Giggle V Tickle in court August 4

[TheKhakiQuail]

Feminists in the UK seem to have an enormous amount of momentum in the UK - the wins keep coming. Here in Australia, things are moving very slowly. However, the Giggle v Tickle appeal is coming up on 4-7th August before a Federal Court panel. It will be livestreamed.

I will add the link below if anyone is up for some gardening it is much needed.

I am not close to the case, but there are some pleasing updates - the Lesbian Action Group has been given permission to intervene, and they have a very clever and well-versed in feminism legal team of Megan Blake and Leigh Howard. I wasn't particularly impressed with the legal arguments put forward in court in the first round, but there is a new SC (like a KC) on the team - don't know of him except he does work for the richest woman in Australia, so hopefully he knows how to make a good case too.

In other developments, Jillian Spencer, a psychiatrist in Queensland who was suspended for criticising pediatric gender medicine at her hospital is bringing several lawsuits, including discrimination on the grounds of belief. She is probably an excellent claimant for lawfare. And a convicted murderer in NSW applied to be moved from a male to a female prison, but the NSW government seems to be ruling that out despite having just brought in self-id and having allowed it before (maybe the sexual assault allegations that occurred previously would be more damaging if repeated in the current climate). It may have opened some eyes though.

Sal is credible.

Big Roxy is only incredible.

We’re onto Sall laughing at the sweaty balls candle and that being used to award Tickle $10k.

Tribunal Tweets 2 is live tweeting. Still lots of dry legal arguing and wrangling about who is doing what.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets2/status/1952161585369419908

Sky News has covered it extensively and regularly interviews Sal Grover. The Australian has had multiple full and half page spreads on the case in the last week.

The ABC, The Guardian SMH, The Age… crickets.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1952161585369419908.html

I certainly should be asleep but here I am.

So far it's very dry. It's fascinating to view the differing judicial cultures. Lots of 'I'm content' from the lawyers. The Judge seems very forward and to the point.

The size of the court room would certainly have come in handy for the Peggie case, it's like a small theatre.

It’s bigger than the theatre I first saw Tim Minchin perform in, back when he was brand new and tickets to his performance were discounted. Amazing performance by him.

I’m watching, but the lower 40% of the screen in the broadcast is just black.

Probably partly because of the size of the room and because nobody’s being questioned, this feels quite different from Peggie and Fife & Upton.

Bed in a few minutes, though.

I’m struggling to stay awake and it’s a bright sunny morning at 11:28am. This KC’s voice could be an insomnia treatment.

CEDAW has been mentioned.

The female judge moves things along when she speaks.

The difficulty in finding things in large bundles is familiar.

Great point here from Sall’s barrister (text from Tribunal Tweets 2):
“But to achieve the objects of the act. A special measure will exclude someone, necessarily, because otherwise it is not special. Therefore saying someone will be adversely affect diverts from the purpose of 7D 1(a).”

.... this is very hard to follow (currently in NZ).

I am not sure about the point about the hair colour, and now they are talking about their being a discordance.

Are they trying to determine about the support in the act gives to an "identity" over an "objective reality"?

I’m confused too.

Here’s someone doing a summary.
https://x.com/stephbastiaan/status/1952163215225597973

Agree it's hard to follow. Sal's barrister and the main judge seem to be using such convoluted terminology.

The main judge sounds like a TRA - she just said "cis". I can't imagine UK judges using that term.

Female judge -

“I don’t think anything is clear in gender discrimination law, to be honest.”

They are both very confused... I guess in law its confusing in Human Rights when one right is in direct conflict of another.

Unlike gay marriage where people getting married has no material effect on other people, trans-inclusion directly contravenes the rights of women to single-sex spaces to participate in society. This is because women are most at risk from the behaviour of men, in private spaces and where there is a physical interaction.

I don't understand why Gender identiy is being forced into the definition of sex in the law. I am reading K Stock book "Material Girls" who explains the arguments but none of them are acutual based in any type of reality.

Another person tweeting and doing a summary:
https://x.com/DieMadTerf/status/1952150711661412751

Twitter discussion Space tonight here:
https://x.com/kowalskikit/status/1951956735851159923?s=46&t=v_dyQOsjuTO3FaEMMOgsqw

8:24pm is 11:24am UK time.

I wonder if we start talking about natal female-bodied and natal male-bodied people it would be easier to make the demarqation rather than getting tied up with "gender-identity".

A natal female-bodied person is at a higher risk due to the well-evidenced fact that natalmale-bodied people are physically on average 145% stronger.

A natal female-bodied person is at a higher risk becuse of the well-documented increased aggression and sexual aggression from natal male-bodied people

These factors do not change with regards to "gender-identity"

Therefore a mitigation to reduce the risk to females-bodied people is to have separate spaces when they are managing, discussing and socialising with regards to their bodies.

Australia has caught the attention of Reem Alsalem:

https://x.com/UNSRVAW/status/1951914678369521831

Lunchtime. Adjourned until 2pm/5am. Today’s hearing must conclude by 4:15pm/7:15am because the judges have something else they need to do.

I don’t think the KC is making much headway. The judges seem confused too, or they’re forcing him to be very clear to prevent an appeal.

Shout out to Tribunal Tweets 2. The person doing it today is doing a remarkable job getting everything down accurately and with detail.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1952171134587445749.html

Did they understand the point in the end though? Seemed to be some conflation between being not benefited by a special measure and it being detrimental to you. For every other group it seems to be accepted that some measures don't include you (eg positions for Aboriginal people don't include me, and nor should they even if I'm a member of other protected groups), but in this instance it's taken as 'potentially causing great detriment' to not include someone. As always, the logic applied to every other situation is forgotten whenever GI is involved.

It may be to later make the point that you can't know someone's gender identity unless they tell you it, as a characteristic such as long hair is just a characteristic, and it's not protected in itself. Therefore how can you discriminate against someone based on GI unless they tell you their GI. But I'm just guessing, it certainly wasn't clear where that was going.

It is pretty hard to work out, this is quite heavy on technical legal detail.