Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Giggle v Tickle Friday 15th May 2pm AEST

644 replies

impossibletoday · 11/05/2026 06:40

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

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
30
Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 08:18

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:01

What part of elected representatives, parliamentary debate, & bi partisan support don't you understand?

If it wasn't what their constituents wanted where was the back lash? Oh that's right, 10 years later when it became a convenient political right wing talking point to avoid their absent affordability policy it 'suddenly' got legs….but 'mysteriously' has no widespread grass roots support.

And which part of the fact there was no wide spread public awareness of the change do you not understand? Being published in the guardian is hardly informing the public. Nor was there, by the looks, indepth legal analysis done by either of the parties about the ramifications.

Considering the ramifications to women and girls, the continued attempt to portray it as a right wing fringe issue is just more misogyny in the action of shaming women to prevent discussing it. It is an issue that crosses political boundaries. But do, please continue showing how misogynistic the opposition of protecting female single sex provisions really is.

Cattywillow · 18/05/2026 08:22

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.

This is blatantly untrue. Sall has pleaded in very little mainstream media. Sky and the Australian are the only ones as far as I know. She may have appeared on one of the commercial channels last year but that was after years of offering to be interviewed. Most mainstream media is entirely captured and won’t give the GC perspective. And it’s definitely not safe for women to speak their GC truth. It is even less safe in certain industries than others. Just see what is happening to Dr Gillian Spencer and Andrew Amos.

Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 08:31

Let’s not forget that if Sal and ‘fellow travellers’ were mentioned by the ABC for a time, they were labelled ‘anti-trans’. That demonisation worked as both a trigger to stop people listening to those women and as a chilling effect.

The number of people I have had discussions with in Australia who when they discuss the issue, frame it similarly as ‘anti-trans’ until you point out just what these women are saying and the impacts is surprising. Once they see the issue, they then don’t discuss it with anyone they don’t trust not to label them as a bigot. Meanwhile, those who are pushing the misogyny get away with it because of the fear factor that has been created by the ABC and the Guardian.

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:43

Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 08:18

And which part of the fact there was no wide spread public awareness of the change do you not understand? Being published in the guardian is hardly informing the public. Nor was there, by the looks, indepth legal analysis done by either of the parties about the ramifications.

Considering the ramifications to women and girls, the continued attempt to portray it as a right wing fringe issue is just more misogyny in the action of shaming women to prevent discussing it. It is an issue that crosses political boundaries. But do, please continue showing how misogynistic the opposition of protecting female single sex provisions really is.

So there's a 'problem' that was created because of an alleged lack of public consultation in a change of legislation ….but the public still appears to have no awareness of?

Hmmm, doesn't sound like its an 'problem' for them if they don't know about this 'problem' that has 'devastating' effects on women.

Make it make sense.

Shedmistress · 18/05/2026 08:46

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:01

What part of elected representatives, parliamentary debate, & bi partisan support don't you understand?

If it wasn't what their constituents wanted where was the back lash? Oh that's right, 10 years later when it became a convenient political right wing talking point to avoid their absent affordability policy it 'suddenly' got legs….but 'mysteriously' has no widespread grass roots support.

We've seen it everywhere, they only ever ask the government funded people who rely on the government funds to comment. Of course they are going to say 'sure, whatever you want'.

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:47

Cattywillow · 18/05/2026 08:22

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.

This is blatantly untrue. Sall has pleaded in very little mainstream media. Sky and the Australian are the only ones as far as I know. She may have appeared on one of the commercial channels last year but that was after years of offering to be interviewed. Most mainstream media is entirely captured and won’t give the GC perspective. And it’s definitely not safe for women to speak their GC truth. It is even less safe in certain industries than others. Just see what is happening to Dr Gillian Spencer and Andrew Amos.

False. All mainstream publications including centre & leftist one's have publicised the case whenever it comes up including most recently the outcome.

It's all over social media as well.

Shedmistress · 18/05/2026 08:47

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:47

False. All mainstream publications including centre & leftist one's have publicised the case whenever it comes up including most recently the outcome.

It's all over social media as well.

Yes as ANTI-TRANS.

The big old meanie.

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:51

Shedmistress · 18/05/2026 08:47

Yes as ANTI-TRANS.

The big old meanie.

Not at all. All the mainstream nightly news channels have just reported on the case sans 'opinion'.

ANTI-TRANS = not giving Grifter Grover extended reign to spout false talking points.

spannasaurus · 18/05/2026 08:54

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:51

Not at all. All the mainstream nightly news channels have just reported on the case sans 'opinion'.

ANTI-TRANS = not giving Grifter Grover extended reign to spout false talking points.

Which of her talking points is false?

Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 09:03

spannasaurus · 18/05/2026 08:54

Which of her talking points is false?

I am looking forward to the answer.

Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 09:11

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:51

Not at all. All the mainstream nightly news channels have just reported on the case sans 'opinion'.

ANTI-TRANS = not giving Grifter Grover extended reign to spout false talking points.

Oh hey! Howse that, eh?

Sal really makes some male people very upset, doesn’t she? Why is that?

KnottyAuty · 18/05/2026 09:13

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:01

What part of elected representatives, parliamentary debate, & bi partisan support don't you understand?

If it wasn't what their constituents wanted where was the back lash? Oh that's right, 10 years later when it became a convenient political right wing talking point to avoid their absent affordability policy it 'suddenly' got legs….but 'mysteriously' has no widespread grass roots support.

This is the backlash. duh!

And elected representatives make laws tgat their constituents dont like all the time. That is how democracy works. If they do it too often or in a big way then they pay for it at the next election.

The TRA lobbyists got these policies in through back door deals across the world. They and the politicians were all terribly pleased with their progressive selves. The politicians thought that no one would notice because there would be no impact on anyone…. But… Public awareness of the implications is catching up despite the media not wishing to report accurately.

The dam will burst - eventually the laws will change back. It will take a long time apparently but as you say politicians need voters and if they thought the “tiny” number of trans people would go about their lives unnoticed then they made a serious miscalculation.

Because in all areas - like you here on this thread in fact - TIMs cant seem to help themselves?! There are too many of these chaps who are aggressive (manly even, you might say), and who overstep and make a nuisance of themselves. And it’s not a tiny number - at 1 in 90ish for the under 30s thats a sizeable group thats eroding Womens rights and pissing people off.

People are noticing that it’s not all “be kind” and the laws that changed without full transparency will be questioned and then changed. Thats democracy and while you can talk about the past process, you can bet your bottom dollar tgat this time these policies will get full scrutiny.

No idea what side of history this will be on but it’s definitely going to be on teaching syllabus in n future because this secular religion is total batshit

NotBadConsidering · 18/05/2026 09:14

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:01

What part of elected representatives, parliamentary debate, & bi partisan support don't you understand?

If it wasn't what their constituents wanted where was the back lash? Oh that's right, 10 years later when it became a convenient political right wing talking point to avoid their absent affordability policy it 'suddenly' got legs….but 'mysteriously' has no widespread grass roots support.

You said to change it needs voter support. You are admitting it was changed previously without voter support.

Make it make sense 🙄

Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 09:29

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 08:01

What part of elected representatives, parliamentary debate, & bi partisan support don't you understand?

If it wasn't what their constituents wanted where was the back lash? Oh that's right, 10 years later when it became a convenient political right wing talking point to avoid their absent affordability policy it 'suddenly' got legs….but 'mysteriously' has no widespread grass roots support.

Just reading this again. Where was the back lash?

I reckon that back lash is what you are now seeing and it is because it is now clear that the change to the Act was detrimental to women and girls. Prior to this, the general public were unaware of the consequences.

Now women are increasingly aware. I don’t think this will be going away despite some groups willing it to disappear.

So where is the backlash? You are only seeing the start of it.

Shedmistress · 18/05/2026 09:31

Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 09:11

Oh hey! Howse that, eh?

Sal really makes some male people very upset, doesn’t she? Why is that?

Her Milkshake and all that...

Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 09:40

I think the misogynistic behaviour of people claiming to be left wing is rather interesting.

Shame women who speak out, say they are whiners, incessantly complaining, and grifters, then declare no one is talking about it, and that there are much bigger issues to focus on. Even trying to shame feminists that any discussion about single sex provisions are distracting from campaigns to stop VAWAG and that in female sports, participation, health and character building is far more important than women and girls having safe and fair sports at all levels.

However, the outcome is that women have remained silent because of the abuse. And are then told they obviously don’t care enough to speak out and show it is a significant concern so that the pollies and mainstream media take notice.

It really is clear when you see it in. and it is DARVO in its nature.

BabaYagasHouse · 18/05/2026 09:49

Catiette · 17/05/2026 13:34

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.

Delurking just to say thanks to Catiette for this post.

Brilliant!

Thanks for taking the time to do this.

(And with a cool line too😎)

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 18/05/2026 09:57

spannasaurus · 18/05/2026 08:54

Which of her talking points is false?

Gosh. An hour has passed and still no answer. I guess AI isn't playing ball.

musicalfrog · 18/05/2026 09:58

Thank God for women like those on this thread who spend their valuable time and energy on putting together coherent unarguable facts in increasingly original and creative ways. I can only bask in your gleaming light and cheer you on from the sidelines! Forever impressed on these boards👏👏

SwirlyGates · 18/05/2026 10:01

@Helleofabore 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.

Perhaps it shows how many people either are not engaged in politics, or have a lack of critical thinking. But then, the same lack of critical thinking applies to our actual politicians!

