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.

it is a concern that some of our smartest legal minds have reduced being a woman as to whether someone shops in the male or female clothes section. I am really caught as I do shop in the men's and the women's section of Kmart. (Although, I prefer Big W or Target for t-shirts and tracky dacks though) It is nuts to think that this is being used as a guide to womanhood in Australia.

@Absentmindedsmile They started to decode it around 23 mins, assuming they started on time at 8:24pm. I started listening at 8:27pm.

@Helleofabore I know. What sort of a message is that sending to children and teens who shop from the other sex’s sections and shops? My DD wears boys’ and now men’s shorts for school because they’re more durable and have bigger better pockets. Doesn’t mean that she’s a boy. She’s autistic so she’s vulnerable to trans messaging. DH and I talk to her a lot about the ridiculous of gender stereotypes and the utterly unscientific basis of trans. That every single cell in the body has male or female DNA and that can’t ever be changed, no matter what hormones, surgery or clothes you have. That male or female is determined at the moment of conception and it’s set for life.

I know, right ? Feral.

The messaging is just crap. When we moved to the UK, we had to contend with sexist crap from the kids at school here who declared to my tween (at the time) that their interests made them the opposite sex. And comments about hair and crap. It was actually completely unexpected considering how often we are told on MN that Australia is such a sexist place etc.

(but of course, Kmart women’s clothes are sewn with such little give to reduce the cost of them that pockets are unusable. But the men’s do tend to have working pockets and more comfortable fit for the same price bracket. So them using KMart is ridiculous on so many levels, I doubt whoever thought it was a good gotcha to appeal to a wide audience has ever bought clothes that at all!)

I was watching today too. My jaw dropped at the ‘biological birth’ comment. But as someone with a legal background who has sat through many hearings in Australian jurisdictions, I’d say it’s not necessarily as bad as it looks. I think it would be a mistake to assume that because the judge is challenging and pushing back on arguments that she has already decided or is opposed to the argument being made. This is how it’s done and is sometimes a strategy to appeal proof a decision (shows the judge understood the argument and thoroughly ventilated the different aspects of it to close off appeal points). Similarly failure to push back doesn’t indicate agreement. It could indicate the judge knows the argument is either not relevant to her decision making or is so clearly bad that she can simply dismiss it. I think SGs counsel has a clear strategy and I suspect that strategy has one eye on a High Court Appeal.

So there's still another court above this one where an appeal could go?

Yes.

Yes, it seems very odd. Can only hope that it is not widely considered sensible, and the other judges on the panel, or at the High Court can come up up with a more coherent approach.

I think they were making a distinction between defined terms in a statute and other (undefined words). I noticed Giggle’s counsel didn’t confront this one head on but seemed to say that for their argument to succeed it didn’t have to be determined.

Good to know. I have a bad feeling about this one. I really love Australia, can the country really be this nuts now? Nobody actually believes men are women, this case couldn't exist if he were a woman, but it seems when people want to be right over how progressive and wonderful they are, men are king and women, girls, children and material reality itself are to be dismissed for the ego.

Does anyone know of any podcasts that might be keeping up with the case? I can’t at work but could listen on my commute

Welcome to the Dollhouse on Substack might fit with Eddie Wyatt and Kat Karena but they don’t post often.

John Anderson might post something in a few days. keep an eye on Quillette, Spectator Australia and Rachel Wong.

The podcast industry in Australia is quite small.

Is that what the lawyer actually said? Not a parody?

Cicular argument right there - only females can join, so if you join that makes you a female.

@DuesToTheDirt A different order of words but yes the lawyer said that.

Court recommences in one hour at 10am/1am.

I’ve started a thread for day 2. Just to stop everything getting messy.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5386131-giggle-v-tickle-federal-court-day-2

Yes she actually said that in her opening submission, she was listing what made Tickle female, listed the hair and wearing a woman's top ... I've not looked at tribunal tweets maybe they have a more fuller transcription.

Today it's "a low cut top and a female name".

Lawyer (Ms Grover showed) "A willful blindness to gender identity"

Lawyer "Ms grover clearly thinks a female space should be for fe - should Exclude transwomen". I guess saying "a female space should be for females" doesn't sound like an offensive enough proposition to accuse someone of.

Any legal experts that can commnet on the use of ideology in law. I have noticed that alot of this doesn't actually hinge on the practicle reasons that a male should be excluded from a female only group/gathering/space?

Not a lawyer, but suspect it may be because in the UK the focus was on several pieces of legislation, 1 including the exclusion of tw when its proportionate. I think sports is the only specific carve-out in Aus legislation, so if the lawyers have to argue based on law, there's no room for practical considerations except as covered by law.

Dr. Hakeem is trying to be precise. AGP is actually a clinical diagnosis of a phenomena with a spectrum of severity. Most people here use it as a synonym for: 'an erotic interest in presenting as a woman', which covers both transvestism and AGP. (erotic interest being the phrase Helen Joyce seems to prefer)

It's perfectly fair to point out that AGP has a precise meaning in a clinical setting. But so does Narcissism, and it can get tiresome to be told that no one is in a position to diagnose narcissism without significant training and a proper setting and situation for diagnosis (which is technically true but usually not relevant to the point being made).