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

At least you seem to understand that it is also about 'winning'.

And for many girls that 'winning' is actually important enough to feed then into more elite levels.

I think there does seem to be a continued 'it doesn't impact many people' narrative that is being posed here. However, there does seem to be some disconnection here.

Most women and girls I know up and down the Eastern states have already been impacted to some degree. Either through male people who declare transgender identities in schools or families, sports, having male people come into female changing rooms in the department stores, or asking for a female health professional for an intimate procedure and finding a male person with a transgender identity coming in and the woman feeling she cannot ask for someone else.

The impact is growing every week. Having had a female family member who was imprisoned up until recently, I am also hugely conscious of the impact of these male people being imprisoned with female inmates. As I said up thread, it is not just confined to the major cities either. The impacts are in the rural towns as well.

Just because women don't talk about it to those they might not have a deep trust established with, doesn't mean that they are not concerned. Many women that I have spoken to about it in Australia told me that they did not discuss it with others.

Dismissing this issue as 'there are so few that people are not being impacted' doesn't seem to be reflective of the reality.

Are there other significant issues that people will talk about openly such as the cost of living? Sure. There always is. Does this mean that the issue is not significant? No. It doesn't mean that at all. More likely is that, like 6-7 years ago in the UK, women hadn't worked out just how many aspects of their lives were / would be impacted and hadn't realised what they could do to change it.

Do a large % of younger women dismiss the need for single sex provisions? I can believe that they do. I have spoken to teenagers about the situation and they absolutely would centre a male person with a transgender identity over the needs of someone they considered 'bigoted' . However, I also know from experience that I personally gained a completely new perspective on female single sex provisions from having a child, having to make decisions about my own mother's care, having a huge number of friends who started to talk about their sexual abuses, and getting to know quite a few female athletes at all levels just how important those female single sex provisions were. Gaining that exposure happened over time.

So if the argument is that if this 0.025% of people (I have no idea where that number came from but never mind) why does sport need to be reconfigured to accomodate such a small number? This issue only affects one in 4000, apparently. Too small to worry about, surely?

Serious injuries occur in football routinely regardless of size. In any case, athletes vary hugely in size even amongst females. That an injury occurred that implicated a trans player doesn't necessarily prove it was because they were trans.

No it is because they are male.

Athletes do vary in size but whilst only a small percentage of females could injure me, 100% of men could. My son at age 12 was strong enough to push me over and I wouldn’t have stood a chance to fight back.

Do you realise that there were extended periods during women's campaign for the vote when people were arguing in similar ways to those you do, above?

(Many of the arguments overlap so closely that you could mix and match these in a variety of different ways to those I choose below).

---

1) Women campaigning for this are obstrusive and obstreperous

"endless opportunities... literally [sic] everywhere... complain incessantly"

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 2026)

"All evidence proves that the adoption of woman suffrage brings into evidence the bold, obtrusive woman whose conduct cheapens the sex and deprives all women of a portion of the chivalry and respect which are their birthright."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 1912)

2) We can safely assume on an anecdotal basis that it isn't of serious concern to the majority - and this is, itself, evidence of its relative unimportance.

"Australian people... don't care enough to turn it into an electoral issue."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 2026)

"The majority of the electors opposed to woman suffrage are less zealous on the subject and less certain to register their votes."

"The fact is that the agitation for woman suffrage is carried on by a small minority of the women of the State, who make up in activity what they lack in numbers."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 1912)

3) To build on the above, even more significantly, not all women want this!

"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."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 2026)

"Let any man ask the women of his acquaintance, and particularly the women who are doing woman's work in the world, the women whom he most respects, and he can satisfy himself as to whether women want the right to vote."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 1912)

4) As such, it's unnecessary to democracy, and even arguably undemocratic

"While equality is a fundamental value, individuals being individuals vary on how the 'rules' should structured."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 2026)

There is a suggestion in the argument presented by the advocates of this amendment that in the absence of woman suffrage democracy is a failure. No American woman with a proper pride in the history of her country would advance this contention.

and

"Conferring suffrage upon the women who claim it would impose suffrage upon the many women who neither desire it as a privilege nor regard it their duty to seek it."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 1912)

5) In any case, immediate economic priorities are naturally of greater significance than more abstract issues of this kind

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

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 2026)

"It is better for the community that they devote their energies to the more efficient performance of their present work than divert them to new fields of activity."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 1912)

6) Therefore, if women's concerns and arguments were truly authentic, they would focus on the greater good

"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."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 2026)

She has done her part in the home and not on the hustings, and her power for good is the greater because she has been content to be a woman and has not striven to be an imitation man.

