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

The Greens are firmly TWAW and they hold the balance of power in the Senate. I don’t trust the Teals to not Be Kind, either.

That being said, I spoke to Sen Michalia Cash last year and she said that Labor will never introduce a bill on the subject (I assume because A) they will never admit that they were wrong in the first place and B) they have to fight the Greens for every vote they receive so don’t want to bring attention to the subject). The Liberals (well, last year when they had more seats) were keeping an eye on the subject but waited for Giggle v Tickle at the High Court to be resolved.

Just about every member of the Parliament last year (note to non Australians, we had an election a couple of months ago and there are a lot of new members) was lobbied hard in the subject. People walked the corridors of the place and knocked on every door with hand outs. No one in the last Parliament can claim ignorance of the issue.

@TheSandgroper Was the lobbying anti single sex rights or pro single sex rights?

Fuck. It’s become clearer, sorry for not getting that. Jesus Christ what has she done (it was the hey day of ‘be kind’ I suppose 🤢). The legal minds here then on SG side, need to be miracle workers. Because the SDA needs changing, again. Mind you if JG managed it - so easily (?) - it might be reasonable to hope that the JG update can be over turned.

@FeralWoman Biology reality all the way.

This is what they are all picking over

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5026

A Twitter Spaces discussion involving many of the same women as last night. It’s live right now. Hosted by English_RoseG.
https://x.com/English_RoseG/status/1952670392809865308

Sall Grover today looking like a badass.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1952656627057713178

Photos of Tickle are being deliberately suppressed apparently to “be kind” to him due to his increase in balding since the previous court case. However, his photo that was submitted to the Giggle app has been published. The photo that both AI and Sall clocked as male.

Note the supposedly woman hair and womanly low cut (?) scoop neck top.

https://x.com/anonotanon/status/1952582194225885430

I don't see how Giggle can win, because making sex subject to self-ID means that Australia has no sex-discrimination law. And I understand from PPs that the only exception, on physiological grounds, to the ban on anti-trans discrimination, is in relation to sport.

Surely the most that can be expected is an obiter declaration that the law, if applied consistently, is a bad law because it has (other) bad consequences, eg failing to protect the more vulnerable sex on grounds of safety and modesty.

It's unfortunate that the case relates to an association rather than, say, a DV refuge. Because I can see the court closing its eyes to the wider picture, and just ruling on the basis that there's no harm in having a club for both sexes, provided they're all of lady gender. The harm is hard to define, because it goes back to the right of men/women/lesbians/gay men to form associations, which the law has specifically taken away, in order to force them to accept any opposite-sex person who wants in. Its literally what that law is for!

A summary of the gender arguments being presented today by Tickle’s side. It’s confusing enough to confuse and melt the brain of Genevieve Gluck of Reduxx. She’s read a lot of fucked up shit, and even she’s like WTF.

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1952607536353615897

BoswellToday’s summary of today:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1952634732031734047.html
Yesterday:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1952262075255841048.html

Tickle wants $200k from Sall. Bastard.

Stephanie Bastiaan on Twitter is another good source.
https://x.com/stephbastiaan/status/1952520517333983383

Janet Inglis (DieMadTerf) on Twitter is good too. She’s in the court room live tweeting during the proceedings.
https://x.com/DieMadTerf/status/1952499885325861207

Maybe, but the changes to the act don't actually say someone's gender identity changes their sex. It simply protects against discrimination based on various things, including sex (without a definition), gender identity (with a vague definition), plus sexual orientation, intersex characteristics, pregnancy, breastfeeding, marital status. As far as I can see, it's being interpreted heavily to mean self-id, but there's no reason it couldn't be interpreted in other ways. No other characteristic (sexual orientation, marital status etc) are interpreted as changing one's sex, there's no reason in the wording that GI should be read as doing so.

But also there is a provision protecting people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. That’s what T is claiming happened here. I don’t know how they separate the issues though because Giggle’s defence is that she excluded a man. So it has to involve determining what a man is at the very least.

The male judge almost asked what is a woman today. "So at the end it refers to someone of a different gender identity...that would be... a cisgender woman?" "Yes your honour" "So do we need to have in mind a concept of a woman [missed something] or do we not need to go there?" "Whether someone is a woman or not is an evaluative exercise to determine the ordinary meaning, like a parent can be a biological parent but not only that."

Oh that analogy made me growl!

Seems to me they need to clearly define the terms they are using before this case makes any sense whatsoever.

‘he was joining the app’

The whole illogical fallacy of ‘living as a woman’ laid bare

That's what happened in Ireland too - the word 'sex' replaced with 'gender', so women [and men] no longer have specific protection under equality legislation.
Despite the fact that the original equality legislation referred clearly to 'men' and 'women', using the definitions of the time = biological.

I've never understood how you can retrospectively change the meaning of a law in a way that contradicts the original intention of the law.

Good luck and thank you for standing up and fighting, SG!

In Australia, I think?

You're being very polite with your 'maybe' as I was clearly wrong (I'm in the UK)!

So, sex and GI are both protected characteristics, but GI (when different from sex) is being used as a clumsy proxy for the PC of what we would call gender reassignment?

And he has to 'be' a woman in order to benefit from the rule that says all-women clubs are allowed to exist?

So why can't he have the PCs of male sex and female GI and GR? Did nobody define whether a woman is per sex or per GI? How does the sports exception work?

😂

I’ve just realised that he probably had his hair tied back today to try to cover his bald spot. Someone on Twitter was sitting behind him and mentioned it in a tweet. Guaranteed he’s reading social media all night to find every reference to himself.

Well, we also have state level legislation (as opposed to federal) which was similar to GRCs, and recently self-id in the form of changes to the births, deaths and marriages act to make it easy to change sex (documented? or for all purposes - not clear to me). But like the UK Equality Act GR characteristic which was broader than GRCs, the SDA having Gender Id even for people without formal document changes all adds up to a messy situation. I agree with you a very sensible interpretation would just be to treat sex and GI/GR as two separate protected characteristics, like any other 2 characteristics in the legislation - in no other case does one characteristic change your other characteristic. By 'be' a woman, it seems that the criteria for that is basically claim to be, and maybe wear a v neck top and have chin length hair. IIRC - The sports exception is the only exception listed for GI.

"Subsection 42(1) of the SDA provides that nothing in Division 1 or 2 of Part II of the Act renders it unlawful to exclude persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant.
Item 59 amends subsection 42(1) to extend the coverage of the exemption for sporting activity to include ‘gender identify’ and ‘intersex status’. Thus, it will be not unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex, gender identity or intersex status by excluding persons from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant."