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 he’s not able to throw maggot filled dead rats at us like Millicent Fawcett and her crew had to endure. They’d plan an event, expect a riot and then come back the next day to try again in the calm. It really really really upsets men when women want to exert their rights. Weird. Just weird

I also think infinitesimal is a word they’ve just learned and think it means the same as minuscule. I’ve seen it a few times recently.

Though really, “very small” would be an infinitely better choice.

It’s not a reflection of what random people do, but it’s an accurate reflection of the types of offences that males commit vs those that females commit. That’s how we know that, for instance, over 90% of sexual assault is committed by males. That doesn’t mean that all men are sex abusers. It does mean that statistically, a random man is more likely to be a threat to those around him than a random woman.

And here’s the bit that matters in this context: trans women have the same offending profile as other men, NOT that of women. They are imprisoned more often for violent crime or sexual assault, just like all men, than women, who tend to be imprisoned for things like fraud or non payment of debts.

That’s why women cant assume that a random trans woman is not a risk to her. He is as likely to be a risk to her as any other man.

Like Blackbird, I’m stumped by these responses. Yes to jello! It’s like asking, “What do you think about global warming? The stats are worrying, aren’t they?” and getting “I hate rain! Why don’t you, fascist?!” in reply. Heading off.

Infinitesimal sounds more romantic when used.

More like, "I fully detest liquid precipitation and to express any kind of sentiment that suggests anything other than the greatest revulsion for this unholy alliance of hydrogen and oxygen in neither gaseous nor solid form is a sign of an authoritarian mindset dingbat topsoil Lincoln green", but yes, you're quite right.

Yes! That.

To clarify my earlier post, I don’t mean that Sall should give up the fight. I simply mean that, as the law currently stands, it seems highly unlikely she will win in the courts. As others in this thread and on X have pointed out, the courts will continue ruling against her until the law itself changes, as that is what the decisions are being based off of. I’m glad to see the case attracting attention from some politicians and lawmakers, but whether that attention translates into anything substantive remains to be seen.

I’m very pessimistic about places like Oz and Canada on this issue. IMO both countries are prime examples of what we absolutely must not emulate. Once a country reaches that stage, it becomes extremely difficult to claw its way back.

I don’t know too much about this part of it but my understanding is that, if the High Court upholds the judgement on legal grounds, it can make the point that the current state of the law makes the SDA ineffective at protecting women on the basis of sex, thus putting Australia at odds with its obligations under CEDAW. This was something Sall talked about more earlier on but I haven’t heard her mention it for a while so I wonder if they are still pursuing that angle.

The G v T case seems to have caused some ripples. There were a number of news stories (even the ABC), a Nationals MP is putting forwards an amendment to include a biologically based definition of sex in the SDA. Senator Pauline Hanson is again putting forward an amendment probably to define sex and remove GI from the SDA. Karl Stefanovic, one of Australia's best known news/media faces did a sympathetic interview with Sal on his podcast saying he heard the news while in the car with a bunch of women who were all disappointed with the result. One Labor premier has said biological women need their own prisons and sports. A bunch of other politicians across various parties have posted supportive statements (liberals, nationals, libertarian, one nation). The Australian Christian Lobby is supporting changing the SDA. There are people writing letters etc. Across the ditch, an amendment to clarify sex in law passed the first hurdle (needs rewording, but still). Their MPs were talking a lot about G v T.

Will anything happen yet? Who knows, but there is definitely more traction than I've seen here before.

I think it really is a matter of luck which judge/s she gets, although I do think the Lesbian Action Groups approach which is like Ben Coopers is more likely to cut through. The LAG tribunal judge didn't seem to think biologically female same-sex attracted people couldn't have an exemption based on their protected characteristics. I haven't been able to stomach properly reading the judgement yet, but scoured over all the previous documents and the main reason Sal lost initially was because the judge decided RT was female because 'sex is changeable'. There is nothing in the law that requires that decision any more than what was in the FWS case. It all comes down to interpretation, and the lead judge pointed out she can decide that woman has a different meaning in the clauses of the SDA about sex, men and women, from the clauses about pregnant women and breastfeeding women. And that's the way she chose to go. While its a grim prospect, I'm starting to think if Sal lost in the High Court there would be a sufficient uproar to create change.