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 1912)

7) After all, it just doesn't have any meaningful day-to-day impact on most women anyway

"I think it is more a reflection on how much this affects a person's life. For the vast majority of women, it is not a day-to-day issue they have to deal with."

"It's not an issue that has any real world consequences on most people"

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 2026)

"Because the women not so represented suffer no practical injustice which giving the suffrage will remedy."

(on women's fight for the right to distinguish themselves as a distinct political demographic, 1912)

---

I think these parallels are telling, in multiple ways. Plus ça change, eh?

But the main point is, the above were seen as good arguments back then, just as they can be now. And I do see why - people struggle with going against deeply-ingrained beliefs about relative worth, and with prioritising the long-term abstract issues over the immediate concrete ones etc. I mean, it's true, isn't it? The average woman wasn't necessarily immediately and measurably disadvantaged on a day-to-day basis by not enjoying the vote.

However, that didn't mean she didn't need and deserve it, did it? And it didn't stop society coming round to the idea so absolutely that, in the west at least, the above arguments in this context are now seen as patently absurd and offensive.

Really, then, all that these arguments show is how deep and enduring misogyny is.

And in this respect, as with so many TRA arguments, they're actually arguments for women continuing to fight the good fight.

The injury was a significant break during what I believe was a tackle.

A male player moving with male body mass, additional power availability due to fast twitch muscles and leverage means a greater impact with a much higher risk of injury. We have had a woman from the UK tell us on this board how she was similarly injured in a tackle in football by a male player.

Does it happen with female players? Sure. But the risk of significant injury is likely to be less. Please stop dismissing these negative impacts of male athletes.

Cool, I made little dividing lines appear!

Source: https://sos.oregon.gov/archives/exhibits/suffrage/Pages/context/arguments.aspx

Btw, this was literally (correct usage 😁) the first website I googled. No determined searching was needed. The parallels really are that clear and close.

Gretel's at the "women get injured in sport anyway so there's no safety concern in allowing fucking units of men to tackle them" stage of denial, I see. It's part of the Schrodinger's Sports theory where women's sports are simultaneously unimportant and inconsequential culture wars, and also so huge in importance that men will be severely harmed if they aren't in them.

It's quite interesting seeing Gretel lecture us on how it's "character building" to let men pound women in sport, literally and metaphorically, when that's quite the character Gretel has built.

@Gretel346 are you made or just a flat earther?

Force vs mass equals result. Greater force vs smaller mass equals damage to an increasing extent. You do know, don’t you, that boxers take care of themselves by only fighting in their weight category. ‘Cos, you know, Muhammad Ali vs Frankie Dettori has only one outcome. Why should a woman be subjected to your illusions?
https://sportslawexpert.com/2025/04/17/professor-trans-athletes-causing-life-altering-injuries/#:~:text=Public%20interest%20law%20professor%20John,explain%20why%20serious%20physical%20injuries I would point out that concussion in a female can be much more serious in a female than in a male because our bone is thinner.

Angela Carini is a Naples policewoman. She would know about being hit. When she comes out of a ring weeping and saying “I have never been hit like this before” she is educated on the subject so worth believing.

Take one for your team and pull your head in.

Huh. Catching up. Given that the argument now seems to have devolved into the always logical, "Nooo, someone disproportionately heavier and stronger really isn't disproportionately likely to cause injury - obvs.!", I'm not sure this was the right place to bring in century-old Oregon political debate... 😂

“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.”

And yet we have already had a case in Canberra where a female journo had to pay damages to a male person for discussing him being male, Kirrily Smith is appealing her fine for referring to male footballers as being male, and Jasmine Sussex is going to court for discussing a male person breastfeeding in a way he found offensive.

But apparently, women who are pointing out the issues of not being able to exclude male people from female single sex provisions and having to go to court are ‘complaining incessantly’ about their situations and the lack of support.

Yes. It is like the absurdity of the argument that women choose to box anyway, why should they not expect to be punched in the face by a male athlete with atleast 160% more punch power when they only consented to bouts in a female category.

‘women’ come in all sizes and shapes apparently is still considered a compelling argument by some people to convince others that men can really be women and should then play in female sports categories.

It's hilarious and frightening in equal measure.

In other news, bears are now using public toilets and the Pope's taken over the Humanists; the sun rises in the north and a good hot shower will help you dry off after rain.

From one, more ruthless, perspective - keep 'em coming!

