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

There's still special circumstances for discrimination that can be considered. I support that.

Well, that was interesting.

am watching Afternoon Briefing with PK who asked (Muslim) Anne Aly about the Government opinion, on the back of Chris Minns saying something needs to be done.

Anne Aly has been forcefully schooled on the subject mentioning “punching down”, “equality for everyone”, “right wing”, “racism”, “immigration”.

And now PK is querying the Liberal she has on. Who is saying she has had a couple of thousand submissions to her office in a couple of days!

Do look at iview in a bit.

I agree.

@Catiette 's post with those comparisons deserves a thread all of its own actually.

Thank you for this - very timely. The same “it looks ok because there are exemptions” is being rolled out in the NHS…. This is a good example of why face value isnt great with genderism

I actually glanced at Gretel's latest time wasting bollocks (doesn't take long; despite the long winded attempts to sound clever, it's all stuff we've heard 500000 times already and it was just as nonsensical those times too). I see we're in the "it's sophisticated to pretend some men are women, it's a detail" territory now.

Sophisticated minds, of course, know the difference between subsective modifiers that keep the original category of the noun intact, and privative modifiers which denote a different category. So a red apple, a sweet apple, a rotten apple... subsective, all types of apple. A wax apple, a toy apple, a fake apple... privative. Not apples. Like trans. An old woman, a fat woman, a dead woman, are all women. A trans woman is not.

It being sophisticated to erase women and their rights in law is a cousin of "it's the modern outlook" and I am still laughing at how brilliantly Catiette demonstrated how modern and forward looking all that chauvinism is.

I agree KhakiQ

It needed to probably have some independant legal eyes analyse it from all angles, and I would think it didn’t. Because it seemed like it was a suitable work around at the time. And because at that time, there really was a very small number of male people who declared they were female.

Strangely though, when you look back, out of those few male people there were already significant signs that were overlooked. You had Mianne Bagger and you had Layt, already making changes in golf and rugby union respectively.

Afternoon Briefing is up. Lots of interest.

https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NU2622C077S00

Howse that? I reckon we are in a rinse and repeat cycle that started in August 2025, but I could be wrong. At the moment, there are two posters on this board that blend into one when I read their posts.

I'm free to identify myself as a member of the royal family. What happens in my head is up to me, how I dress, how I name myself, how I perceive myself.

I can try asking others to curtsey and call me ma'am, they may or may not indulge me. Any upset I feel about this however will be a 'me' problem.

I'm going to get arrested if I try to walk into Windsor Castle this morning and settle into a bedroom. There are rational, practical limits to my personal freedoms of identity choice.

Men are fine identifying however the hell they want. Women need single sex spaces. End of. Men are just going to have to tolerate the existence of spaces they cannot use and definitions they can't control and colonise. That's the equality bit.

Needed, to protect women from people who think destroying all this to please a man's inner self is a rational thing to do.

Your maj, it is all about boundaries, isn’t it? It is about whether any other person has to act in support of another’s belief in a subjective reality that is not based on material reality. And that answer is no.

And that some people and the current laws in some parts of Australia, that declare using accurate language for a person’s material situation as being harassment shows a gaping flaw in the law.

So Chris Minns believes that somehow a position of allowing male people to be excluded for some female single sex provisions but not others is a workable and inclusive situation. I reckon this line is the current NSW Labor line and is what Gretel supports and I believe Emily on other threads, just like Howseitgoin supported in many posts on the topic last year.

I guess NSW Labor and its supporters haven’t really understood how that works and how cruel it is to male transpeople and to female people who need female single sex provisions to be female only (except boys under about 8 years old).

It's been going on longer than that. And on the one hand, it's sort of funny to see the same cast of characters swing round again and again telling us that single sex changing rooms, rape crisis centres, dating services and sports - for both men and women, and with additional mixed sex spaces too so everyone has two options - are authoritarian, hateful, bigoted, unsophisticated, insane, far right, totally unjustified until we've eradicated poverty and war and all the rest of it.

On the other, it is also kind of grating and wearying, especially when, as they so often do, they couch it in bloated, verbose word salad in an attempt to sound intellectually intimidating (lol) and also to obfuscate the totally stupid premise at its core.

It's a time and energy wasting tactic with a hefty blob of obfuscation. Intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Yes. It has been going on for a very long time.

It's just another sign of how very new some people are to this that they think the trans lobby will accept that TWAW in xxxx but not in yyy.

