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

It seems you are worse off than we were. Our Supreme Court was able to neatly disambiguate sex and GR without undermining either, whilst drawing a polite veil of silence over the fact that this renders acquired gender (our rough equivalent of GI) completely irrelevant for all practical purposes (men and women are now treated identically in UK law except where the law specifies otherwise based on biological sex).

But by having a PC of GI, your law arguably endorses a view (very popular with TRAs here) that anti-discrimination law for trans people shouldn't just be about preventing arbitrary disadvantage relative to an (otherwise similar) non-trans comparator, but should also punish any treatment of the trans person that's based on their biological sex rather than GI.

I'm sure a clever and motivated judge could wrangle a workable interpretation. But are they? And will they?

@TheKhakiQuail Chin length hair or lengthy chin hairs?

That photo. 🤢

‘in a world where transgender people are under attack’

Eh? The only people who’ve been attacked are sex realist women (attacked by tans identified males). Anyway a lovely photo of a balding fat bloke with greasy long hair.

https://theconversation.com/tickle-vs-giggle-in-a-world-where-transgender-people-are-under-attack-this-is-a-test-case-for-australia-227702

Absolutely it is. The Federal Parliament has put legislation in place stating that Gender identity is equal or supplants sex in some cases; and the Judges at the beginning of this Appeal said they weren’t relitigating, just allowing a review to see if there we any mistakes in the first judgement.

Irritated to note that the Graun has already run two items about this case, despite having studiously ignored Sandie Peggie's case all year long.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/aug/05/transgender-woman-roxanne-tickle-treated-as-hostile-invader-when-joining-women-only-app-giggle-for-girls-court-hears-ntwnfb

back again today

camera more close up today on the lawyers, with Tickle much more visible in the back ground

and yes to the pp who noted that photos were being suppressed, ?due the increased male pattern baldness it very noticeable

More of the SDA details. This lawyer sounds like she’s completely convinced by it all. The middle judge asked a question about an example and commented that she didn’t understand Sall’s lawyer’s example yesterday. That’s not good.

The lawyer’s vocal fry is fucking annoying.

The camera needs to zoom out. There’s too much Tickle on the screen. Can’t see Sall because they’re zoomed in too much.

I missed the first few minutes. What time are they planning to finish today?

If one doesn’t need to rely on a dictionary meaning of a word, how is person B supposed to understand anything that person A is saying.

" breast feeding v's non breast feeding people " ... and this is from the Sex Discrimination Commission ( my highlight)

@TheSandgroper By magic and psychic abilities?

Breastmilk pumping room at work and trans men discussed.

CEDAW mentioned.

Male judge just asked for definitions of man and woman.

A broader view of woman, even under CEDAW?

Male judge suggests that those who originally created CEDAW might be horrified that it extends to covering trans women. Nervous noises in the court room and then it was backed away from. Maybe this judge is on Sall’s side.

but very useful for being able to correctly sexing each individual in the rows of professional and observers seated behind

Nervous noises in the court room and then it was backed away from. Maybe this judge is on Sall’s side.

yes that was an interesting interjection, pity it wasn't examined further

I think his honour judge is more realist

True. He’s obviously a man, with a colourful scarf and hair that needs a good trim.

What’s this lawyer talking about? I was distracted by DD.

he's address a particular section if the Act I think section 7

Intervention now from the lesbians! This male lawyer for Sall is presenting the Lesbian Action Group’s intervention. The FWS SC clarification will be discussed.

Middle judge: but what about women who can’t get pregnant? FFS.

So the SDA commissioner part was given up to 2 hours, but the LAG part is only getting half an hour but the middle judge is discouraging him from using it all.

yes that's right, but I'm thinking that is to his benefit as he's making his arguments very clear & cogent

as an aside her honour judge is having bundle bungles

I actually choked. She’s pulling the classic TRA line “not all women get pregnant.”

Honestly, Tickle could have saved the cost and time of hiring a lawyer with that Judge pretty much arguing on his side anyways.

I get why she asked. I think she phrased her question poorly and it quotes well known TRA arguments. I think the section of the act LAG was referring to deals specifically with pregnancy at all stages starting with the twinkle in the eye through to ad hoc caring responsibilities.

Those who cannot get pregnant miss a lot of those things but may still end up needing to provide ad hoc care. It also would cover adoption and probably formal foster care.

But they are still women.

Pregnancy is part of being a woman but not compulsory for being a woman. It’s never part of a being a man.

OMFG. Equality Australia. Sex is not binary. Sex is a spectrum from man to woman.