From another, though... 😔

Of course, let’s also remember that those male people who want ”social participation, health & character building” sports can also join male teams and mixed sex teams. They never had to join female teams.

“physical differences unless substantial or dangerous aren't so consequential”

Apart from equestrian events, would you please list the sporting events where male athletes do not have a physical advantage?

So how does that same argument that women can cause injury as well and that “social participation, health & character building” can be prioritised to ensure some male people can join female sports events because they claim they are female, play out in other categories.

Oh. It is ok for some adults to join children’s teams because it is good for “social participation, health & character building”.

Or it is ok for some 28 year olds to join the over 80’s team because it is good for “social participation, health & character building”.

So, I take it women are just complaining incessantly if they ask for female sports categories to remain female only. No biggy really. Those women can always cause someone injury and hey, some women have physical advantages too so, nah… they should just shut the fuck up if a male person wants to play in a female football team. (In fact, that is what the organisers of the North Sydney Football league have said with their new contracts. But so be it, those incessant complainers do need to shut the fuck up, any other female player can cause them injury and it is ruining a group of male athlete’s social participation, and opportunities to better health and apparently building a better character too!)

Exactly. Thanks for reminding me of the detail. That politician quoted some pages back (I won't scroll to find his name and exact words) who said something like, "It's important everyone in our society can participate equally" in favour of the verdict? Just, wow. The irony of it, right? Sal's app was created to try to stop women being locked out of opportunities by male physical advantage and aggression. I mean, by all means, Mr Politician, feel free to argue that there's a balancing of rights needed here, that Tickle was disadvantaged too, etc. etc. etc. But this continual denial of any disadvantage to women at all, against all the evidence - this blindness to it or disregard of it - never ceases to astonish and infuriate me. It's very distressing.

Frightening, for sure. Gretel isn't only in favour of men punching and tackling women, he thinks he's some kind of beacon of anti authoritarianism for it.

I truly think this is one reason why this ideology is so hard to flush. We already knew plenty of men hate women (and some women too) but the possibility to openly espouse and enact it, up to the point of sanitising male violence and female injury, all while being lauded as progressive and anti authoritarian, is just too much for many men to resist. And of course they're not going to give up that heady cocktail easily.

Actually, I always leave equestrian sports out of it, since although women can, and do, beat men at elite level, men are vastly overrepresented at this level compared to the number at amateur level. Despite various theories, why this happens has not been satisfactorily answered.

Hey women and girls!

You shouldn’t expect to have any resolution to an issue that negatively impacts your life across many different aspects until the Australian government has fixed the cost of living situation and housing affordability and all these other issues.

What is that you say? Those issues won’t likely be fixed in your generation and in most decades there is a cost of living crisis? Well, then, you just have to wait. Or to take advantage of the next boom time.

What is that you say? It will take years to get the situation resolved and by the next boom so many women and girls will be negatively impacted ? Well… so what. They just have to wait regardless. It is kind.

I was going to respond to this ridiculous, tone-deaf post but others have already responded to it far better than I could.

This whole denial of the significance of competition in sport in certain contexts but not others is so revealingly arbitrary.

It's hard to find an analogy for it, but feels about as logical as saying "Bananas are a valuable food source if a person's training to national level, but for anyone below that, their nutritional element has no significance or value."

Not true!

Competition's what gives sport its meaning in other areas: it's from the competitive element that the health, participation and character-building arise. And nutrition is what gives bananas value: it doesn't matter how the person eating it is channelling that energy.

Arguing that it does is just exposing a very arbitrary, somewhat disturbing value system, in which one should allocate resources based on, what...? outcome? success?

It's a kind of, "Let them eat Haribo!"

And as others point out - deprive amateur girls of meaningful competition / good nutrition, and the next tier up - professional, elite sport - is utterly undermined in any case.

This whole denial of the significance of competition in sport in certain contexts but not others is so revealingly arbitrary.

I think it's what happens when someone realises they can no longer deny male advantage in sport because come the fuck on, so all that's left is to try to ruin sport and safety for only 98% of women and girls. You can then justify that through Schrodinger's Sports, whereby it's not important because it's not elite, but simultaneously so important that men must have it or else.

“An example of this is how younger women tend to be less concerned about private women's spaces than older people.”

This is something that will be interesting to watch as a trend over the coming years. Because we have already seen these younger women answering in polls that they want female single sex provisions increasingly each year. And that is due to more and more of those young women understanding the impacts to their lives and other female people’s lives.

I think anyone falling back to this kind of defence is choosing to ignore this growing trend.