If pointing out that your logical processes are badly in need of an overhaul is derogatory, whistler, then yes, I'm guilty as charged.

>>i could not have given you a more honest response and yet your reply is derogatory.<<

And of course you could have given a more honest response.

For example, you ask:

>>if intention doesn't matter why was no woman permitted to stand for election to the first Parliament of Australia?<<

Since it is your claim that intention is key to the omission of women, the honest approach is to support it with evidence. And simply quoting yourself, I regret to tell you, does not constitute evidence, from any possible angle.

It is not up to me to explain to you why it was an "intention" that no woman was permitted to stand. One might also justify the absence of wombats, on entirely the same grounds.

>>since 1902 there has been no impediment to women joining Australia's men's legislatures under male supervision in perpetuity.<<

If I read you correctly, ("under male supervision"), you are suggesting that there is a specific impediment to a woman becoming prime minister. Or Governor General, for that matter.

Can you show some evidence of this?

From a credible source, that is.