The weaponisation of transgender issues for political gain — already hinted at in Australia in the lead-up to the May 3 election but used to effect in both the 2024 US presidential election and current UK political and legal developments — is a contrived threat, not a priority issue.
Australia has seen an increase in political rhetoric and attack lines imported from the US, often focused on divisive cultural issues rather than substantive policy concerns.
Figures like Clive Palmer have echoed American-style populist narratives, while the opposition has deployed messaging that mirrors key themes from Trump’s campaign, including Peter Dutton’s now-abandoned plan to cut work-from-home policies in the public service and exaggerated fears about so-called “woke” ideology.
Thanks to a phenomenon known as moral panic, transgender issues can be blown out of proportion and portrayed as a threat. To a world familiar with the term ‘fake news’, moral panic creates a ‘fake threat’.
Moral panic amplifies, distorts and exaggerates issues, often for political or social control purposes. Transgender people become the innocent casualties of campaigns that say their issues somehow threaten the rest of society.
Media and political coverage of anti-trans narratives is vastly disproportionate to the 0.9 percent of Australians who identify as transgender, non-binary or gender diverse.
It’s just one indicator that many debates about trans rights don’t reflect priority concerns, even if they are portrayed that way.
Election campaigns should provide an opportunity for parties and politicians to address the nation’s most pressing concerns, but campaign strategies that play on the fears of the voting public distort important policy issues.
Last year’s US election saw this work on a grand scale and there have been hints of a similar focus in Australian political debate before.
During the last election former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and then-Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese were asked to “define a woman”. This question, posed during a debate meant to scrutinise leadership and governance, reflects a broader trend of increasing political focus on transgender rights.
Transgender rights
Recent state government-driven inquiries, some of them arguably more politically motivated than driven by a real need for action, highlight the nature of the problem.
In January, Queensland implemented an immediate pause on gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers and hormones, while conducting a clinical review.
Medical and human rights experts argue that policy unjustly restricts healthcare, contradicts Queensland’s Human Rights Act and risks serious harm to trans youth, their families and healthcare providers. The experts have urged the government to prioritise evidence-based care.
Just a few months ago, a comprehensive independent review commissioned by Children’s Health Queensland found no evidence that children with gender dysphoria were being rushed or coerced into treatment. Instead, the review identified barriers to treatment, including extensive wait times of up to 577 days.
In 2024, the New South Wales Government commissioned an investigation into the Westmead Hospital’s gender clinic that found puberty blockers are a safe, effective and reversible form of gender-affirming care.
The cost of moral panic
Stanley Cohen, a sociologist and criminologist, coined the term moral panic in 1972. He said people or conditions could be framed as threats to society, creating fear about exaggerated or completely imagined concerns.
Scholars have identified five stages of this process: a group is perceived as a threat; the media amplifies this perception; public anxiety increases, with high levels of fear; gatekeepers respond with policy proposals; and finally the issue either dissipates or leads to long-term consequences.
Recent events and decisions across the world show how transgender and gender-diverse people are unfairly positioned in this process.
In 2024 US Republicans spent millions on advertising to portray transgender issues as broad threats and anti-trans action was among President Donald Trump’s first executive orders. Republicans repeatedly framed gender-affirming care and trans inclusion as threats to children and to cisgender women’s safety in bathrooms and sports.
On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order saying that the US government would recognise only two sexes, male and female — even though this is not scientifically accurate.
This directive affects documentation, healthcare policies and access to gender-affirming treatment under US federal programs. Further executive orders restricted gender-affirming care and directed the Department of Defense to ban trans people from serving in the military.
The anti-trans directives continued in February, going as far as lobbying the International Olympic Committee on the issue and warning of action against 2028 Los Angeles Olympics athletes who “misrepresent their sex”.
Transgender issues also took centre stage in the 2024 UK election and former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak memorably asserted that “a man is a man, and a woman is a woman”.
In Brazil, former President Jair Bolsonaro has been a vocal opponent of what he terms “gender ideology,” characterising it as a threat to Brazilian families and values and saying the country must not become a “gay tourism paradise”. He also directed a range of anti-trans initiatives.
Meanwhile, Australia Nationals leader David Littleproud suggested that the country must also consider the “issue” of gender to follow the path of Trump’s executive orders.
The suggestion was dismissed by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton but it demonstrates the potential impact that global developments can have in Australia.
Who it affects
The consequences of moral panic and its policies extend far beyond the trans community.
Restrictions on gender-affirming care can directly affect women more broadly, children with medical conditions and people living with HIV.
Broad bans on hormone therapies can interfere with treatments for menopause, premenstrual dysphoric disorder and endometriosis, as well as puberty blockers for children experiencing precocious or unusually early puberty.
Historically, attacks on trans rights have also served as a precursor to broader rollbacks of reproductive freedoms. The same politicians who support bans on gender-affirming care often want limits on abortion, birth control or other LGBTQ+ rights.
Beyond healthcare, the weaponisation of transgender issues also distracts from the real problems affecting trans people and even the very groups this moral panic purports to defend.
Women’s sport is an example. While trans women are often framed as a threat to fairness, the chronic underfunding, pay disparities and lack of media coverage in women’s sport continue to be overlooked.
Trans women make up an extremely small percentage of athletes and existing policies already regulate fair competition, yet this issue is given disproportionate attention over far more pressing concerns.
The solution lies in evidence-based policy.
With an election approaching, Australia would benefit if politicians resisted moral panic and responded to real concerns from all Australians — including the transgender community — not manufactured fear.
Dr Tariq Choucair is a senior research associate at the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University of Technology. Katherine M. FitzGerald is a PhD researcher at the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University of Technology. Lucinda Nelson is a PhD candidate at the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University of Technology.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
