To think the world has gone fucking mad

[Startrekkeruniverse]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po

The defendant didn't cover herself in glory....

As others have said, this insane-seeming decision came about as a result of the law. In particular:

5B Discrimination on the ground of gender identity
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of the aggrieved person’s gender identity if, by reason of:
(a) the aggrieved person’s gender identity; or
(b) a characteristic that appertains generally to persons who have the same gender identity as the aggrieved person; or
(c) a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons who have the same gender identity as the aggrieved person;
the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person who has a different gender identity.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of the aggrieved person’s gender identity if the discriminator imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons who have the same gender identity as the aggrieved person.

Hellofabore, wow… Thanks for all of this information.
Makes me glad I don’t do social media (apart from MN).

I’m not well read on the topic, just what I see in the news.
But, I’m worried about my child’s future with all of this!

If Tickle were teleported to Afghanistan tomorrow he'd drop the trans identity quicker than you can say 'entitled wanker'.

“It’s a landmark ruling when it comes to gender identity, and at the very heart of the case was the ever more contentious question: what is a woman?”

That that question is in any way contentious is the problem. In what sensible world is such a straightforward question, with straightforward answer, contentious?

As a bonus, this is how Australian law defines "gender identity" for the purposes of the section 5B I posted above:

gender identity means the gender‑related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender‑related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.

I think this Menno compilation is appropriate.

Operation: Let them speak.

Here is Y chromosome too.

So the judge said Giggle discriminated because other people with the GI of 'woman' were allowed on the app but not this person with that GI. But did the court hear evidence that the app even asks about GI? I would guess that other uses may not have a GI at all, so on what basis can there have been GI discrimination?

(I realise I am somewhat clutching at straws here!)

If Tickle were teleported to Afghanistan tomorrow he'd drop the trans identity quicker than you can say 'entitled wanker'.

I'd watch that reality show. Quick, someone commission it!

I didn’t even need to read the article to guess who of the two was Sally Grover and who was “Roxanne Tickle” 🙄

I was a bit taken aback that he posits 'cis women' as the comparator for assessing discrimination, because that implies that cis women do not have a gender identity: in effect, he has made 'has a gender identity' co-terminous with 'has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment' (the concept found in English law).

I can see why, because the claimant is only disadvantaged relative to those of the same legal sex by the 'no manly faces' rule.

A similar judgment could happen in the UK based on the PC of GR, with limited scope for pushback (in cases where fairness, decency or safety is a factor, we can bring in sex discrimination, because women are more disadvantaged by mixed sex spaces than men are: but where's the LAPA in any single sex purely social group?).

Effectively Crouton19 people working in the app discriminated because they saw that Tickle was a male person (and weren't bothered about any gender identity) and excluded on that basis. Once Tickle played the trump card of a feminine gender identity the people either have to back down and provide open access or be liable to legal action and lose.

Yep. Contemptible.

Tickle is a disgrace.

I hear you.

When you peak under the surface on this, there is so much that means that you can never simply remain ignorant again.

There is even a porn category of male people masturbating in female toilets with their fully functional penises and their oestrogen derived breast on full display in the video taken in cubicles where women are peeing in the next cubicle or are toileting their children.

Again, not all are like this, but there are now far too many instances to ignore that there are plenty that display very concerning behaviours that are harmful to female people.

Roxy Tickle? Who the fuck calls themselves that?

Anyway, yeah, biological males are allowed into female safe spaces. Even though the absence of biological males is what makes them safe. So now they aren’t safe. Well played Australia 🙄

This is why the law needs to be really clear in favour of biological sex. There's pressure on our government to do this. It is needed because cases like this just cause more division & certainly don't help so called trans individuals.

You mean she's got large gametes 😉

in what way?

It's so refreshing to see this discussed out in the open and without the bullshit of "TERF" or "bigot" to shut us down. Times are a-changing, despite this judgement.

Did the plaintiff cover themselves in glory in your opinion?

“Tickle vs Giggle” 🤦‍♀️

When you peak under the surface on this, there is so much that means that you can never simply remain ignorant again.

saw what you did there, @Helleofabore

That's not the point.

TERFs have a day off challenge