Roxanne Tickle proves that trans rights now trump women’s rights

[IwantToRetire]

A landmark discrimination case in Australia has seen a trans woman triumph against a female-only app – this fake liberalism is a smokescreen ...

... for what is really happening. One of the reasons for female-only spaces is because of male violence – but women are no longer allowed to say no to men in any shape or form. They are not allowed to call them men even when it is obvious that they are.

Article by Suzanne Moore at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/08/26/roxanne-tickle-proves-trans-rights-now-trump-womens-rights/

Also available to read at https://archive.is/5quL9

(I know there are existing threads about the court case, but thought the article is worth reading and also - IMO - a good one to share for those who aren't familiar with the back ground to this. And because FWR thread titles get picked up by internet seach engines, good to have another search engine result that spells out the attack on women's rights!)

Thank you. This is infuriating. I just do not understand why these men want to enter female only spaces so bad, spaces where women have very clearly said NO, that they take it to court.

I mean I do understand that they don't want us to have anything for ourselves and they are woman hating bastards but apart from that.

Male entitlement

We've known that for a while, I thought?
Men are always more important than women. Even a man who says he is a woman is more important than women. ONE man who says he is a woman is more important than lots and lots of women.

Twas ever thus. I thought we were starting to outgrow it until the TransTrain came chugging by. Then I realised that a lot of men do really hate us.

Edited for typo.

It's about pushing boundaries. For some people, women saying 'no' is an irresistible challenge.

Sall Grover on GB News live just now:

https://www.gbnews.com/watch/live

It's the rapist mentality of AGPs (not unique to them, of course). Hatred and envy of women all bound up with lust. The wish to punish us for being what they cannot, for daring to have lives separate from them.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-war-on-womens-spaces/

'Tickle is no human rights hero. He has simply engaged in the latest, most fashionable form of territorial pissing, finding yet another way to assert that there shall be no space, none whatsoever, from which a female person may exclude a male person. He is very much a part of the global backlash against the rights of women and girls. '

How right she is.

At 1st I thought Germane Greer was OTT when she said "Women have very little idea of how much men hate them" I realise now she was 100% correct. This is the latest proof.

'Territorial pissing' is bang on.

The issue is that these people are allowed to legally define themselves as women. So then the law has to be applied to them as a woman, not as a man. That's the root of the problem. In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between the Tickle bloke and an actual woman.

Yes the GRA needs repealing.

People know exactly that TWAM are when it comes to listening.

Every law in every country that supports these men's fetishes needs repealing.

The law is an ass, and cases like this demonstrate why.

I am not so convinced that this is the landmark case that some are saying that it is especially when it come to international law.
Someone posted the law that was infringed upon and the wording is all about discrimination based on "gender" with no reference to sex based rights.
As we know, sex is a protected characteristic in the UK, and we already have cases where gender critical people have won.

So although it shows us that Australian law is frankly perverse and not fit for purpose in this case (IMO). It doesn't mean that it would get anywhere in other countries.

Yes, just to say which is on the other threads, the ruling is strictly in line with earlier court cases in Australia.

I dont know enough about legislation in Australia, and haven't even read their equality law, so not sure it is the same as here in the UK where the GRA has undermined the protected characteristic of sex.

From one of the other threads:

“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]”.

I thought we were starting to outgrow it until the TransTrain came chugging by. Then I realised that a lot of men do really hate us.

It is always worth remembering that one of the reasons trans ideology is so sucessful is not that 50% of the population believes in queer politics, is it because 50% of the population (if not more including some women) are MRAs. ie the spread of TA is because it is built of the still fundamental basis of this society, that society is about men's rights first and foremost.

There are alot of what I would call 'normies' going 'What the utter fuck' around the globe these last few days.

I mean, this is just astonishing stuff.

If the ordinary meaning of sex is something that is changeable, the implication of that is that the word "sex" has changed its meaning in the last few decades. Because, before gender reassignment surgery, nobody considered that sex was in any way changeable.

OK, fine, language evolves.

But the actual reality that the word "sex" used to refer to still exists. Humans are still born with one of two types of reproductive system, and in order to reproduce they need someone with the opposite type of reproductive system. Gay couples are more aware of this than anyone, relying as they do on sperm donors and surrogates. So if this still exists but there is no longer a word for it, how do we talk about it? We need to talk about it for many reasons, not just in a healthcare context but also when it comes to rights.

I would love to be on Sall Grover's legal team working on the arguments for her appeal. It sounds like 30 years of Australian legislation on this issue needs to be overturned.

From a quick google so may well be wrong(!) Australia still has individual acts re Race, Sex, discrimination.

Their Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1984, and cant believe that at that time they wrote a law that said:

The Act protects people from unfair treatment on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy and breastfeeding. It also protects workers with family responsibilities and makes sexual harassment against the law.
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/about-sex-discrimination

Maybe it was updated at some time to include gender woo. Or maybe it hasn't, and that actual law as written may not say this at all!

As revised in 2021 gender identity is referred to:

Part I—Preliminary
1 Short title
2 Commencement
3 Objects
4 Interpretation
4A Meaning of family responsibilities
4B Meaning of potential pregnancy
5 Sex discrimination
5A Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation
5B Discrimination on the ground of gender identity
5C Discrimination on the ground of intersex status
6 Discrimination on the ground of marital or relationship status
7 Discrimination on the ground of pregnancy or potential pregnancy
7AA Discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding
7A Discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities
7B Indirect discrimination: reasonableness test

But also includes singe sex services:

Division 4—Exemptions
30 Certain discrimination on ground of sex not unlawful
31 Pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding
32 Services for members of one sex

No time to look at in detail https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02868/2021-09-11/text

Hang on what?
Are you saying that all men, half the world are MRAs?

I think they probably meant that they put Mens rights over Womens rights (or children's), rather than being activists. You only have to go on the Relationship boards here to see how many men put themselves before their own children.

Not forgetting that sex is also binary and crucially significant for a huge part of the plant and animal kingdom. Humans did not invent the concept by putting on a dress.