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!!

Now now, she knew she was going to lose this round because it's all about the letter of the law.
The Supreme court is different. She discusses the process in most of her interviews.

Thanks @Omlettes and @ArabellaScott for a bit of optimism.

I'm massively pissed off today for a bunch of reasons, some personal and some not and won't derail and bore with the details.

But this is one of the several reasons for my bad mood.

And I will indulge a slight derail on another reason:

Celebrity related. I take very little interest in celebrity life but I had previously thought Joe Wickes seemed quite a decent sort, passion for health and fitness, all round family man. Now he has revealed he likes drinking cupfuls of his wife's breastmilk. 🤮

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just not very bright and doesn't know there are big fetish groups around breastmilk, breastfeeding etc. Julie Bindel has written about it. And hasn't thought about the implications of lots of his followers jumping on his bandwagon and seeking out supplies of breastmilk, demanding their wives and girlfriends produce extra just for them.

But Australian breastfeeding circles are double fucked now, I predict an influx of men wanting breastmilk supplies and God knows what. Ugh. Vile.

Fuck you Roxy Tickle.
Fuck you Julia Gillard.
And now Fuck you Joe Wickes.

🤮🤮🤮

Sorry for the derail.

He doesn’t want to be a woman. He wants to keep his dick and all his male privilege while being able to force women to participate in his perverted sexual fetish.

This is from the BBC article

When Tickle’s lawyer Georgina Costello KC cross examined Grover, she said:
“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?

So that’s a woman is it? Would anyone argue a woman who didn’t do those things was NOT a woman? (Well, yeah, but we know exactly who has always said that don’t we?)

Bad news but not entirely unexpected. Here's to the appeal where they might do things differently. Good luck Sal

Please women in Australia, just WAKE UP.

The relevant law, Sex Discrimination Act 1984 - Section 5B Discrimination on the ground of gender identity:

(2) 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 gender identity if the discriminator imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons who have the same gender identity as the aggrieved person.

The article has been updated

Tickle's face is there now

Is the problem that there are no lawful exceptions for gi, like for lawful sex discrimination?

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, is often described as an international bill of rights for women. Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.

The Convention defines discrimination against women as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field."

The light at the end of the tunnel

There are exemptions, but if gender identity = sex then they're toothless against claimants like Tickle.

See sections 30-47: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02868/latest/text

Oh well. More gardening.
So infuriating.

A disappointing outcome which I hope can be appealed.

However I was heartened by reading in the judgement what a miserable emotional state Roxy Tickle has been experiencing, as a result of his behaviour and the negative reaction to it as the case has been publicised worldwide. A pyrrhic victory for him, which I hope gives him no joy or comfort.

Here's the relevant definition of "gender identity":

gender identity means the gender‑related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender‑related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.

I'd like to see the gender argument succeed in some of the countries signed up to CEDAW. The trans debate was not around at that time and cannot now be argued that TWAW therefore CEDAW applies. I imagine that governments around the world will have to debate and accept, or withdraw from CEDAW, or CEDAW amends. All very, very, messy. Anyone expect anything less?

I’m just catching up on this story after reading it on the BBC website.
I love the line about how he must be a man otherwise there wouldn’t be a case to answer.

I found this tweet heartening, from user Jess (anonotanon).

x.com/anonotanon/status/1826772020107108503

Here's the thing, #TickleVGiggle was always going to turn out this way. If you're surprised, let that go now. The verdict was always going to be weak and frustrating: "Tickle is a woman becausebecausebecause, gender identity mumblemumble adjourned".

Sall knew this better than anyone. Australia, young as we are, is in general short-sighted yet legacy-obsessed. Julia Gillard, Australia's first female Prime Minister, proved herself in 2013 to be no different. Without public consultation, she altered Australia's Sex Discrimination Act. She had biological definitions of sex removed, added gender identity as a protected characteristic (i.e., you're a woman/cat/magical air fryer if you simply identify as that), and conflated sex and these magical genders as the same thing. What does this mean? That apparently people have rights based on their actual sex, and yet have equal rights based on their made-up sex. It's a critical contradiction-- nobody can rely on protection from discrimination on the basis of their sex while anybody can identify as that sex.

If a real woman tells a man-who-identifies-as-a-woman to get out of her work bathroom, who does the law protect? The woman on the basis of her sex? Or the man on the basis of his identity? This is what Tickle V Giggle addressed, but with a female-only app instead of a bathroom. And, again, the verdict was always going to be "Tickle is a woman becausebecausebecause, gender identity mumblemumble adjourned".

A judge was asked to decide what takes precedent in Australia’s newly-crayoned discrimination laws: Sall’s rights as a woman, or Tickle’s rights as a man who calls himself a woman. But, unfortunately, there was always a third option and it was always going to be the one Bromwich chose: to not answer the question at all. He could simply ignore the gross conflicts in the laws, blast past the unconstitutionality of those laws, the conflict with the UN CEDAW treaty (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women), and just choose either Sall’s rights or Tickle’s rights with a hand over one eye. Australia’s sex discrimination laws are Choose Your Own Adventure, and Bromwich chose the easiest road. The one we always knew he would.

If you think this verdict damns Australian women, you’re wrong. It’s disgusting of course, there is no avoiding the sting of being dismissed and gaslit by our very justice system, but I cannot stress enough: This was always going to be outcome. And this was never the hard target. The hard target is getting our broken systems fixed so this never happens again.

So if you’re wondering what happens next, it’s that. It's the appeal. It's the High Court. Better still, the farce that was Tickle V Giggle is the perfect launchpad for what happens next. So buckle up. This is when it gets really interesting. #IStandWithSallGrover

But Justice Robert Bromwich said in his decision on Friday that case law has consistently found sex is “changeable and not necessarily binary”, ultimately dismissing Giggle’s argument.

😠😠😠

Thanks for posting that @CorruptedCauldron

It's cheered me up a bit. 👍🏻

If gender id = sex, then it follows that sex = gender id. They are one and the same thing, and changeable.

So no-one can have a gender id that "mismatches" their sex.

Have they just erased the actual existence of trans people?

Under Aus law, how could anyone have a gender id that differs from their sex? Is everyone "cis" now? What is a trans person and how could anyone be discriminated against for being trans?

Summary judgement “sex is changable”. Jesus wept.

You’re welcome. I definitely needed cheering up after seeing the verdict!

I'd like to think that'll be the biggest load of arse juice I read this week,but I doubt it.

You would think that this reporter knows full well what it means to be a woman. It’s pretty unlikely that Berlusconi would mansplain a handshake to another man (or indeed, a trans woman).

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-65877713

How can a judge get away with saying such nonsense? If that judge said the moon was made of cheese would Elon Musk get rights to mine it and open a dairy company?

Judgement here, if it's not already been posted:

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/roxanne-tickle-v-giggle-for-girls