Giggle v Tickle Federal Court Day 2

[TheSandgroper]

It’s Tuesday, day 2 and Roxy Tickle’s team has the floor.

Link to thread 1 with early discussion and day 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5376834-giggle-v-tickle-in-court-august-4?reply=145819692

Court file

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1386/2024/actions

His lawyer has already literally said transwomen are women.

That’s how she is earning her living today.

Tickle really looks like a man today with his hair tied back.

Bloody cis and trans. Drinking game: drink whenever his lawyer says cis or trans. You’ll be paralytic within 10 minutes.

Dry technical legal arguments.

Sleepy.

The audio is so terrible, it’s hard to follow.

So glitchy.

.

Restart the YouTube app or refresh the page. It will fix the audio.

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 practical reasons that a male should be excluded from a female only group/gathering/space?

It’s infuriating to hear Tickles lawyer saying that there is a legitimate reason for transwomen (men) to have their own spaces away from women, but not for women to have spaces free of men.

Tickle was looking for $ 200,000 in damages

Lunch, back at 2pm.

Summary from Guardian helps make sense of some of the denser legal portions of yesterday.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/aug/04/sall-grover-giggle-app-federal-court-appeal-against-roxanne-tickle-gender-discrimination-case-ntwnfb

For those coming at it from a UK perspective from my brief understanding the Australian law has not any precedent that gender critical beliefs are protected beliefs.

The law is also drafted in a different way so it is harder to carve out the distinction between bio male v bio female as those meanings are less legally clear than in Equality Act 2010.

Giggles lawyers are arguing there is an exemption to allow ‘special measures’ to protect a subset of one group (and there is case law that allows protection for a subset of Aborigines v all those with the characteristic of Aborigine)

Giggles lawyers argued (4 August) “that a woman was a “natal” woman – or assigned female at birth. He told the court the SDA was a “compromise” and that its special measures were “ephemeral”, claiming that “just about any special measures targeted at a group” would, through the act’s other legal carve-outs, probably involve discrimination of another group. He said special measures should be protective and enabling, not restrictive.

Tickle’s legal team is expected to argue that every special measure needs to work for all groups protected by the act simultaneously.”

Hoping to follow along & brush up my legal understanding so welcome any corrections!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1952517615756390908.html

The more I listen the more I think this is heading to the High Court. It seems to me that the ‘what is a woman’ question is what this will come down to. And the two pieces of legislation under discussion are in conflict.

Sall Grover has always said that it will need a High Court decision. Whether it would be Tickle v Giggle or Giggle v Tickle was decided by the court case last year. However, the steps need to be gone through.

Keep gardening. Earlier today, a mention of her costs for the case last year was mentioned to the order of $450000.

Not an expert, but I do have a legal background and have been listening so far. That’s not a big part of the case. The claim for discrimination relies on legislation, so interpretation of the legislation (using reference to case law) is what’s being argued. I don’t think there will be much factual evidence. I don’t think the need for women’s only spaces is at issue. But who qualifies as a woman very much is and is the subtext of this case.

Was only able to dip in & out of it the proceedings this morning and tuned in just a short time ago... am noticing that the her honour is again this afternoon asking/interacting with Giggles lawyers quiet a bit... was there the same interaction with the Tickles legal team this morning?

It was fairly quiet this morning as himself had three barristers do their specialty bits. Sall’s is now doing his thing giving the arguments we are so familiar with.

Re the aggravated damages request (over the smelly balls candles) , Sall through Mr Hutley says “no! You asked for a reaction and you got one. You don’t get to choose the reaction “.

If the judges agree with this argument, I think Daryl will be entitled to say “suffer in your jocks”.

Mr Hutley argued that point well and i liked that he went as far as suggest that the award should be reduced

@GwenniMcKinney No the judge didn’t question Tickle’s lawyers anywhere near as much as she did Sall’s lawyer. Any questions were far less combative.

They’re going through the details of the SDA now.

It will probably go to the High Court, which is what is required really to make enough noise and generate enough pressure to get the legislation changed to reflect reality.

All we can do is support Sall, and other Australian women, and women owned/run businesses through this ridiculous situation.

Wait, there’s a statutory definition of gender identity? I didn’t think that there was. Two parts: intrinsic feels and concept, and physical appearance and mannerisms.