Giggle v Tickle Friday 15th May 2pm AEST

[impossibletoday]

Giggle v Tickle
Friday 15th May
2pm AEST
Live streamed

https://x.com/i/status/2053669311504642197

How's the media in Australia? Do they report on this subject? Can women speak freely?

The existencr and rights of women and girls are not a "culture war" and I have to wonder why they are always labelled as such, more so than issues that actually are.

That may be because I don’t think in Australia we’ve had as much of the awful TRA behaviour I seem to see on social media in other countries.

Well, we didn't have it here to start with either. When I first noticed this issue, mumsnet, for instance, was entirely ignored by TRAs. It was noted. Why are they leaving us alone.

The reason was they thought Mumsnet was a place of fluffy headed women who weren't political and so we didn't matter. And as soon as we did, they went nuts.

TRAs get deranged because of pushback. And the more pushback there is, the more crazy they get. They have no argument. Nothing logical or rational or moral. So they have to resort to emotion and aggression.

But it takes a long time to undo the 'be kind, we are the most marginalised, we're vulnerable, help us, you don't wanna be like homophobes do you', attitude.

But because no one cares about women, it doesn't matter what women say. You have to wait for operation let it speak to do its thing.

And because the ideology IS so wrong - dangerous, illogical, sexist, and abusive, it does get push back. In the end.

Everyone is on the same journey, it's just a question of time.

There is the women's football team with several transwomen though, and nothing has changed. I'm sure there are more.

www.news.com.au/sport/football/womens-team-with-five-trans-players-dominates-womens-football-tournament/news-story/481e3242bb1d570de599a38e1f33a7cf

A culture war is defined as an ideological conflict between social groups over fundamental values, beliefs, and societal norms & certainly trans & women's rights fits this mould as opposed economic conflicts/concerns.

Why people may prioritise economic concerns over cultural ones might be because of the consequential impact.

These aren't elite athletes.

Women's rights and factual existence as distinct from men are not an ideology. Objective fact is not an ideology. It's like calling it a culture war when one group says 2+2 is 4 and another says it's 5 or whatever number we want it to be because who are you to dictate what numbers are. And that would most certainly have economic consequences. But it wouldn't be a culture war. It would be people who were right against liars, fools and people who want to dismiss the whole thing as a culture war.

You're not going to succeed in trivialising it by slapping this incorrect label on it. You should know that by now.

Certainly Sal Grover & the right take the endless opportunities they are given particularly by right wing media to 'make their case' but alas they aren't able to get traction because their concerns don't connect with most people's experience or their prominent concerns. After every court case Sal Grover & & her fellow travellers are literally everywhere & complain incessantly of the lack of interest so to suggest women can't speak freely is ludicrous.

Maybe not, but why should amateur women footballers have to put up with this?

Women's rights and factual existence as distinct from men are not an ideology.

Sure, rights are not values themselves, but they are the practical rules that protect and promote fundamental values so rights & values are inextricably linked. While equality is a fundamental value, individuals being individuals vary on how the 'rules' should structured. An example of this is how younger women tend to be less concerned about private women's spaces than older people.

In other words, you don't speak for all women so stop pretending you do.

And there we have it, the deflection. The tacit admission that you know it's not a culture war, you're just trying to frame it as one when people say things you don't like. As in, the true stuff. As in, your final line, when you get to it: your issue is that you disagree. It's not just a silly culture war then, is it?

And so what if some women are liars and idiots? We knew that too. They're still wrong. You claim I'm speaking for women but you know I'm speaking for fact. That's why you do anything - culture wars, not all women agree they should have rights, you don't speak for everyone - rather than attack the facts.

Incidentally, I never claimed to speak for all women, so you stop pretending that I did. Although I'm still definitely speaking for the liars and idiots to have their rights; if they don't want to use them then they don't have to, but they don't get to erase us and destroy our spaces just because they would be happy to compete and undress among men in the additional third spaces none of them will accept while they shout at us about "speaking for everyone".
I'm aware that a lot of women were involved in destroying women's rights like this. Some of them were even women without penises, although plenty of them were... right, Gretel?

Because amateur sports isn't just about 'winning' like elites sports is but social participation, health & character building so physical differences unless substantial or dangerous aren't so consequential.

And there we have it, the deflection. The tacit admission that you know it's not a culture war, you're just trying to frame it as one when people say things you don't like. As in, the true stuff. As in, your final line, when you get to it: your issue is that you disagree. It's not just a silly culture war then, is it?

Exactly what part of 'values' or 'individuals' don't you understand? Individuals by virtue of being individuals (sorry "liars & idiots") have differing values. Only an authoritarian mentality would think they shouldn't.

How are women supposed to get to elite level if they don't have a level playing field to get there?

Yes I'm sure 0.025% will make all the difference. If you were at all serious about fairness in women's sports access you'd be more concerned about the real barriers like socio economic factors rather than the inconsequential.

