Who is really pro-woman?
Minister’s Newsletter – 21 May 2026
Dear Friends, here’s a claim to make you sit up and pay attention:
– Post-feminist Australia is anti-woman in a number of problematic ways.
– But Bible-shaped Christianity is pro-woman in regard to dignity and protection.
Let me unpack this… within the confines of an article that I’m trying not to turn into an essay!
Post-feminist Australia is anti-woman in a number of ways. For example, sex-selective abortion is legal in Australia. That means if you discover you’re having a baby girl, but you really wanted a boy, there is nothing stopping you seeking a ‘termination’ of a living, human, pre-born baby for no other reason than sex.
This is not hypothetical. Recent Australian research provides compelling observational evidence of male-biased sex ratio at birth among overseas-born mothers from certain cultures, which appears to be attributed to prenatal sex determination followed by selective abortion of females.
Abortion rights are often defended on the basis of autonomy: a woman’s right to choose. But that this choice to abort baby girls is happening legally is profoundly anti-female. Baby girls are as precious as baby boys. It is unconsionable that medical professionals should agree to abort them simply because of their sex.
There is a private member’s bill, the Abortion Law Reform Amendment (Sex Selection Prohibition) Bill 2025, soon to be debated in the NSW Upper House. I believe we should support it. Using the information above, you could write to some or all of the members of the NSW Legislative Council listed here expressing your point of view.)
Secondly there is a big push to legalise commercial surrogacy in Australia. The Social Issues Committee that I chair has made submissions to the relevant inquiries (Federal Law Reform Commission; State Parliament).
But in brief, commercial surrogacy exploits vulnerable women (“rent-a-womb”) and commodifies children.
Commercial surrogacy generally undermines a child’s natural interest in connection to its biological mother and/or father. And by design it disregards the social significance of gestation and maternal care. For example, with the best will in the world, a second father simply cannot replace a nursing mother in a child’s life.
But most notable is the push to trump biological sex with gender identity… Notoriously in the Giggle v. Tickle legal battle, where trans-woman Roxy Tickle sued Sall Grover and her Giggle app for discrimination.
The app was intended as a safe space for biological women to discuss issues of mutual interest. But in repeated court cases, Grover and Giggle have been found liable for discrimination on the basis of gender identity under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. This happened because the federal parliament removed the definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ from the Act, while inserting ‘gender identity’, when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister.
The application of such laws may vary from state to state and federal jurisdiction. But the rights of women to maintain single-sex spaces, services and networks – without fear of discrimination claims and legal action – has been badly undermined. This could even impact our schools. Men who identify as women are given more rights and protections than actual women.
Women's single-sex spaces – refuges, prisons, change rooms, sports – exist because of biological sex, not gender identity. These aren't abstract legal concepts. They are protections built on the very real vulnerabilities that come with being female: differences in height, strength, and the ability to bear children.
It is not academic. I have a female relative in her social soccer competition, who has been badly bruised by the aggressive play of a trans-woman, with obvious strength and size advantages compared to other players. No one dares complain about it.
There are even worse outcomes than this, of course. I support the campaign by the Women’s Forum Australia, and many other groups, to see the Sex Discrimination Act amended to restore protections to women and girls on the basis of biological sex. (If you are really keen, you could write to each federal senator for NSWexpressing your viewpoint, considering the sample letter here.)
Ordinary people know something is wrong. They agree that women and men are of equal value and that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. But they don’t really know why our society has ended up with so many anti-female outcomes.
By contrast, Bible-shaped Christianity is pro-woman in regard to the dignity and protection of women and girls. And Christians should know it and be ready to stand up for this.
It begins from the first chapter of the first book of the Bible with the fundamental observation that all humans, male and female, are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Therefore, the dignity, sanctity of life, and rights for women must be upheld just as much as for men.
This is not to say that men and women are simply interchangeble. We believe in the goodness of the creation. And Jesus’ resurrection from the dead affirms the importance of the human body. So Christians should not think it accidental or irrelevant that there are obvious differences, not only in genitalia, but in average size and strength, between male and female bodies (and in some more subtle ways, suggested by aspects of brain and social science and psychology).
God has designed women’s bodies to be inherently oriented towards child-bearing and rearing, in a way that a man can never achieve. And unsurprisingly the Bible honours motherhood in special ways. So we do not think mums and dads are interchangeable. Therefore the denial by design of the presence of a child’s father or mother in its family is not desirable.
God has always had a special concern for those who are small, weak or vulnerable. In the Thankskgiving Service for Anglicare’s 170th anniversary yesterday, Deuteronomy 10 was read out. After describing the “God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome”, v18says,
“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow.”
I am sure male widowers may also be vulnerable. But notice the typical examples of those who need special care are shaped by biological sex.
Neither self-identification nor the assertion of autonomy can, let alone should try to, deny God’s sovereign care in the ordering of the lives he’s given to each of us. He is our God and maker, and not we ourselves. We are the sheep of his pasture (see Psalm 100)! Let’s not act like goats.
This biblical pattern of concern help explain why we advocate for laws in our society that offer special protection to women and children, especially girls, including the unborn.
A word to men. It can be hard to speak up on this topic. In our society, this debate seems mostly left to the women. And I understand the need to hear their voices strongly. But it would be a failure of courage not to speak up.
I have daughters and no sons. How can I not be concerned? I have given more than a decade of ministry life to establishing better domestic violence policies and practice in Anglican churches. How can I turn my back on the other ways in which women need protection in our society? I know I need to speak out carefully but also courageously. Other men may also need to step up.
In the context of discussing marriage, 1 Peter 3:7 explains that men should never exploit their superior strength.
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
Scholars agree the reference here to weakness is about typically lesser bodily strength, not to lack of intellectual or moral ability, let alone value or worth.
But the most important point affirms that what we learned from our creation equally in God’s image. Men and women are and always will be equal in redemption. We are co-heirs of God’s gracious gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Warmly in Christ,
Sandy Grant
Dean of Sydney