Possible world wide ramifications of the Tickle v Giggle ruling.

[TheywontletmehavethenameIwant]

Here's an article that comes to a very depressing conclusion.

Australia has abolished womanhood - spiked (spiked-online.com)

"What ought to send a shiver down the spine of all right-thinking people is that this ruling could have huge ramifications for those in other countries across the globe. The Convention to Eliminate All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the UN. It is an agreement that recognises the specific needs of women. Giggle’s defence argued that Australia’s ratification of CEDAW obliges the state to protect women’s rights, including single-sex spaces. That Justice Bromwich rejected this will have ramifications for the 186 countries that have ratified CEDAW, as judges across the world look to landmark rulings like this to inform domestic decisions."

I've also just seen this. Depressing and highly worrying that the court deems biology to not be binary. I mean WTF.

Biological man sees a tiny safe space for women and thinks Fuck them, I want that too. Which is ironic considering it's this type of entitled behaviour that drives real women to look for these places.

Australia has lost its mind.

I've posted this on another thread - amazingly still in AIBU - but it is worth putting here

(3) Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls on X: "Not only disappointed but also very concerned about this dystopian ruling on #TickleVGiggle , which distorts key concepts like sex and discrimination while dodging Australia's international human rights obligations vis-à-vis women. If unchallenged, this decision would set a" / X

ramifications? everyone on planet earth (barring the koolaid nutters) will wonder what the fuck happened to Australia. An international laughing stock. (except its not actually funny)

Australia cannot be thinking that when CEDAW was drawn up in 1979, presumably with no definition of 'woman' as everyone was assumed to have a common definition, that it was intended to be used to protect male people?

I dont doubt that other countries will point to this, but the decision was based on past Australian court cases. Which is depressing of course.

... the federal court justice Robert Bromwich said the respondents had considered “sex” to mean an unchangeable sex of a person at birth.

“These arguments failed because the view propounded by the respondents conflicted with a long history of cases decided by courts going back over 30 years. Those … cases established that on its ordinary meaning sex is changeable,” he said.

.... The judge said the evidence did not establish Tickle was excluded from Giggle directly “by reason of her gender identity although it remains possible that this was the real but unproven reason”.

Rather, the indirect discrimination case succeeded because Tickle was excluded from the use of the social media app “because she did not look sufficiently female”.

... The Australian Human Rights Commission acted as a friend of the court. Barrister Zelie Heger told the court that sex was no longer defined in the Sex Discrimination Act but that “importantly the act recognises that a person’s sex is not limited to [being a man or a woman]”.

Although these arguements certainly have an echo of how in the UK the GRA has created the 2 types of women, ie actual women and "legal women".

Jesus suffering Christ (& all the angels, saints, & men & women of God you can shake a bishop’s crook at, frankly).

The judge said the evidence did not establish Tickle was excluded from Giggle directly “by reason of her gender identity although it remains possible that this was the real but unproven reason”.

Rather, the indirect discrimination case succeeded because Tickle was excluded from the use of the social media app “because she did not look sufficiently female”.

I could honestly weep.

Your one was excluded for being male. As simple as that. Nothing to do with their “gender identity” - they could have any GI under the sun - & everything to do with the fact that humans cannot change sex. Various countries have allowed the absurdity of the fiction of a “legal sex”; & have allowed people to create forms of ID stating they are members of the opposite sex. Those absurd - immoral, even - laws have not made humans able to change sex. Males with birth certificates, passports, NHS numbers & driving licences identifying them as female are still male. Just males in a position of power & privilege; with whom the State is colluding in a lie; & who exercise their male privilege every time they enter a space that is meant to be reserved for women - either without considering those women & their needs, or deciding their selfish desires are paramount.

The judge’s conclusion is patently absurd & ripe for the disproving: just for a start how many “butch”/otherwise “unfeminine” users do we imagine Giggle has? I’m fairly sure women would happily sign up in their least “feminine” looks purely to disprove that twaddle. Then who is to say what gender ID people hold? The closest thing a TERF-type would have to one is being agender, after all. So clearly Giggle is open to a range of gender IDs as well as levels of [performing] femininity. It’s just, as Ms Grover has argued throughout, not open to members of the male sex. However they may identify; & however the law may try to redefine “sex” into something meaningless.

“importantly the act recognises that a person’s sex is not limited to [being a man or a woman]”.

Oh, FFS!

Well all this is a reminder that it seems in Australia as in the UK the erosion of women's sex based rights have not only been gradually eroded on a social level, but that courts have also been adopting this attitude that sex isn't actually a biological reality, it is what someone wants or demands it to be.

"But Grover believes no human being has or can change sex - which is the pillar of gender-critical ideology".

'gender critical ideology'?? Why does this negative term even exist, except to undermine the views of anyone who dares to tell the truth.

I have a cat that acts in a dog like manner. I wonder what the vets would say if I asked for her to be registered and treated as a dog? What about the ban on XL Bully Dogs? Surely, if the dog sees itself as a Labrador, then it should be classified as one thereby negating the ban! Sod biology and facts. So unfashionable these days.

It's a pillar of reality.

This is exactly why right-wing governments are rising all over the Western world. People on the street have had enough of delusional zealots trying to rewrite reality with no hint of sanity coming from the Liberal left. I hope there will be an appeal?

