Public Statement

I want to take the time to explain, in my own words, why Queens has taken the position it has, and what I am actually advocating for.

There has been a lot said online about Queens, about me personally, and about our position. Some of it reflects what I have said. A lot of it does not.

QUEENS - POLE & PILATES POSITION

I believe single-sex spaces hold value in our community. I also believe gender-inclusive spaces hold value in our community. I do not believe the existence of one needs to come at the expense of the other.

There are studios and fitness spaces that intentionally welcome all genders and gender identities. They provide an important choice for people who want or need that environment.

Queens was intentionally created to provide a different choice: a female-only, sex-based training environment - for biological women. That's a deliberate choice, not an accident.

The question I am asking is: why can't both exist? And, more importantly, does our current legislation provide a clear and workable framework that allows them to coexist?

HOW THIS BECAME A PUBLIC CONVERSATION

Earlier this year, a question arose about how our female-only policy applied to a prospective member. I explained that Queens was not able to accommodate transgender participation within our regular female-only classes, and suggested other local studios that operate on a gender-inclusive basis.

A complaint was subsequently lodged with the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC). I attended conciliation with legal representation, and we put forward several proposals in an effort to find a resolution that respected everyone involved. Those proposals were not accepted, and the matter was referred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), where it remains an active legal proceeding.

I made the decision to speak publicly about what was happening. I did not do that to campaign against transgender people or the LGBTQIA+ community. I did it because this raised a much bigger question that I believe deserves public discussion:

What place do sex-based spaces have under modern discrimination law?

The Sex Discrimination Act and Queensland's anti-discrimination framework have evolved significantly in relation to gender identity. I believe the interaction between protections for gender identity and the ability to provide genuinely sex-based services and spaces needs greater legislative clarity.

WHY THIS IS BIGGER THAN QUEENS/POLE DANCING

There are circumstances where biological sex can be relevant: health, medicine, fitness, sport, privacy, safety, trauma-informed environments - and, in my view, certain community spaces.

That doesn't mean gender identity has no importance. It means sex and gender identity are not necessarily interchangeable concepts in every context.

We are increasingly seeing sporting organisations around the world grappling with how sex, gender identity, fairness and inclusion interact, and reaching conclusions. Those discussions demonstrate exactly why I believe clear legislation and policy are necessary - businesses, sporting organisations and individuals should not be left to interpret where these boundaries sit only after somebody makes a complaint.

THIS ISN’T ABOUT ONE INDIVIDUAL

Throughout this process, I have done my best to treat everyone involved respectfully and to protect their privacy - including honouring requests about identity and information, whether or not those requests were the subject of a formal order.

I am not interested in encouraging anyone to target, contact, harass or attack anyone connected to this matter. That would completely distract from the reason I chose to speak publicly in the first place, and I don't want it.

My advocacy is not about one individual. It is about the principle at the centre of the dispute:

Should single-sex spaces be permitted to exist alongside gender-inclusive spaces?

That is where I want this conversation to remain. I don't want this reduced to arguments about whether somebody likes or dislikes transgender people, and I don't want the purpose of this discussion lost in personal commentary about anyone involved.

I believe transgender and gender-diverse people should be able to access spaces and services that welcome and support them. I also believe females should be able to choose spaces specifically established on the basis of sex. Those positions do not have to contradict each other.

WHAT AM I ACTUALLY FIGHTING FOR

• I am not asking for gender-inclusive spaces to disappear.
• I am not asking every studio to operate like Queens.
• I am not asking anyone else to share my personal beliefs.
• I am asking whether there should be room for both models to exist.

A person who wants a gender-inclusive studio should have that choice. A female who specifically wants a sex-based female environment should also have a meaningful choice. Those two things should not have to be enemies.

If our legislation doesn't provide a sufficiently clear pathway for lawful single-sex services to exist alongside gender-inclusive services, I believe that legislation deserves to be reviewed - and that's a question for our legislators, not something individual small businesses should have to resolve through expensive litigation.

CROWDFUNDING

I want to be clear about our crowdfunding campaign, because I've seen assumptions made about where that money goes. It funds our legal costs - the representation required to respond to the QHRC conciliation, the QCAT proceedings and argue our position on the ability of single-sex spaces to exist. It is not a fund to pay any damages claimed in the proceedings.

I also want to be realistic: the current legislative framework presents real challenges for our position, and I cannot predict what QCAT will ultimately decide. What I can do is continue to seek proper legal advice, participate in the process, and advocate for legislators to provide clearer answers about where sex-based spaces fit within Australian discrimination law.

WHERE QUEENS STANDS

Through all of the coverage, commentary and criticism, my position has remained remarkably simple:

Single-sex spaces have value. Gender-inclusive spaces have value. They should be capable of co-existing. Supporting the existence of one does not require the destruction of the other.

I don't expect everyone reading this to agree with me. This is a complex, emotionally charged issue, and respectful disagreement is part of living in a diverse community. But I hope people understand what I am actually advocating for, rather than what has sometimes been attributed to me online.

Ultimately, I would like to see legislation that gives everyone clarity - transgender and gender-diverse Australians, women seeking sex-based spaces, sporting organisations, community groups and businesses like ours. There should be room in our community for different spaces serving different needs.

That is the conversation I wanted to start. And that remains the conversation I intend to have.

GET IN TOUCH

If you'd like to have a respectful, one-on-one conversation about any of this, you're welcome to reach out directly - I'm always open to hearing from respectfully engaging people, whatever their view.