Be careful what you wish for.

No doubt governments from other countries are carefully observing what the logistical (& by extension political) fall out is likely to occur should they follow. What the world is witnessing in real time from the UK is the obvious impracticality that providers face of enforcing such laws. Its obviously created a confusing logistical & legal nightmare for providers where they on one hand have an obligation to enforce sex segregation based on a stereotypical surface evaluation but on the other are prevented from doing so lest they harass their patrons.

Whilst effectively police state surveillance being legalised for public toilet usage is lost on those with an authoritarian mentality its not for the rest.

Truly a dogs breakfast.

Easily fixed with ID that displays biological sex.

Just a matter of time in the UK.

Talk about missing the point.

Yes, that would be the obvious answer, like we have our DOB to prove we're over 18 when buying alcohol.

They could have it optional for those who are dysphoric & don't want to access female single sex provisions, or include sex but also have an optional gender id marker for those who worry it could confuse border security or police to have a sex marker that differs from their gender presentation.

Having had Stonewall pushing the idea that people had legal entitlements they don't actually have has confused the issue, eventually society will likely readjust to what the law says, and finally develop provisions and acceptance for trans people that doesn't depend on them and everyone else pretending they are the opposite biological sex or that sex doesn't actually exist or matter anymore. No-one would worry about 'outing' trans people if they were accepted as they are.

Apparently there was some pushback when men realised they weren't able to slap their secretary's butts at work anymore, but eventually they get used to women having boundaries.

Indeed, non gender conforming cis women will 'just have to get used to having their butts slapped' by the gender stereotype loo police too.

Slapping people on the butt is illegal regardless of the sex or gender identity of the slappee.

People coped a lot better with gender nonconformity before some people started insisting stereotypes of masculinity or femininity are embedded into our psyche as a sacred identity that is so important we must never again mention the biological realities of the female sex. Hopefully we can regain some of the progress made once all this nonsense is sorted out.

Slapping people on the butt is illegal regardless of the sex or gender identity of the slappee.

"Slapping" was being used 'figuratively' here as in the gender policing boundary overreach.

People coped a lot better with gender nonconformity before some people started insisting stereotypes of masculinity or femininity are embedded into our psyche as a sacred identity that is so important we must never again mention the biological realities of the female sex

And yet that is what gender policing toilets is perpetuating . You can't have it both ways.

Fascinating there is such a strong assumption that biological males would have to be 'policed' to keep them out of womens toilets or change rooms. Surely just like respectful people don't pinch the ACROD carparks designated for people with disability, and male employers mostly won't slap women's butts anymore, people will be respectful of other people's spaces and boundaries?

Quite.

This is about inclusion, access and equality for all - what exactly would you like to happen for the women who cannot use mixed sex spaces?

I am gender non conforming, I am also very tall, I have a deep voice for a woman. I can count the times I got challenged in the toilets on one hand. When I respond, women realise I am female. No harm done. So don't worry about gender non conforming women, we will be fine.

Besides, transwomen in my experience are very gender conforming, they ooze feminine stereotypes: long hair, short skirts, make up, the lot. I think if I conformed to gender stereotypes expected of my sex, I would probably get challenged more, if that makes sense? So I never understood this line of reasoning by transactivists.

Asking people to use the correct facilities for their sex is not gender policing

No harm done

And yet isn't the whole GC world view centred around being anti gender stereotypes? You can't have it both ways nor do you get to speak for all gender non conforming women.

It is if you're using gender stereotypes to reach that conclusion.