Giggle v Tickle Friday 15th May 2pm AEST

Had a look on his twitter and can't see anything, would you mind linking I'm interested to hear his reasoning

💯

It's always worth fighting. Today the world saw Australia make an absolute fool of itself because of Sal Grover fighting back. Every fight, win or lose, sheds a little more sunlight on this nonsense. It was not for nothing. I'm glad she's fighting on

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/roxanne-tickle-wins-landmark-ruling-against-femaleonly-app/video/eb4e3c124e2092c39692f15b741762e4

I think you should be able to wear whatever you want and just wear a badge to say what your identity is. "Man" should be sufficient to claim an identity

I thought the whole point was that "gender related appearance" are regressive stereotypes that noone should have to follow and are therefore not immutable, so can't be the basis for a protected group?

Honestly, if I were there I'd be tempted to do it myself.

I’m honestly surprised no one has tbh. I’m trying work out how the police, who no doubt would be called, would square the circle. it would completely show the absurdity of the law?.

Depending on what I wear, I suppose some would lead you to believe my biology changes daily. I have a burnt orange/ coppery top. I guess I’m an oran utan when I put that on. Maybe a badger if I wear white with black. A cornflower in my blue jeans.

Not ‘what will I wear today’. More ‘what biological metamorphosis will I pretend I am enacting today?’

Any MNetters in Oz willing to try this out and see?

(I daren’t ask what polo necks signify)
Public intellectual?
I don't know of what sex/gender though.

Out of curiousity, What would happen if a biological women walked topless in the streets in Australia but when stopped said they were self ID’ing as male?

OMG @Cailleach1 you have baby pink, white and baby blue clothes!

That wouldn’t give most women (the real kind) the creeps at all. I’ve read there is such a thing as a duper’s delight smile.

I know, right? Crazy stuff.

A lot of my husband’s white t-shirts are v neck. I’m wondering if I would be viewed in Australia as being in a same sex marriage. Mind you I have lots of round neck t-shirts (I daren’t ask what polo necks signify). Under Australia, would that would turn him into the woman, and me into the man.

Goodness, I won’t bring his light pink check shirt into the mix, along with my possession of sky blue garments.

His legal team argued that Sall should have known he (Tickle) was a woman as he was wearing a V neck tshirt

I've just watched his speech outside the court ( on sky news) Horrifying. Tagged in disabled women, First Nations women in long list of women including "trans women" who are now safe from discrimination. Did smug smile when talking about how proud "young Roxy" would be of his "bravery". Startlingly contradicted himself by saying his trans journey actually only began in 2017 (when "young Roxy" was already a pensioner?!l)

Just grim seeing him flanked by young women as he makes his speech clearly looking and sounding like an older man.

Has that been stated by the barrister or the judges in that court case?

If I've understood this, it follows that, in Australia, women have no, or much reduced protection under the 2013 Sex Discrimination Act. Also, lesbians have no right to free association.

Its beyond me to see how anybody can honestly claim that this is a worthy thing.

It's gobbledygook.

Sexist claptrap.

The point is, they think they know. As do we all. We all know what a woman is. And they, in their head, because they know what a woman is, think you can't discriminate against them.

But actually, the law says no they fucking don't.

It's the same same duality of thinking that goes on here. We will invoke the actual meaning of biological sex, in order to make the distinction required to provide special treatment to men in dresses.

You have to have a space designated woman only, which everyone understands, and then stop understanding it just for the time it takes for the man in the dress to come in.

It's the same when they talk about homophobia, misogyny. For those concepts to hold any water, they have to have the sex based meaning.

Which these idealogues rely on completely in order to make their point, and then throw it all down the toilet to give a win to a man like that.

I have absolutely no doubt that Sal will triumph in the end.

But, like everywhere else, it takes publicity. It takes the weight of public opinion.

And yes, this absolute fucking travesty is a rung on that very ladder.

Quite how he thinks it's progress or discrimination on the basis of sex is being protected against here is beyond me!

An awful lot of people still don't grasp that Jason and his ilk are not being discriminated against for identifying as trans. Women with a trans identity - trans men - could still use Sall's app and can still use female spaces.

He was not excluded from Giggle because he claims a trans identity. He was excluded on the basis of his sex, because he is male. Exactly the same reason as any other male would be excluded. A woman who claims to be a man could join. It's not about trans, it's about male and female.

Until people grasp this - anf it's really not rocket science - there's going to be an impasse.

ETA: Just to be clear, it's this guy who isn't grasping stuff, not the PP!

From that:

"Commission President Hugh de Kretser said: “Everyone should be able to participate equally in our society – at work, in education, housing and beyond. While progress has been made, many people still face discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status."

Quite how he thinks it's progress or discrimination on the basis of sex is being protected against here is beyond me!

Reading a little further, the court made a comment about how it can only apply the law as it is after Gillard fucked with it and it isn't empowered to give its view on that law as it now is.

They may be right. It might actually take a further High Court loss and then subsequently a complete overhaul of the law to take it back to what it was originally....

I'm no lawyer but, given the way the Sex Discrimination Act was rewritten in Australia, this is my thinking too. Would even the High Court have the power to come to a different decision, does anyone know? (Apologies if the info's already on the thread - it's long!)

Absolute solidarity with Sal Grover and gratitude to her for demonstrating what a shit show this is.