But

a) it is dangerous having men play team sports against women

b) physical differences between men and women are substantial, and count in just about all sports - even in pool men have an advantage, as recent court cases have shown. Oh, and winning still matters to amateurs. Why do you think it doesn't? If you read the article I linked to, it says "An amateur women’s football team featuring five transgender players has ignited controversy after absolutely dominating a women’s competition in Sydney." Why should women have to play in unfair competitions?

c) social participation? From teenagers onwards, women already participate less in sports than men; it's girls and women who should be getting encouragement to participate.

d) character building? What character is being built here? The ability of women to accept misogyny and male dominance - because otherwise you'd have to leave the team. And the ability of the males to do whatever the hell they like.

e) if you're still going to say it's fine for transwomen to particpate in women's sports, why not just go the whole hog and abolish separate men's and women's sports? I'm sure the women won't mind. It's for men's benefit the greater good, after all.

People who say men can be women are liars and idiots because they objectively are not and one way or another, everyone shows that they know who the women are. In fact, you admit it in your next post when you argue there aren't enough men who claim to be women for it to be a problem. So you know they're men. Hell, the fact you can understand the concept of Sall's case shows that you know, because only a man could have brought it.

The authoritarianism ("authoritarian mentality", God the pomposity!) is in dictating to women that they can't create a space for women only. Even alongside additional spaces for women and men who want to pretend that men can be women, which would be the actual inclusive and pluralistic option. But you can't afford pluralism when your entire ideology rests on everyone in existence perpetually affirming something that isn't true. Ooh, authoritarian mentality!

Still, if you're right and it's just a silly culture war and it doesn't matter and nobody cares... why are you on here arguing about it, Gretel? Who wastes their precious time on insignificant nonsense that doesn't matter?

I think I'm right in saying that the Giggle app included advertising room shares of some kind? That's the kind of thing that really shows the illogicality and injustice of this: women are disadvantaged - and put at risk! - in a way men simply aren't when they can't know that "women only" means "women only".

Annoyingly I can't find the right one at the moment, but in one of the podcasts that listened to last year where Sal Grover was being interviewed, she told of her early adulthood move to the US to seek fame and fortune as a screenwriter. She had an awful time in LA, being propositioned, the casting couch mentality, etc., and either there or later in New York when she was looking for an apartment or apartment share, she was again constantly propositioned including things like potential landlords saying she could stay there rent free if she walked around naked.

Broken, she moved back to Oz and IIRC it was conversations with her mum that inspired her to set up a women-only app, and I think roomshares were the very first thing (or one of the jointly first things) that she designed as a feature of the app. So it was very much based on horrible personal experiences, leading her to want a women-only service. From Day One of launching it, it was a constant routine of screening out men who tried to join (she had a basic facial-recognition feature which blocked about 90% but then needed to manually check and block others) and Tickle was just one of many, didn't register as anything more than a run of the mill pisstaking man trying to invade her app. And then out of the blue, she was hit with the legal action that has now taken up over four years of her life and counting.

You have only to look at Boys vs Women to see that even teenage boys out-perform elite women.

At the elite level women have now lost nearly 900 medals to the teeny tiny number of men who say they are women and that's not fair.

boysvswomen.com/#/

There will be a protest at the Australian High Commission in London on Saturday 23rd May, 1pm standing in solidarity with Sall Grover. There will be speeches and possibly singing. Bring your banners. The organisers are @acts_grassroots who organised the One Year Later and 199 Days Later.

Sall will also be on GB News with Josh Howie tonight at 8:45pm UK time (5:45am AEST) .

But ultimately it does though. 1 male bodied person coming first will displace the female. That female may not qualify for the next round of a competition as a result which means they don’t go on to a higher level. It means they don’t get to get to elite competition. To that particular woman you have destroyed her potential career and there is nothing more she could have done. In my mind, just quoting 0.025% completely dehumanises these females as individuals. It rides over all the early morning trainings, all the sacrifices they made to make it only to have it snatched away and then people go it is so insignificant it doesn’t matter. Well it mattered to that female!!

What is the 'inconsequential' that you refer to?

The football team that has been mentioned that is the Macquarie team in the North Sydney Metro league has had at least one serious complaint against it where one of the male players seriously injured a player in a game? The teams who have had to play against that team held a meeting where the coaches and the players all voiced their experiences and concerns and asked the regulatory body to ban any male players and were told that was not going to happen.

Now any players for that league have to sign up to agree to play those male players and no teams can forfeit games.

How is that not a significant issue for women and teenaged girls who are playing in that league?

Not only that, but at junior levels of sports, if the girls are discouraged from joining in because they are being beaten by the male players, that then seriously negatively impacts the future of potential female elite athletes.

These are not 'inconsequential' factors at all.