The rise of right-wing and far-right parties in Western countries is not largely due to encroachment of transgender activism on women's sex-based rights, but to a pivot to right-wing populism that is not really related to safeguarding women's rights.

It sounds depressing but most voters in general, even in countries where self ID became legal, still do not voice concern about such impingement as much as they do about other election issues, even if they understand that legal sex being different from biological sex can cause problems for women.

Self ID is not something that is only pushed by left-wing/centrist governments; the Swedish government that recently adopted self ID, for instance, is led by a right-leaning/right-wing coalition. The Finnish self ID law was also passed by the right-wing coalition.

I know quite a few women who have swung to the right because of this specific issue. And longer term I suspect the current 'right-wing' govs in Scandinavian countries will be the new lefties as populism grows.

There are women who fight against the intrusion regardless of their political affiliation and there may also be women who have swung to the right due to this issue; however, my point was about how most voters, including those in countries with self ID laws, still do not consider it their priority when voting.

So the aforementioned women have yet to emerge as a voting bloc that can strongly impact the outcome of elections, because not enough people care about how women can be disadvantaged by self ID.

Yes you're right it's a slow burner but it's changing. Every bit of sunlight seems to wake more people up. The fragrant, weeping Tickle is just the latest sunbeam. People are talking about the whole issue now in a way I wasn't even hearing 6 months ago.

I hope Labour are paying attention because they largely got in for 'not being Tories'. The next swing away from them will be a gift for Reform.

Yes, I hope this ruling at least makes some Australians and others who follow world news (including Labour, as you mentioned) think more deeply about legal ramifications of self ID solely based on gender identity.

In light of Alsalem's comment, I wonder if the legal team representing Giggle considered submitting a complaint to Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), though I am unsure if this avenue can be only pursued if the High Court of Australia upholds this ruling.

The thing is, at the end of the day, the supposedly left-wing goal of taking women's and girls' spaces and handing them to men and boys... also accomplishes the right-wing goal of edging women out of public life and taking away their resources.

Apparently, to submit a complaint to the CEDAW one does need to exhaust national remedies.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/wg-women-and-girls/note-different-procedures-within-un-system-dealing-womens-human-rights-violations

There exist several avenues for bringing individual complaints relating to discrimination against women to the United Nations bodies. One can send a complaint to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women or another treaty body, such as the Human Rights Committee, the special procedures of the Human Rights Council or the Commission on the Status of Women..

Generally, complaints should include a detailed factual account of the violation and all supporting documentation. They should not be politically motivated nor have abusive language. Each complaint system has its own advantages, but some mechanisms will not accept a complaint if another is already dealing with the issue, so it is important to understand how each mechanism works.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. CEDAW Committee consists of 23 experts on women’s rights from around the world.

Victims of an alleged violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) may submit a complaint to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The procedure under the Optional Protocol is quasi-judicial and if successful, the Committee will request the State party concerned to provide redress to the victim.

The complaint will only be admissible if:

The State party responsible for the violation has ratified or acceded to an instrument called the Optional Protocol to CEDAW (OP-CEDAW) before the violation took place or, in the case the violation took place before such ratification or accession, it can be successfully argued that the violation has continuing effects, i.e. it continues to deploy its effects after the entry into force of OP-CEDAW

The victim has “exhausted domestic remedies,” meaning that the victim has tried to remedy the violation in her country first. This requirement can be waived if the domestic remedy will be ineffective or take too long to realize.

So how does this ruling sit with all the other men/trans identifying men who were trying to get onto the app and being refused? Does it rule that she needs to provide access to all comers?
More light is being shone on the problem, and I will be proud to support her appeal to higher courts

That’s why the app is not active/current. Sall would rather it not be available than have to compromise her users.

Male Tickle has decimated Sall’s livelihood as well as her personal well-being. Until the appeal, the app will remain offline, and Sall will continue to be targeted.

Along with the Tasmanian law and clarification from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, this is a horrific blow to women in Australia - legally, females cannot hold events, meetings, activities, or have spaces, venues or request anything that is female-only.

“Female” in Australia means female sex and transgender identity are considered EXACTLY the same. GI trumps sex, as TW cannot be excluded.
Lesbians cannot hold events or socials for biological females only.
Women cannot have spaces exclusively for biological females only.
There is no way to request biologically female medical personnel.
There is no way to have change rooms, toilets, showers, etc exclusively for biological females.

In Australia, transgender people can basically self identify and change their legal sex (in Queensland, they can legally change it every 12 months!).
Children can change their birth certificates, birth certificates can be issued without a sex marker at all, and parents can change their children’s birth certificates.
Schools must affirm, and as soon as a child (of any age - primary or secondary) decides they are the opposite sex, they are permitted into the change rooms, showers, toilets, accommodations, etc of the opposite sex.

If I had a daughter, I would feel exactly as Sall does about the world her daughter is facing as she grows up.
I despair of the world my ASD child will find themselves in - and who will seek to indoctrinate him into the corruption of GI, as it is in schools, support providers, laws, sports, etc. It is insanity, and I don’t know how we will keep our children or ourselves as females safe.

Sall is just so brave.

The rise of right-wing and far-right parties in Western countries is not largely due to encroachment of transgender activism on women's sex-based rights, but to a pivot to right-wing populism that is not really related to safeguarding women's rights.

Pawel Zerka, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, specifically mentioned "gender" as one of the factors responsible for the centre left losing ground to the right in the recent European Parliament elections.