a man putting on a dress, walking in, and claiming the protections?

He's now a woman. You've admitted that.

That would be up to a court to decide whether or not it was discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.

With all due respect, yes, it is the absurdity of the law yet again,

which shows, again, the law does need to be changed.

Because for the record, biological men, it doesn't matter what way you cut it,

you cannot get pregnant.

Quite frankly, it is an insult to women who actually are discriminated on

because they want to have children when they biologically can get pregnant.

But the good news is what we're proving today is the law needs to be changed.