Tickle v Giggle decision Friday 23 August

Indeed, but as gender identity is undefined in law or anywhere else and unquantifiable the judgement means anyone anytime for any reason can breach any single sex exemptions.

I think we need to start thinking of any ways men benefit from single sex services and start a campaign to breach them.

Paternity leave anyone?
Shed project?
Men's health initiatives?

And WTF about CEDAW only applying if a woman might be left worse off? Because God forbid that a woman, somewhere in the world, might be in a good position and want to stay there.

If I am generous, might it be that a single judge of the Federal Court went as far as his powers allowed him and he was just a step in the process? Might it be that the High Court is needed to make a working alteration to the law?

Its a verdict based on Australian law.
But as Sally said she expected to lose this one and knew it would likely go to the Supreme court where she will have a better chance.
I comfort myself that at least she lost on indirect discrimination rather than direct.

@@ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews
Not really, given she expected it afterall with the state of Australian law as it is.
She said many times she would probably have to appeal.
It could have been far worse, direct discrimination.

In court the judge can only apply the law. The law enables people to change sex. Therefore it is possible to change sex. You can change your sex in law.
The hope can only be that cases like this show that the law needs to be changed.

$50k on costs, when he got legal aid, and a $50k grant.

He isn’t releasing judgment yet , and it was very confusing to follow , but I think she lost because he has said that gender identity is a protected ground. By banning tickle because he appeared to be male this was indirectly discriminatory to trans people with female identities. The direct discrimination claim failed because giggle didn’t know tickles gender identity and didn’t know tickle was trans. This means if giggle had known tickle was trans and banned him from the app it would be direct discrimination. She didn’t know or care about his identity and just banned him because he was male , which indirectly discriminates against trans males with female gender identities. Note , that on this judgment it seems impossible to ever legitimately exclude anyone on the basis of just sex if they have a “gender identity” which is different from their sex.

IANAL but it sounded like she lost because her decision to exclude Tickle on grounds of his biological sex counted as discrimination against him because he’s trans. The court is saying that gender identity effectively trumps sex.

Its pretty clear.
Direct discrimination on gender identity unproved.
Indirect discrimination proved.

This result clarifies current Australian law. It shows where they currently are and defines exactly what steps must be taken. They’ve literally ruled that female only spaces are unlawful. The pushback (and a fair amount of gardening) starts here.

I just did a search for Sall Grover
and halfway down this came up, I kid you not
www.sas.rochester.edu/gsw/news-events/kafka-prize/recipients.html

That's true about Maya, but Jesus Christ, this is a terrible result.

I'm confused.
Did she lose the judgement on sex discrimination by banning males, or did she lose on just discrimination as twaw (as they have changed sex) or did she lose on the basis she is discriminating against someone's gender identity?
Can anyone explain it?

But legally people can change sex.

legally, a person can change the data the government holds regarding sex. There is no law (nor even the possibility of a law) which can enable a person to actually change sex. Because science is an actual thing and biology is real.

As was said upthread, Maya lost in the first court too.

Maybe this case is what it will take to peak Australia. Like Isla Bryson here, sometimes you need a high profile legal case to sway public opinion and force governments to act.

Jesus Christ...that stung.

It’s indirect discrimination on basis of tickle being trans, not sex discrimination.

I'm gutted for her...

What an utter bastard Tickle is.

Onwards then .press on,.Sall.

So, according to the judgement gender identity = sex.
Fuck this shit.

It shows how adding “gender identity” as a protected characteristic entirely muddies the waters. There was no direct discrimination on the basis of transgender because giggle didn’t realise tickle had a female gender identify and was trans. Giggle excluded tickle for appearing male. However , that is indirectly discriminatory against trans people because giggle didnt disambiguate between males with male identity and males with female identity (who are trans). This means it is no longer possible to have male free spaces/ services - you have to accommodate males who have a female identity or else that is discrimination on basis of gender identity.

But the law must reflect reality, otherwise its nonsense.

Supreme Court it is then.

Oh that was hard to understand!
gender identity changes sex.

Sal's lost then.
On with the appeal.