Giggle v Tickle Friday 15th May 2pm AEST

Would love to see one of our Select Committees put similar questions to the BBC

They're going for the media soundbite with that pregnancy point rather than deep diving the issue, e.g. trans men. But they did ask some good questions, Cash drilled down on what are the criteria in law to be a trans woman and to be a woman in the SDA. Having listened a couple of times to the answers, Cody did say Cash was wrong that only 1 criteria like clothing is enough for sex, only for gender identity. There are 3 for sex, although she didn't quite say all 3 have to be met, only that 3 would be looked at by a judge. It's a bit like the GRC that is highly confidential, how are service providers supposed to assess whether someone is a woman in law if determining that requires a judge to consider 3 criteria which may or may not all have to be met?

Thank goodness for that!
reading the first post i had thought I’d have to delete my account.
How utterly ridiculous Meta are - their track record of misogyny is depressing Si im glad they have redeemed themselves somewhat this time

Oh FFS.

Oh FFS. Fucking Meta. That’s ridiculous.

Facebook is nothing but AI click bait rubbish these days anyway, no wonder it's rejecting worthwhile content.

Legally it’s been that way since 2013. Sall Grover (Giggle vs Tickle) has been dealing with it for over 4 years. Unfortunately we can’t blame it on Theo.

bladdy hell, Theo's only been wheels on the ground for a few weeks and already they are saying men can be female. We're well rid!

Cody’s completely abandoned women but is also very poor at answering the questions. I also thought that the questions posed by the senators were fairly poor. The EA2010 covers “perceived discrimination” which is what the discussion about pregnancy covered - a woman might not be offered a job on the assumption that she’ll get pregnant (or get offered lower pay) because she’s female.

If there’s a TIM who genuinely passes then theres a very very tiny chance this might happen to them - BUT (and it’s a big BUT) how many TIMs genuinely pass? AND it’s also much more likely that the TIM will have made sure their prospective employers know about their trans status with it’s inherent advantages and protections (it’s much easier to claim transphobia than sexism) …. Therefore by inference they’ll have declared themselves male (with special sparkles on top) which is far far more likely to result in positive discrimination imo.

why aren’t the senators asking that?
the positive discrimination for trans to women’s detriment aspect is so blatant and so unlawful!? Why never mentioned?

There are lots of people who have been willing to beclown themselves in thrall of the gender ideology circus, but sitting there - twice - in the Australian parliament and saying things you know to be false so brazenly, must mean Anna Cody is right up there in contention for the Bozo Ronald McDonald Gold Medal.

Australia should be very ashamed.

This is extremely funny though.

A $408,000 salary too. Oh the irony of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner trying so hard to get rid of sex in law. It's maddening.

Here Cody is again, from a few months ago. “I’m not a scientist.” Then STFU.

https://x.com/KatyKray73/status/2059367912541209006?s=20

Sky Australia clipped the discussion on pregnancy protection.

I do not understand how Anna Cody can draw a salary with a straight face.

Even what they've written in the submission clashes with what they said in Senate Committee yesterday

"Whether a person is of a particular “sex” for the purposes of the SDA may take into account a range of factors, which may include their biological and physical characteristics, whether they are legally recognised as that sex under State and Territory law, as well as how they present themselves and are socially recognised. However, for the purposes of these proceedings, the Court need not exhaustively identify all the relevant factors, or determine whether any of them is necessary to be a particular “sex”. The Court need only conclude that, for a person to be of the female “sex”, it is sufficient if that sex is recorded on the person’s birth certificate and/or they have undergone gender affirming surgery to affirm their status as female. Although unnecessary to decide in the present case, a person may also be of the female “sex” in other circumstances, eg if they 5[2023] FCA 553 at [15]. 6[2023] FCA 553 at [16]. 7[2023] FCA 553 at [16]. 8[2023] FCA 553 at [17]. 9[2023] FCA 553 at [17]. 6 have undergone hormonal therapy to affirm they are “female” and/or present themselves and are socially recognised as “female”, and even if their sex has not been recorded as “female” on any official register. "

Those 'and/or's mean people don't have to fulfill 3 criteria as said in Senate Committee! Just any one of them. Assuming the AHRC submission is correct.

@TheKhakiQuail It’s confusing isn’t it. Bloody idiots. If you have a look at the submission by Cody in the Giggle case you’ll find a lot of their definitions written down. They particularly appear in the footnotes and have references for where they’re sourced from.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/112299/Submission-of-the-Australian-Human-Rights-Commission.pdf

A few Senators grilled the AHRC on GvT and the LAG case, starting at around 6:27.00.

I'm still trying to parse their definitions.
They say sex is an inclusive term, and woman includes trans women, older women, etc including some non-binary people.
They say the definition of a woman is "an adult female human - and it includes trans women"
Gender identity is taken from the SDA (defined as the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of a person. This applies regardless of the person's sex assigned at birth or whether they have undergone any medical intervention.)
They seem to agree with the senator that the "or" above means gender identity could include just one thing eg a gender-related appearance such as wearing a dress.

A definition for sex is maybe being imputed from court cases, they say it's an inclusive term, that includes (and apparently has to include all 3?) a biological component, how one presents and how one is recognised. Later described as a biological component, how one identifies oneself and how other people identify us.
The biological component does not have to include surgery, nothing else was asked on what it does/may include.
The court ruling made it clear that having changed documents via state level legislation allowing self-id is not particularly relevant as state legislation is not relevant to the federal SDA, but is relevant to the idea that society now sees sex and changeable, alongside the 2013 amendments to the SDA. The ruling also mentions exemptions are available such as s32:
"Services for members of one sex Nothing in Division 1 or 2 applies to or in relation to the provision of services the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex."
But doesn't ask the question - if sex is inclusive what services would they be? Cervical smears and prostate checks can't "only be provided to one sex" if sex includes those with any type of body.

Overall, the impression given by the AHRC in the Senate Committee Meeting is that there is a stricter test to be a 'woman' (legal sex) than to be a transwoman (legal gender identity of transwoman), according to the sex discrimination commissioner. So her statement that woman includes trans woman seems inaccurate by her own interpretation of the law, as only some people who self-id as a trans woman would pass the more stringent criteria for 'woman' in the SDA. It implies there is a group of people who self-id as trans women but are not legally women. Nobody raised this, and it seems unlikely there would be any way for an individual to distinguish the legal women tw from the legal men tw.

“This is not a culture war. This is reality”
a phrase thats cropped up in a few Aussie speeches on this. Good phrase

The protest was reported on British media - it came up top of my MSN feed this morning, but when I went back to get a link for here, it had gone. It was "women's rights" not trans.

www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/supporters-rally-for-sall-grover-at-london-protest-roxy-tickle-is-a-man-the-law-got-it-wrong/vi-AA23U1kv

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/viral/roxy-tickle-is-a-man-sall-grover-supporters-protest-in-london/vi-AA23TLHF

Something wrong with the archive link to read the article - I made another one:
https://archive.ph/J1wwA

You can read some of the article, maybe not all (I don't have a subscription)
The interview with Sall G - different to the written article above - is available on the original link posted; reposted below, for clarity: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/protesters-rally-in-london-to-back-sall-grovers-fight-for-womens-rights/news-story/209a04ba95767cf6163388f37d134790?amp=%22