Tickle vs Giggle

[KCOZ]

For those of who are aware of the Tickle vs Giggle court case in Australia, Sall Grover is looking for some gardening to be done to support her defence. The deplorable response of politicians and the press in Australia to the Let Women Speak rallies, only emphasises how important this case will be.

Just search Giggle crowd fund - she has set up her own site to avoid any potential censorship by the established sites

April 10, part 1
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240410041612/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777841201007472750.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240410041612/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777841201007472750.html

part 2
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240410041634/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777873930017255827.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240410041634/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777873930017255827.html

part 3
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240410052449/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777891474551828726.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240410052449/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777891474551828726.html

Hi all. An amazing woman from Australia, https://twitter.com/KatKarena, is live tweeting TvG on Tribunal Tweets 2. She's doing a fab job. She's also doing her analysis of the day on her personal twitter, which I'm linking to the Substack. https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tickle-vs-giggle

If you see press coverage of the case, can you link here? I think I've got most of the older material as well as 8 & 9 April.

Thanks

Baker

There's also good coverage by Stephanie Bastiaan who is tweeting - it's useful to read alongside Tribunal Tweets 2:
on Twitter/X as
@ stephbastiaan

(obviously no gap between the @ and s - if the twitter handle is typed correctly, MN defaults to a non-existent MN user name)

Where's the relentlessness of most women's lives? Some of that looks fun: shopping, playing hockey. Some i wish i had time for: removal of facial hair

Where's the meal planning, ferrying offspring to school/activities, the sink unblocking, ironing, washing (god the endless washing), the food shopping, the budgeting, dusting... where is all that?

Day 2

Part 1 <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240410041612/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777841201007472750.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240410041612/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777841201007472750.html

Part 2 <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240410041634/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777873930017255827.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240410041634/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777873930017255827.html

Part 3 <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240410052449/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777891474551828726.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240410052449/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777891474551828726.html

Part 4 <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240410054002/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777909899282030709.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240410054002/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777909899282030709.html

Yeah. Tell me you're not a woman without telling me you're not a woman.

I'm still laughing about this.....

The counsel for Tickle was pretty poor, I thought. Even the judge ended up saying yes, we know Sall doesn't think Tickle is a woman - what's your point?

The AHRC position is extraordinary. No, CEDAW does not define "woman". It also doesn't define "law". Because we all know what those words mean.

How can it be legitimate to apply a modern interpretation to a treaty written in 1979? Women have not changed, just because Australia changed its laws. Women are still female.

God I know. Even on days where I've 'done nothing' like today because I'm fucking disabled I've done laundry, emptied the bastard dehumidifier, cooked some food, washed up a bit, done half the bins, tidied the bathroom after myself, messaged all the family, done my medical life admin so no-one else has to, added to a shopping list, dealt with the post, and thought about people other than myself.

And I was up till 3am this morning making sure that links to the Cass Report were in the right place for the right people to see this morning, in my professional world.

But oh god MY HAIR, MY FROCKS

How can it be legitimate to apply a modern interpretation to a treaty written in 1979?

As I posted upthread, this approach in legal interpretation lies at the heart of the war between the textualists and the purposivists in legal systems all over, but particularly in the US. It's part of the conflict that been going on in and around the US Supreme Court.

That last argument worries me. Surely there are times when we do have to update our interpretation of old laws to a new society and our new understanding? We had to update our interpretation of marriage laws to include same-sex couples.

I just don't think this is one of those times. Men haven't ever become women and women haven't ever become men, and gender identity hasn't become more important than sex.

e.g. If someone says "X is nonbinary" the first thing I need to know is whether X is a nonbinary woman or a nonbinary man. X's sex will make more important differences than their gender identity to how they will interact with me and how I will need to interact with them.

And yet simultaneously, 1864 is suddenly very important in Arizona in order to take rights away from women.

Thanks Crow, for very well made pony, and a welcome laugh

*AutumnCrow · Today 16:48
Brefugee · Today 14:44

Where's the relentlessness of most women's lives? Some of that looks fun: shopping, playing hockey. Some i wish i had time for: removal of facial hair

Where's the meal planning, ferrying offspring to school/activities, the sink unblocking, ironing, washing (god the endless washing), the food shopping, the budgeting, dusting... where is all that?
Show quote history
God I know. Even on days where I've 'done nothing' like today because I'm fucking disabled I've done laundry, emptied the bastard dehumidifier, cooked some food, washed up a bit, done half the bins, tidied the bathroom after myself, messaged all the family, done my medical life admin so no-one else has to, added to a shopping list, dealt with the post, and thought about people other than myself.

And I was up till 3am this morning making sure that links to the Cass Report were in the right place for the right people to see this morning, in my professional world.

But oh god MY HAIR, MY FROCKS*

I remembered somebody saying that, had forgotten it was you, and on this very thread!

I think the AHRC claim that CEDAW covers men who claim to be women as well fails on both textualist and purposivist analysis. (Textual analysis is covered by Reem Alasalem of course.) The purpose was to protect the cohort of people who were being oppressed and exploited because of their reproductive function and their relative weakness. And when you remember Zellie Hegel (or whatever the name is) says that no surgery or changes are necessary to change a man into a woman, then CEDAW could apply to literally anybody. So what would be the point of it when we have a Human Rights Declaration dating from just after WWII?

