Tickle v Giggle decision Friday 23 August

[Wearingmybluejumper]

The long awaited decision will apparently be live-streamed at 9 am Friday 23 August (AEST). See screenshot from X below.
I feel suddenly anxious!!

I've only caught up with this today. I am reminded of a pub in Dorset which had a notice on the door "No students", which we observed despite being from an evening class. If that was how he felt, we didn't want to be in his flipping pub. The subject came up of East Anglian pubs which didn't serve pea-pickers, and how far the right of the providers of a service to limit the group they provided it to extended. It was agreed that there was such a right. A publican, or a shopkeeper can refuse to serve someone, and expel them from his premises. In the case of the chap in Dorset, muddy boots and rucksacs of rock specimens probably justified the ban. The pea-pickers not so, as that would be code for gypsies, and like no blacks, no Irish, etc. is not permitted under law. Behaviour can justify removal, but physical type can't.
This case seems to mean that people cannot choose who they serve on the basis of presented sex, that men wanting to enter women's spaces, even if private and not set up to provide for them, are in the case of pea-pickers, whereas from the women's POV they are more like muddy-booted students who do not respect the usual clientele and trample over their needs.
Can't they be excluded on the criteria of their behaviour, breach of rules say? Would that be legal? Musk does it. FB does it. You wouldn't have to mention their gender status, unless they found out that all the people so excluded had that in common.
And other members just send them to Coventry.

This tweet is interesting.

https://x.com/MickamiousG/status/1826783557756625353

And they are right. The words spoken by Gillard are so hypocritical now.

@SensibleSigma
I wonder whether Sal could open a board for people without gendered identities?

Maybe solely base membership on the provision of a chromosome test showing XX? Don't mention man/woman or male /female in the rules, just "person/member/applicant". "The board is for persons with a XX chromosome set, to discuss difficulties arising from this in healthcare, the workspace, etc."
I want to see the judge trying to pry this open for XY chromosome carriers.

It would exclude the tiny minority of XY women with CAIS, but that cannot be helped at the moment.

I don't think there is a law powerful enough that would turn Tickle into a woman.

Maybe solely base membership on the provision of a chromosome test showing XX? Don't mention man/woman or male /female in the rules, just "person/member/applicant". "The board is for persons with a XX chromosome set, to discuss difficulties arising from this in healthcare, the workspace, etc."

That could easiy run into problems from another part of the Act:

5C Discrimination on the ground of intersex status
(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 intersex status if, by reason of:
(a) the aggrieved person’s intersex status; or
(b) a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of intersex status; or
(c) a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of intersex status;
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 is not of intersex status.

They wouldn't be able to do that, based on this ruling, because a chromosome test showing XX would be indirectly discriminatory against men with female gender identities because it would not disambiguate them from men with male gender identities. The judge made very clear that you cannot use sexed criteria (sex at birth, chromosomes, male appearance etc) to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. The only way I can see you could potentially get around this would be to buy into the gender ideology and say that the service is for females with a female gender identity only ('cisgender women'). The really interesting question would be if you would be able to justify having a cisgender woman only space. Given that the judge said that 'transwomen ARE women' this would probably be seen as discriminatory, because it's equivalent to excluding lesbian women, or black women from a woman-only group. It's a total shit show. It also means that trans people get double equality law protection - one, on the basis of being trans, but also on the basis of 'gender identity'.

Very sad news. And the international aspect is worrying.

Judgement now up. Decision was that Roxanne Tickle was indirectly discriminated against on grounds of sex. Giggle has to pay 10k. Tickle wanted 200k. Apparently Australian case law shows that changing sex is possible and than sex is not binary. (I was unaware that case law was scientific info.)
Seem not only to have drunk the Kool-Aide but also swallowed a whole lot of unscientific nonsense. They should be fed the Salmon of Doubt.

OMFG the TRANSPHOBIA!!!!!

If you are suggesting people who aren't trans are intentionally joining groups intended for the opposite sex just to cause trouble I don't think this should be encouraged? And I don't think it would be appropriate for Mumsnet to permit the organising of this if you were being serious about it?

This decision is so predictably depressing. It’s pretty much what can easily be decided here if the Equality Act isn’t amended to clarify the difference between legal and biological sex, so watch this space.

And does anyone else think Gilead, when reading Gillard?

If you are suggesting people who aren't trans are intentionally joining groups intended for the opposite sex just to cause trouble I don't think this should be encouraged?
If someone says they are trans, they are. Keep up, Christina.

And does anyone else think Gilead, when reading Gillard?

We do now.

It may have escaped your notice that trans people are joining groups intended for the opposite sex.

I am talking about people who aren't trans (which there is a word for, but for some reason it's not allowed on here?) joining groups/apps such as dating apps which they don't intend to use for the intended purpose (I think is a key point here) and seem to be setting out just to cause trouble.

Just going to leave this here:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/23/graham-linehan-joins-queer-womens-dating-app-her-stunt-14130662/

Glinner didn't seem to like the article describing him trolling a lesbian app, however the IPSO didn't uphold the complaint he made:

www.ipso.co.uk/rulings/01958-21/

@Christinapple :
"If you are suggesting people who aren't trans are intentionally joining groups intended for the opposite sex just to cause trouble I don't think this should be encouraged"

Yeah, well, in my country, we'll have Self-ID from November on. No proof of anything necessary. Just get your paperwork changed on request... (and again after 365 days).
At some point women will use this to fight for their rights. Be kind is over, I think.

There are no single sex spaces anymore, Chris. We're all in together, men and women. Soz.

Yes that's correct - people (men) who force themselves into groups intended for the opposite sex when they are not actually wanted in that group is very wrong.

Even the committed LGBTQIA++++ ideologues have moaned about straight “cisgender” men on dating apps so it’s obviously a thing. I guess the trick is working out which men genuinely believe themselves to be trans and which ones are just pretending. I was fully convinced Dylan Mulvany was a fake pretend woman when he first did his days of girlhood on TikTok but it transpired he was a genuine pretend woman. Question is how does anyone ever tell the difference?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1047721

There’s no issue with using the words for people who aren’t trans on Mumsnet. They are ‘men’ and ‘women’. Men who wear dresses and lipstick aren’t welcome in spaces for women. You know, dating apps. Things like that.

Don’t you be assuming anyone’s gender, Chris. Who are you to decide?

I might present in a feminine way most of the time, call myself she (at the moment) but that doesn’t make me a woman now, does it? What’s your criteria for “man” - I’ve not had my chromosomes tested. What’s your criteria for “trans”? How do you know I don’t meet it?

Please let me know a cast iron definition or we’ll all have to stick with “I am what ever I say I am” and that’s a rod YOU’VE made for everyone’s backs.

"She cannot win. He stands his ground.
The planet goes on being round."
Wendy Cope.

I'm certainly a woman and not a man by the sex based definitions, but you don't accept those definitions.

By the genderist I'm definitely not a woman, so in a world where gender identity takes precedence why would I not qualify for men's groups?

Yet another example that someone can become a judge without being clever or knowledgeable or thoughtful.

Just Amnesty International celebrating the judicial erasure and subjugation of women. Never give these bastards a penny of your money. Never.