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

Edited because redundant.

I agree, but I'm hopeful that an appeal would have a better outcome like Maya's case. Also, there would be some time in the interim to drum up more media attention for the appeal so more people in Australia know what's happening.

I'm also hopeful of the fact that if SG loses, the media reporting of it will likely peak many people, who will see the batshittery.

Exactly - sunlight at least.

I hope she will win, but I am wondering what the situation would be if Sall moved Giggle out of Australia and ran it from somewhere else. I should imagine if Tickle wins, she might decide to stop Giggle altogether, rather than being forced to let her app be overrun by other predatory men, which it will be. Would moving to a new country help?

Given the Australian eSafety Commissioner forced the deletion of (Canadian) Billboard Chris’ tweets about an Australian transgender person with exhibitionist and bestiality interests being selected to join a UN group, I can’t see that Australian officials will stop targeting it even if based overseas.

They could stop it reaching Australian women - blocking it or demanding SG block it - but they couldn't stop it operating elsewhere in the world, surely?

What struck me in watching her interviews was that they got targeted very often by men bombarding the app - sometimes hundreds or thousands of men an hour if a call had gone out on twitter or something.
So Tickle wasn't the only pest she had to deal with, there were many others, he was just the one who harassed her personally and then took it to court.

Like really, what a bunch of fuckheads, why can't they just leave women be...so depressing.

@HornyHornersPinkyWinky I know it’s so bizarre. Like, I kind of get why a deluded man would privately/twitter whinge about being rejected by the app, but to take things this far, waste so much of their own time/energy - that’s some serious derangement. Or misogyny, or both! Why it wasn’t all immediately just laughed out of court is beyond me tbh Living in the upside down

It's just that to some men it is intolerable that women should have anything to themselves.

I like it when Sall says “we should have our own spaces because we want them”

yeah don't get into a debate about it. We want them and that's it.

Ultimately, there is no real argument for allowing trans people to use opposite sex spaces or calling them by their chosen pronouns which doesn't boil down to "because it's what they want".

So why should we not be entitled to have what we want too?

And if what we want conflicts with what they want, at that point you need to go back to looking at people's actual needs and how they can be met. Trans people need places to use the toilet and get changed safely. They don't need to do these things in the presence of unconsenting women. They also don't need to compete in the Olympics.

Am I imagining that there was a fourth day of legal arguments? I thought there was one but I can't see the TT transcription on their substack.

A first-hand enjoyably chatty account of how things went in court from women's right's campaigners from the Welcome to the Dollhouse channel:

No - there wasn't a 4th day. The judge ended proceedings (seemed abrupt to those in the courtroom) at the end of Day 3. I'm going to post up Kat's analysis of Day 3 when she finishes it. But she's shattered and is trying to catch up on her day job.

Oh, I see.Thanks, Justabaker.

This all kinda proves that women need their own spaces.

Having listened to some of this, my assessment of BN's advocacy has improved. I got a better sense of what she was arguing.

I think one of her main non-CEDAW arguments is that essentially RT's claim for GI discrimination is one that only a woman who claims to be a man could bring. If RT is a woman, then he has no claim for unlawful discrimination based on gender identity.
If he does have a transgender identity of "woman" then he must be male and can't argue about being excluded because of his sex. Bearing in mind women with a transgender identity are accepted.
Hence the bizarre assertion by his lawyer that the ordinary meaning of "woman" in Australia is person with certificate. To try to sidestep the contradiction, I assume.

I think I have got all of that right but please correct me if I have misunderstood.

I was hoping BN would argue something straightforwardly based on comparators, but in the context of TWAW Australian legal culture, this argument is better. It's about the logic of his claim for unlawful discrimination rather than disputing the legal fact of his "womanhood". I like it better than the argument about female psychology because although we can relate, the judge won't. And there will be some women in the world who don't think that way, or will say they don't, for head pats.

Anyway, everything crossed for Sall.

Thank you @nauticant for this link. There is so little GC commentary in Australia it is good to know about this podcast. 😀

I really enjoy the Welcome to the Dollhouse channel. Looking at what's going on in Australia rather than in the US provides an interesting compare and contrast to the UK.

@Snowypeaks This stuff is so easy to get back to front.

essentially RT's claim for GI discrimination is one that only a woman who claims to be a man could bring

should read “essentially RT's claim for GI discrimination is one that only a man who claims to be a woman could bring”

… I think!

What I meant was - an actual woman could say that as a female, she was being refused access to a women-only app because of her transgender identity. (That first sentence is my take on it, it's not what BN said.)
RT says he is a woman because he has a certificate. But if he is literally a woman/female, then he can't be trans, so can't claim gender identity discrimination on the grounds of his transgender identity. Is that clearer?

Thanks, it does look as if I misinterpreted - though I think my interpretation of what I thought you meant also makes sense. This stuff is ridiculously difficult to pin down and be certain what anyone means, including what the law means.

I just listened to Sall's interview on the Heretics podcast, thought she was beautifully eloquent. I'm glad she raised all the money she targetted for, it sounds like a loss and appeal is expected, like Forstater.

Please be kind. My previous experiences of this forum have not been good, but I have no where else to express my opinions on this matter. I'm trained in law so logically I was expecting the outcome today. As a woman I have a real visceral reaction to the verdict. How in what possible reality does that man have female sex! I'm so angry!