I could understand a case like this: 50-year-old law about telecommunications (for example) prohibits tapping a "phone". Then 40 years later, court decides it applies to computers as well, because they can also be used as communications devices in the same way as phones, and if the drafters of the old law had seen modern computers, they would have included them. That makes sense. You can expand the meaning of "phone" to encompass anything with the same function. A computer doesn't have to look like a 1970s phone or connect via a metal wire. The purpose of the law was obviously to protect privacy being breached. Fine.

But what the AHRC are claiming is the equivalent of saying that you should expand the meaning of "phone" to anything that looks like a phone, or anything the Australian Parliament says is a phone. Even it's a cake in the shape of a phone and can't be used to communicate with anyone or anything, this law would apply to it.

Men have not evolved into women since 1979. The 1979 drafters did know about transsexuals (as they were then) and this treaty was not about them. The rights and freedoms it confers and the oppression and persecution it tries to counter could not apply to them regardless of the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. It's mad.

Yes, fair point in your first paragraph. I should have said,
"How can it be legitimate to apply a modern interpretation "of the word woman" to a treaty written in 1979?"

I'll put forward the opposing argument. If you want the law to cover new or different things the way to do it is to amend the law or pass new laws, rather than going further and further down the line where old laws are being interpreted in all kinds of creative ways that just lead to massive arguments in courts. It's a good thing to have clear laws that cover what they were written to cover.

Also, I approve of your analysis of textualist and purposivist interpretations as they apply to this case Snowypeaks.

I'd already donated but after watching this terrific interview I will be getting the gardening gloves on again if there's an appeal. What a wonderful woman Sall Grover is! 😍😍

'Thought about someone other than myself" is the core of womaning really, isn't it? And the thing that the Roxies of this world never ever ever ever ever ever get.

I saw on Twitter that Roxy tickle's lawyers kept misgendering "them" If true it's very funny and completely undermines "their" case. 🤭

This tweet is brilliant -

'Today, the #TicklevGiggle courtroom was full of @salltweets’ supporters, all of us there in solidarity, as she underwent cross-examination on why she had refused to allow a man (Roxy Tickle) to use her female-only networking app, Giggle. For more than two hours, Tickle’s lawyer tried her best to portray Sall as someone who is discriminatory and unkind, but every response Sall gave, only served to reaffirm just how reasonable, genuine, and right she is.

During cross, his lawyer tried to get Sall to – among other things – agree that Tickle is a woman.
Lawyer: You have previously said that you would be kind to Ms Tickle if you met her in real life?
Sall: Yes.
Lawyer: Would you call her Ms Tickle?
Sall. No, I would not.
Lawyer: But that’s not kind, is it?
Sall: I don’t think it’s kind to expect a woman to see a man as a woman. Lawyer: Ms Tickle is a woman, isn’t she?
Sall: Tickle is a biological male. Lawyer: Even where a person who was assigned male at birth transitions to a woman by having surgery, hormones, gets rid of facial hair, undergoes facial reconstruction, grows their hair long, wears make up, wears female clothes, describes themselves as a woman, introduces themselves as a woman, uses female changing rooms, changes their birth certificate – you don’t accept that is a woman do you?
Sall: No.
Lawyer: I suggest to you that in Australian society, the normal meaning of a woman is someone who has changed their birth certificate to say woman, what would you say to that?
Sall: I don’t agree.

The lawyer, who by then appeared quite agitated, was forced to move on to a new line of questioning, perhaps realising that trying to get Sall to say men can be women, is like trying to get any reasonable person to say that 2 + 2 = 5. No words can do justice to just how phenomenal Sall was in that witness box. Calm, articulate and sincere, she did every woman and girl, and every single person who has supported her in this nightmare so far, unbelievably proud. I’m just sorry more people couldn’t have seen it. Men can never be women. And we will not stop fighting until our laws reflect this reality, and women and their sex-based rights and protections – including female-only spaces, services and sports – are restored.  gigglecrowdfund.com #AusPol #IStandWithSallGrover

x.com/RachaelWongAus/status/1778060433154556283

That was certainly the impression I got from reading TT's transcript.

And this:
Lawyer: I suggest to you that in Australian society, the normal meaning of a woman is someone who has changed their birth certificate to say woman, what would you say to that?

The normal meaning? Give over!

Discussed on the Project (a popular “liberal” program here in Australia) a couple of days ago. The compere Waleed Ali was all very “beee kiiind” but I thought the journalist interviewed provided a reasonably balanced perspective. Hope this link works:

If that's the normal meaning of a woman, then there must be hardly any women in Australia.

I hope that the judge will be swayed by the fact that even Tickle’s own lawyer doesn’t believe Tickle is a woman, to the point where she was becoming incoherent.

Of course, it will come down to how the judge interprets the law, but if the law is so nonsensical that nobody can believe it, it must give pause for thought.

I also hope any papers that report it use the juxtaposition of the two images of the claimant and respondent, as has widely been done on Twitter. Those pictures could not be a better illustration of the situation. The reality of these men is commonly about as far from Hayley Cropper as it could be. The fact that Sal Grover is also an attractive young woman is the icing on the cake.