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

Damn having no recording available. I would love to be able to rewatch this part and the various descriptions and definitions of gender identity that this lawyer is giving.

Oh, and get fucked with the cis-gender crap.

Is someone here smart enough to find the BA Western Australia case that she’s referring to? Seems it set a precedent.

Sall and Katherine (I think it’s her) are constantly writing notes to each other. Are they working on a book for after all of this? Random swear words to help Sall stay calm? Noughts and crosses or games of hangman? There’s only two seats between Sall and Tickle. I admire her restraint in not going off at him when he’s so close to her.

• gender identity (the gender-related characteristics of a person, regardless of their sex at birth) (new s 5B)

this was the amendment made by the 2013 Act.

Unless gender is also defined somewhere, that's an entirely circular definition.

New drinking game: proposition, statutory or mischief, with a triple shot for statutory mischief.

Yep.

Totally.

Why is intersex included in all of this? We now know that all people are either male or female, even if they have a disorder of sexual development. Maybe it’s time to remove intersex/DSD from the legislation.

How do you chose the comparator? is asked and the answer example is using transman and them did she just say a cis female?

So let me get this straight: you shouldn’t discriminate on a person’s appearance of being male or female, because that might not match their intrinsic identity, but you can’t ask for their intrinsic identity because that would be discriminatory. External appearance and internal feels don’t have to match but if you don’t guess the right one then you’re being discriminatory. WTF?

I’m just thankful that when reading that “wanting to become pregnant” in the SDA, she didn’t say that it means trans woman.

Wasn’t she going to finish her sentence and then the judges wanted a 5 minute break?

So few questions from the judges.

So, because he was wearing 'women's clothing' in the selfie she should have known he was a woman?

To be fair I listened for 5 minutes and needed a break.

Don’t forget the hair. Lady hair. Ignore the beard stubble.

and had a woman's hairstyle and that he was joining the app

she interrupted her own sentence to ask if they wanted a break and the told her to continue on , so now it looks like they're going through until 4pm

Thanks for the info on this one. I was wondering whether there was a livestream.

Adjourned until 10am/1am.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1952579557732843655.html

Thanks @FeralWoman. There is stuff that I would like to refer back to.

Can you keep the next day's hearing on this page ? It makes it easier to follow TIA

Can someone help me please? I’m totally lost in this case after 2 days.

The case: SG has a website for women only. Bloke appropriating a woman wants to join. SG says no it’s just for women. Bloke says but I am a woman. SG says no you’re not. Bloke says yes I am, and you’re mean so I’m taking you to court to make sure you let me in. Court cases ensue.

Surely the pivotal point here is ‘what is a woman?’ Why aren’t they even talking about that? What am I missing?

@Absentmindedsmile Correct. What you’re missing is that Australia has fucked up sex discrimination laws. In 2013 our first female Prime Minister oversaw amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) that remove the word sex and replaced it with gender. Having the gender of a woman now means women and trans women (men). We have no right to single sex spaces. The federal government won’t touch removing the amendments. Senators have attempted to introduce private member’s bills about it and they’ve been denied even an initial reading of it. Immediate rejection. The federal opposition won’t touch it either because they got destroyed at the election and have no power. They need every vote they can get. They might look at amending it if they get back in power but they’re arseholes so hopefully they don’t get back into federal government for a long time. A ruling from a High Court appeal might open the way for Senators to get a bill read into Senate.