Why Is Womanhood So Contested?

The Principle of Justice and Dignity

Lately, I’ve found myself thinking more deeply about justice and dignity—what they mean to me, and how consistently they are lived out in the world around us. As a Christian, I hold a deep belief in the inherent worth of every person. I believe true justice is not shaped by ideology or allegiance, but by a commitment to fairness, courage, and care for the vulnerable.

I try to hold my convictions with humility. I don’t believe in imposing beliefs on others, yet I do believe we have a responsibility to speak up when people are harmed. For me, the challenge has been learning how to do both at the same time: remaining faithful to truth while acting with compassion and restraint.

This sounds simple in theory. I’m learning how difficult it is in practice.

As Scripture reminds us in Micah 6:8, we are called “to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.” I find myself returning to this often—especially when justice feels uneven or difficult to apply consistently.

Noticing the Contradictions

As I’ve reflected more on conversations around women’s rights, I’ve begun to notice some uncomfortable tensions. Again and again, I see moments where the principles we speak about—justice, compassion, and human dignity—are applied unevenly. Some stories are elevated and defended with clarity, while others are quietly set aside or treated as too complicated to confront.

What has been hardest for me to sit with is the realisation that women themselves can sometimes, consciously or unconsciously, contribute to this imbalance. Often this happens within strong cultural, political, or ideological frameworks that reward loyalty and discourage dissent. Still, the outcome can be that policies, silences, or justifications end up harming other women.

One moment that stayed with me was in the aftermath of the October attacks in Israel carried out by Hamas. Reports described women being taken hostage and subjected to extreme violence. These accounts were widely available, yet in many public conversations—particularly among pro‑Palestinian advocates—the suffering of Israeli women seemed to receive far less attention than the suffering of civilians in Gaza.

I want to be clear: the suffering of Gaza’s civilians is real and devastating. Holding space for that should never be optional. What unsettled me was the sense that acknowledging one injustice required the minimisation of another. I found myself struggling with the idea that compassion could become selective—that some women’s suffering could be treated as secondary depending on the political narrative being defended.

I noticed a similar tension closer to home during the 2022 federal election in Sydney, particularly in the seat of Warringah. Katherine Deves ran as a Liberal candidate and became a highly controversial figure due to her views on women’s sport and single‑sex spaces. She argued that biological sex should remain central in these contexts. Her opponent, Zali Steggall, a teal independent, took a different position, emphasising inclusion and broader definitions of equality.

What struck me wasn’t simply that two women disagreed. Women disagree all the time, and rightly so. What troubled me was how quickly the conversation hardened into opposing camps, as though there were only two acceptable ways to speak about women’s rights—and any attempt at nuance was treated as hostility or harm. I remember feeling unsettled by how easily complexity disappeared, replaced by slogans and certainty.

More broadly, I’ve noticed how these tensions continue to surface in Australian public life around questions of sex, gender, and identity. There is still no shared understanding of what it means to define a “woman” across all contexts, particularly in law, sport, and public policy. Different political leaders and parties approach this question from very different perspectives, attempting to balance biological realities, gender identity, inclusion, and rights.

Watching these debates unfold, I’ve often felt that the lack of consensus is interpreted not as complexity, but as moral failure. Women in politics are frequently expected to stand united on issues affecting women, yet these debates reveal how unrealistic that expectation can be. When women take different positions, disagreement is sometimes framed as betrayal rather than good‑faith argument.

I want to say this clearly: I don’t share these reflections to blame women. I’m increasingly aware of how much pressure—cultural, ideological, relational—shapes the positions people take. Fear of exclusion, desire for belonging, and deeply held beliefs all play a role. Still, I can’t ignore the impact of these inconsistencies. When certain injustices are overlooked, the consequences can include silence, marginalisation, and, in some parts of the world, ongoing harm or violence against women.

Simply noticing these contradictions has been confronting for me. But I’m beginning to believe that this kind of honest awareness is an essential first step toward a more consistent and compassionate approach to justice.

Why Double Standards Persist

I don’t think there are easy explanations. Human societies are complex, and moral clarity is often clouded by ideology, fear, ambition, or group loyalty. Even people with good intentions can struggle to see injustice clearly when it threatens their sense of identity or belonging.

Recognising this doesn’t excuse harm—but it does help me approach these tensions with greater humility. I’m learning that naming injustice and acknowledging human vulnerability must exist together.

A Spiritual Perspective

For me, faith is not about standing above others with certainty, but about being willing to change—starting with myself. Growth, both personal and collective, often begins with discomfort. Even when situations feel deeply unjust, I believe there is still an opportunity to respond with courage and integrity.

As I sit with these reflections, I feel called to speak up for those whose voices are silenced, to defend human dignity without forcing my beliefs onto others, and to remain committed to truth even when narratives are conflicting or inconvenient. I don’t experience this as a call to judgment, but to alignment—between belief and action, conviction and compassion.

Thoughtful Action

I keep asking myself what faithfulness looks like in the face of these contradictions. For now, it means paying attention—especially to the moments that make me uncomfortable. It means resisting the urge to accept easy answers, and being honest about where silence feels safer than speaking.

It also means wanting to defend the dignity and rights of all women consistently and courageously, while choosing dialogue over dismissal and understanding over outrage. I’m learning that conviction does not require coercion, and respect does not require agreement.

Closing Reflection

I don’t believe that respect requires agreement, but I do believe it requires honesty. My own view is that no one can redefine what a woman is without doing real harm, even when the intentions are framed as compassionate or progressive.

What I cannot ignore is this: why is there such fierce controversy over what a woman is, while there is no equivalent debate about what a man is?

If equality is truly our goal, why does womanhood alone seem so open to revision?