I think this was the position most people started with. The idea is essentially "Ok, we can pretend they're women in xxxx to be polite, but obviously we all know they're not really, so it won't be a problem to keep them out of yyyy, nobody could argue that."

We know how that'll go. And the cherry on the shit sundae will be the deluge of dudebros who ignored women on this for years and years because it was just silly culture wars suddenly coming to the fore and roaring, "Where were the feminists? This is all their fault!"

Meaningful impact as in the actual effects on everyday women's lives. As in women be sexually harassed at work was significantly more commonplace than them ever being harassed by a trans woman.

A very small percentage of men are Icelandic. Most women who have been harassed by a man have not been harassed by an Icelandic man. Does that mean we can exempt Icelandic men from concerns about male violence?

He's not all the way there yet, but I believe he is the FIRST Labor politician to say anything supporting women re biological sex. Once someone realises the issues in prisons and sports it's a tiny step to understand change rooms and services. Once someone is willing to speak up and say anything about biological sex mattering, they have broken the silence and the taboo.

I agree KhakiQ. He is the first to even budge from the line. I think he might find himself understanding he cannot make that work and will then have to move either way.

Like many of us, he might get a whole lot deeper understanding of the situation as the reactions come in and the red flags might make him think even more. (or I can live in hope, maybe he has Buckley’s of being allowed to think it through more).

I think this was the position most people started with. The idea is essentially "Ok, we can pretend they're women in xxxx to be polite, but obviously we all know they're not really, so it won't be a problem to keep them out of yyyy, nobody could argue that."

That was, initially, it for lawmakers, wasn't it? All the Hansard discussions etc. Kindness is indulging it as far as possible, within reasonable limits in the knowledge that no one is saying they're men, we're creating a kind and polite fiction for their comfort and happiness, but everybody knows and it stays within obvious limits, separate from real women. And this expected that the group so granted would be able to behave appropriately and know those limits themselves.

And then the TWAW stuff started, and everybody is now belated realising this isn't a movement with capacity for boundaries, respect for other people's needs, or reasonability. Which makes the initial 'kindness' look rather naive, foolish and more about sentiment in the first place, and the lesson needing to be learned by society is that firm boundaries and clarity are probably kinder to all in the long run. There is always going to be a point at which women and lawmakers are forced to the discourtesy of having to say loudly and clearly that they are men. (Discussion point here that the political gender movement hold the responsibility for having vigorously forced the discourtesy and arguably forced the consequences too; there were many ways to do this that might have been much more successful.)

The whole 'some men can be women in womens spaces sometimes but not others' falls as soon as it's ever properly considered or tested, for many obvious reasons. But the bottom line is, you can't 'play fair' by sometimes excluding some men from women's spaces, and sometimes excluding some women from women's spaces.

For a start, those men always have somewhere else to go: those women don't. Women's spaces need to be inclusive of women and accessible to women and deal with that 100% population before worrying about men. And while you can provide those men with an alternative resource that isn't sex based while leaving sex based provisions intact - not those men's preferred answer but one that is actually equal and fair to all - you cannot provide women bounced out of a single sex space with an alternative.

Because that would be- another single sex space. And those men will demand and fight for that one too.

There can be no reasonable answer to this beyond firm boundaries and the word 'no'.

You have lived there and know more than I do so you must be right, and I take it back what I said about their having a more macho culture and more misogyny.

But something about them is evidently rather different about their attitudes to women for them to have come to this decision where in the U.K. we have not.

Sorry, I had got the quote wrong. I was deferring to and answering,

Helleofabore · Yesterday 19:08
“Isn’t Australia traditionally full of macho men?”
No. Not noticeably more or less than the Uk
“A lot of them will be secretly hankering to be hidden as women if they don’t fit the stereotype or are really gay.” Not noticeably more or less than the UK
“At the same time they must want all actual women under their feet in the same old macho, misogynist way.” Not noticeably more or less than the UK
It is true that this change in 2013 has left an inherently misogynist legacy. But having spent a chunk of my life in both countries, I think there is a very lazy narrative that the men of Australia are more misogynist than the UK. This is not true In my opinion.

I think the biggest difference is we have wiser parliamentary counsel writing the text of new laws.

I get it Scrolling. It does seem so when you look at it from certain aspects.

But the reality is, I have faced as much misogyny here as I did in Australia. Particularly being pregnant and having a child here.