There is nothing that has happened (sports, changing rooms, prisons, toilets, refuges, rapes...) that women on here did not predict long ago.

Lolajane80 · 18/05/2026 11:54

ThatCyanCat · 15/05/2026 07:39

Although I guess this is a similar trajectory so far to FWS's SC ruling. I just can't understand how people can be such liars, at so much peril to women and girls.

If you need to drag a woman into court to prove you're a woman, if you need judges to declare you one, you're not one. He's only able to bring this case because he's a man!

Exactly! Actual women don't fight with eachother about being called a woman because we are just women.

ThatCyanCat · 18/05/2026 13:53

Helleofabore · 18/05/2026 09:40

I think the misogynistic behaviour of people claiming to be left wing is rather interesting.

Shame women who speak out, say they are whiners, incessantly complaining, and grifters, then declare no one is talking about it, and that there are much bigger issues to focus on. Even trying to shame feminists that any discussion about single sex provisions are distracting from campaigns to stop VAWAG and that in female sports, participation, health and character building is far more important than women and girls having safe and fair sports at all levels.

However, the outcome is that women have remained silent because of the abuse. And are then told they obviously don’t care enough to speak out and show it is a significant concern so that the pollies and mainstream media take notice.

It really is clear when you see it in. and it is DARVO in its nature.

Edited

There is a certain type of left wing person who very lazily and complacently assumes that being left wing means they are automatically correct (hence "right wing" being used as a conversation stopper; all I have to do is say it's right wing, and it's wrong). Quite apart from being incredibly intellectually and ideologically lazy and tribalistic, it's also total shite. Women existing as a distinct sex class with sex based rights is not a right wing tenet, and it's rather a sign of how little Gretel knows about the issue that he is not aware of the Communist Party's stance on the matter.

Added to that is a certain type of left wing man who is hugely supportive of women's rights only as far as they also benefit men. So they are massively in favour of things like abortion and sex work, but things like single sex spaces are somewhat less pressing, in fact of no importance at all; and of course, if you can tell yourself they're right wing, you don't need to think any further. Convenient.

These men truly think that because they identify as left wing, they must automatically be progressive and morally superior. They will gaslight women, force Newspeak on them, reduce them to stereotypes, deny them the right to assemble without men, assume moral and intellectual superiority, blame them for not righting every worldly wrong before they start on their rights, trivialise their rights as "culture wars" (but talk at length about it themselves) and castigate them for not willingly self sacrificing, and they honestly think this isn't the same old regressive sexist chauvinism known since year dot. There's even woman beating in there, just as long as it's a man pounding a woman in a boxing ring or rugby match.

ThatCyanCat · 18/05/2026 14:11

And I'll also add: dismissing a woman as a "grifter" because she set up a business to meet a need for female safety after having her first career route destroyed by sexism is frankly disgusting. Jason brought the case against her; she had no choice but to fight it, and as ever, she's the one having to crowdfund and be utterly consumed by it, during the pregnancy and early motherhood years that no trans identifying male will ever experience. He's the one with a fully captured institution behind him paying all his costs and knocking at the highest levels so she and other women can't ever get away from him, men like him and men worse than him. And she's the grifter? The villain?

Absolutely fucking shameful. Misogynistic and disingenuous in the extreme. Bullshit.

PriOn1 · 18/05/2026 14:19

Gretel346 · 18/05/2026 01:33

Just the opposite actually. Grover harassed Tickle by directly discriminating because of her identity & effectively continued harassing her by publicly insulting her afterwards on loud speaker on social media encouraging her many followers to join in because Tickle dared to claim discrimination.

Grover lodged her appeal knowing full well she could never win but did so because of the free publicity her pretend victimhood allowed her that facilitated bogus 'fund raising' all the while knowing the continued public harassment of Tickle it enabled.

A truly reprehensible human but unsurprising as her history prior to becoming a gender critical activist was one of serial grifting.

You know Mr Tickle appealed as well, I assume? He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to harassing women.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 18/05/2026 15:52

Perhaps someone can explain why modernity apparently means:-

  1. Female prisoners to be incarcerated with intact male sex offenders
  2. Disabled females not being able to request same sex intimate care
  3. Same sex attracted people being told they are bigots for not choosing opposite sex partners
  4. Rape victims not being able to request same sex counselling
  5. Females who are victims of sexual violence not being allowed any spaces that are free from males
  6. Children being told they are in the wrong body and subjected to irreversible medical intervention

Do I need to continue?

This is one of the most regressive periods for women’s rights in decades and the fact that people try to wrap their sheer misogyny in virtue is offensive. It’s like some people still think one half of the world’s population are lesser to the other half. Women’s safety, privacy and dignity rank lower than the hurt feelings of males. How is that modern?