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 am a Lesbian, and I have tried various dating apps. Not lately, though, as it turns out there are actually more men in the world who identify as lesbians than there are women. And many of them don't admit it, and try to fool women into meeting them in person. And you're not allowed to say anything that implies that you are only capable of being attracted to one of the two basic body types, or you'll be banned from the site. So basically, you can waste a bunch of time going through and saying to yourself, "that's a man, that's a man, that's a man, that one might or might not, if it's a man they've been very careful with the photos. Hmmm, how can I find out before agreeing to meet in person? Guess there's no way of knowing. Oh well, I give up."

I’m so sorry. That’s shocking.

It's also bollocks

Sorry, @FreedomDogs you may be right. However unless I misremember you haven’t been a beacon of truth and light on the threads I’ve seen. Unless I’ve mistaken you for someone else, bollocks is your usual offering.

It's also bollocks

Isn't that exactly what Plzdontaskmyname was complaining about?

Yeah?

Tell us more.

I downloaded 'HER' a few days ago. Went into it today with the intention of filling in my profile.

I have four likes. Two of those are clearly male. One of those is wearing fetishwear and hugging a teddy bear.

I've deleted the app.

I thought people weren’t supposed to deny the lived experience of others 🤔 or is that only one way as well

And exactly what sigma said

I suppose one way of discriminating would be by stupid names, as in the case of Mr Tickle. But that would eliminate women who had non-sensible parents such as Cherry Orchard and Pearl Button, at my sisters' school.

She wrote a very well researched book on the topic and is director of a charity that campaigns on the importance of sex in policy, law and culture. Hardly a non-expert.

Touché! 😂

BUT SHE IDENTIFIES AS A BIOLOGIST! not just any biologist the best and most valid and knowledgeable biologist evvah.
So much better that all the cis biologists!

Why is it bollocks. Lots of reports - one done by the BBC - suggesting that transwomen identifying as Lesbians are found in online dating sites - and photos can be 'improved' to make them look like women, until you meet them.

There's an interview with Sal on The Mess we're in at 8pm tonight. Should be interesting!

Link here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hQDcFyUoTxI

I'm having a garage sale to fund the fuel for the rocket. Gotta start somewhere.

It might trigger the intervention of Australia’s eSafety Commissioner who has form in blocking access in Australia to content that it not compliant with gender identity ideology:

https://adfinternational.org/news/billboard-chris-in-legal-battle

Can't find any posted recording of this.

It's on youtube:

Thankyou.

Has anyone seen this blog post by Michael Foran? He's on Twix and posts really interesting breakdowns of public law matters and is not indoctrinated by trans/gender ideology. He says that both Tickle and Giggle's legal defence was not really competent. I think some of the article is behind a paywall, I'll see if the archive website will have it though.

The archived post also is paywalled, however a lot of interesting commentary is still available before it stops so I do recommend reading it.

I forgot to say, he's a lecturer on public law at the university of Glasgow and some TRAs have tried to get him sacked before. Dick heads.

I can't see the post so I don't know what his specific criticisms are, but fwiw I thought the same at the time. I was quite shocked by the level of argument at the hearing, including the judge's interventions, as compared to the court proceedings we have followed on Tribunal Tweets here. I am very concerned and I wish and hope Sall gets a better lawyer for the next round.

It's a publically available article, only the latter part is paywalled so I don't know why you can't access it.

Interesting paragraph in particular (in relation to s32 which provides legal exemptions of the prohibition of discrimination where the nature of the service provided is such that it can only be provided to members of one sex):

"Giggle made no reference to s 32 at all in this case and the pleaded defence did not rely on the reasonableness defence. In closing submissions, lead counsel referenced the reasonableness defence, “but made no attempt to explain how it applied in this case, let alone any attempt to discharge the burden of establishing that was so required by s 7C” [37]. It was therefore impossible for the Court to decide in Giggle’s favour on those grounds because they were simply not argued."