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

My mistake!

I was confused when I got my HGV licence and all of us on the course were given a Yorkie bar - then grabbed mine back as "not for girls. Like truck driving, actually" chortle chortle

I had a nice gun back then as I reminded them.

Not much coverage of the Cass Report here in Australia. Certainly no real headlines that I’ve seen in mainstream media.

We are existing in a bubble here - people are still, if they have even heard of GI ideology or the laws that have already been passed here, at the incredulous stage of not believing it could possibly be real.

This right here is the reason why it is important for people to keep asking Keir Starmer how many women have a penis.

There's a bit in the TT threadreader that says "GC submits that 200K damages".

Is RT seriously seeking 200K damages?

Sustained misgendering over 3 years.

Misgendering which he would have had to watch Sall's interviews to see. Same with the woman who was selling the "Sweaty balls" merchandise. He was blocked from Sall's Twitter account as well, so it's not like she was engaging with him, or harassing him. He would have had to seek out her tweets.

He comes across like a controlling ex. Apparently he wanted not only to be allowed on the site, but also for the moderators to censor any material or chat he found upsetting!

It's a grift. Sall made such a great point in the interview with Julie Bindel: that it's telling that no media outlet of any significance is getting behind Tickle. So on some level, they know it's a grift.

I was confused when I got my HGV licence and all of us on the course were given a Yorkie bar - then grabbed mine back as "not for girls. Like truck driving, actually" chortle chortle
I had a nice gun back then as I reminded them.
Nice jacket, Brefugee

Disclaimer: I do not condone violence, I just can't resist reviving this old poster from 70s? 80s?

It is also the case, though, that no media outlet is getting behind Sall, either.

That's to be expected, given the extent of media capture in Australia. It's much more remarkable that "brave transwoman" Tickle isn't getting the sympathetic hero coverage, though. Very striking silence on this case.

200k Australian dollars. Near enough £100k.

Tut tut. Sympathetic heroine coverage, surely? 😉

well i had a 9mm Browning pistol, and a Stirling sub-machine gun, but yeah

I think the reason for that is aesthetics. They only really want presentable men in dresses. Tickle is not that. Also, Sal is not clearly some frumpy middle -aged hag that’s just jealous of how pretty a man can be.

Yes. Terrible optics. Did you see the picture of SG and her team outside the court? Pure fabulousness.

Donated very easily!

Has there been a link to TT and the final day of the trial, or have I missed it? I'm not on X so I don't get to see much there.

I think Colin Wright was expected to be a witness and am itching to read his dismantling of the Australian Human Rights Commission, who have declared that yes indeed - humans can change sex!

I've just read a tweet from Rachel Wong, she says they are now just waiting for the judgement.

All I’ve read seems to be about fine points of Australian law and CEDAW, plus some muckraking attempts by RT’s lawyer to discredit Sall Grover. If there’s much in the transcripts about the nub of the issue, whether RT can reasonably be considered a woman, I have missed it. I expect a ruling in favour of Tickle and an appeal by Giggle, in which perhaps the constitutional and logical issues can be addressed.

By all accounts neither side were very good and it was a frustrating watch.

I intend no offence to Australia but I felt that the discussion was very brief and not very detailed. I have watched lots of UK employment tribunals and some of the various GC judicial reviews and was expecting a deeper level of discussion regarding philosophy and law. I hope this judge hasn’t prevented all that just to get the case over with so that a higher court will take it on.

I wanted Sall to have more chance to argue her case in court after so many years of being traduced and hassled.

Agreed, for $500,000 I expected much better.

It all seemed very brief didn't it?

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tickle-vs-giggle?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share

I agree. I remember thinking SG's counsel wasn't great at the earlier hearing to get the case thrown out. However, it turns out she is better than any of the other three lawyers, so at least SG had the best of a not terribly impressive bunch.
I also think SG will lose at this stage, and win on appeal. But it's quite possible, being Australia, that she will lose then as well.