I'll do my best, but a) tired, and b) particularly tired of the rudeness ("even the most unsophisticated of minds") and the unconscious irony ("details matter").

Yup, but at the risk of you wilfully missing the point of a simple phrase again that even the most unsophisticated minds seem to understand is details matter.

Details do matter. With such "sophistication of mind" (the stuff of a pretentious teen's personal statement!), I genuinely wish you'd share some yourself to counter mine. Some of your points are thought-provoking, but so many just (intentionally? unintentionally? it's hard to tell) miss, well... the (GC) point.

The women's right to vote however you wish to bastardise to preventing a sub category of women being recognised isn't going to fly in rational circles.

Not "flying in rational circles"? (Images of a pompous old gent sipping port while expounding at length from a leather armchair coming to mind now). Hm. Tbh, I wouldn't like to speak for such a massive demographic (doesn't feel right to claim such sophistication of mind as that).

And in case you missed the obvious other difference, the right to vote actually has consequences on women broadly. Excluding trans women? Not so much.

See point 7 of my post and the rest of the thread. Or quote point 7 and the points given elsewhere, and break them down. As you say, details matter. Whereas "not so much"? Well, not so much of a counter-argument.

The past campaign was essentially the right to vote. That you wish to twist this into recognition of a distinct demographic thru some mental gymnastics is on you.

It's hard to make a counter-argument if you don't face up to the argument.

I define it as it is: the right to vote v the right to limit what a woman is.

I'm confused by this. Who's "limiting what a woman is" here? I thought you meant trans ideology at first, then realised you probably mean GC feminists, I guess in our damning embrace of the significant proportion of the world's population who haven't a clue what you mean by "cis" and define women the way of millennia. (Like, you know, the billions populating global history).

On numbers alone, we win outright.

This does interest me, actually. Has that ever occurred to you, Gretel? How culturally colonialist and insistently revisionist this teeny westernised redefinition of recent decades is? How arrogant is it, to impose it on - just to choose one example of billions - the 20+ million oppressed by the Taliban who likely define themselves as we do? (Or do they not? Details would be genuinely interesting on this matter).

Meaningful impact as in the actual effects on everyday women's lives. As in women be sexually harassed at work was significantly more commonplace than them ever being harassed by a trans woman. Metoo didn't have a meaningful impact on everyday women's lives?... to say the workplace is the same pre metoo just isn't true...

I'm confused. Who said Me Too "didn't have a meaningful impact" or "the workplace is the same"? Could you clarify? (While you're at it, you could also comment on what I said: "I honestly find it hard to see how Me Too had more concrete impact than"). Again (I'm sorry, I can't resist it!)... details matter.

As opposed to GC impact on women's lives broadly? Given the rarity of trans peoples presence, that would be a stretch.

Their rarity is key, I agree: given this, their proportionate impact is astonishing, and a strong argument in our favour (eg. sport).

However, my focus was actually on our redefinition. I'd not realised how well the voting analogy works here, too, actually. "Given the rarity of a woman's political views diverging dramatically from those of her husband, it would be a stretch to think she was disadvantaged by not having the vote," they said.

On the very rare occasion one should sight a human unicorn being compelled to treat them as an equal isn't the grand existential upset you think it is.

I'm really taken with this phrase - a most excellent sentence and image. I'm thinking CS Lewis illustrated by Maurice Sendak. A backdrop of dark forest, the unicorn glowing in the foreground. Existential turmoil represented by planetary firescape glimpsed roiling through the trees. I may Chat GPT it!

So to suggest they might be more misogynistic than others is nonsense

Where did I suggest this? Which "others"? Dammit, it's just so apt, I'm going there again... Details matter.

Australia & Canada are global leaders regarding egalitarianism so to suggest they might be more misogynistic than others is nonsense.
More likely Gender critical ideology has a blind spot when it comes to accepting /understanding how typical associations drive word categorisations. They are so obsessed with gender stereotypes coopting behaviour they can't rationalise any other influences.

A lot to deal with here, so I'm just going to end on another children's fiction light note. "Gender stereotypes coopting behaviour" sounds like the plot of a dodgy dystopian teen novel - Invasion of the Shoddy Matchers? (Ahem. Sorry. Guess I got a bit carried away in my pathetically confused understanding of associations and word categorisations...)

You have a rare talent for speaking at length without disturbing the facts

I have such admiration for your ability to not allow evidence to interfere with your opinions. Most people struggle with that.