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 is that too.

Of course, it takes some pretty disconnected thinking to think that the existence and experience of female people with transgender identities diminishes the inherent misogynistic behaviour and misogynistic concept of male people demanding that their claim
to be female is treated as if that claim is based on material reality.

Considering the number female people with transgender identities reporting male trans people sexually abusing them and other abusive acts, it would seem absurd to think that the experience of those female people diminish the misogynistic nature that seems to be unaffected by male people’s identity claims.

Gretel, I've resisted saying this for so long, but reading the above? I'm going there.

By trying so hard to sound erudite, you're misusing words and losing control of sentences and ideas, and other posters can see this. We can usually work out your meaning, but it's is undermining your posts (and leading to some secondary embarrassment).

If it's all a conscious strategy to obscure weaknesses in arguments, kudos! And if English isn't your mother tongue, more serious kudos (I really mean this; I have wondered).

Otherwise, though - back away from the thesaurus, slow down, and focus on fluency and clarity. Stop trying to "sound clever", and you'll come across as so much more mature and convincing (and confident in your own stance).

It’s like when Kirrin Medcalf used ‘yourselves’ in her letter to GCC.

Just cringey as fuck. 😬

Stop trying to "sound clever", and you'll come across as so much more mature and convincing (and confident in your own stance).

He won't sound any more convincing because on the few occasions that he is making a coherent point (as in, not this: "Why can't women in Afghanistan just identify as men, then?" "Oh, so you want us to get rid of equality protections here, do you, fascist???") he is still talking the same old nonsense everyone honest and sensible never accepted at all abandoned around 2021; maybe last year in terms of the Transman Gotcha after the SC clarified that one. I'm actually surprised we haven't had DSDs and gender neutral toilets at home yet.

But he would sound more confident and mature and yes, it would be much less embarrassing. He's obviously going to run this to 1000 posts so he could at least do that on the way.

It does sound astoundingly like howse, who insisted he had a foolproof way for telling people's gender that related to whether they cry or did childcare, iirc

Absolute pillock, but amusing to see what they come up with - like my toddler arguing why she doesnt actually need to clean her teeth.

What you do not understand is that this language was designed at university in order to compare and contrast different texts. Texts being writing, books, films, TV programmes, yada yada yada.

No matter how many big words you use to try and obscufate, and to make yourself look like some educated higher up and to cast those who come back to basic words as thickos, I was writing that sort of guff about books, movies, newspapers, adverts blah blah blah 25 years ago. I was in the first tranche of university students that studied Media Studies using the tools that had been used to study the written text for decades. It is all based on Post Modern Queer Theory.

But no words make a man into a woman. No words make men who say they are women into some sort of victim of the patriarchy over the women and girls whose boundaries they are stomping all over.

If you want to use your 'much bigger than anyone else' intellect, tell us how men can change into women, what changes are manifest in this change and at what point the change is complete.

The point of any piece of writing is to communicate with another person.

I was trained that if you couldn't make your points clear in laymen's terms, then either you didn't fully understand the concepts yourself, or weren't certain of the points you were trying to make. Long, convoluted, confusing language isn't 'better' or more admirable, there's a point at which it's just poor writing.

Toddlers are cute, though.

Nominated for MN rebuttal of the year so far. 😆

Uncanny, eh. It serves as a great way to have posters repeat everything already discussed extensively though doesn’t it?

The ‘disrupter’ of discussion.

Ahhh. But does it all sound any more accurate in points being made than when we were faced with the fallacy accusations with wiki links that also never quite fit? Not really.

All these anti-feminist posters sound identical. They all sound like they've taken a doctoral thesis and ran it through some robot-type thing like ChatGPT, swallowed it and posted the result. They lack the ability to communicate like a normal human being. They're such a cliche.

As a side observation, the last time I saw someone on here who churned out endless turgid word salad without being troubled by facts or reason, it was a weapon grade antisemite who told us all that we were insufficiently clever, middle class and London-dwelling (yes really) to understand their very intelligent and nuanced arguments as to why everything you don't like is caused by Jews. This genius couldn't grasp why an ambulance service funded and run by the Jewish community (and serving everyone) existed only in places with a sizeable Jewish community (but they knew it was the Jews' fault). I don't know if they also thought women can have penises and men don't pose significant risk, but they were definitely in that wheelhouse of reason.

Anyway, I can't wait for the next instalment. It's going to be a real zinger. We may have to wait until the full moon for the peak brilliance though. Currently in the first quarter.

OK @Gretel346 you have convinced me. My radical feminist view and critical view of the social construct of gender means that I am an agent of the Patriarchy.

Happy now?

While I don't disagree regarding sweeping conclusions, your point is completely irrelevant as I made no such sweeping conclusions about entire populations, groups or systems.

YY

More updates from Australia - the protest in London made the paper, and the caption used the phrase "pro-woman".

Brilliant!

Oh yay! Which paper ?

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2026.05.23-214835/www.theaustralian.com.au/world/protesters-rally-in-london-to-back-sall-grovers-fight-for-womens-rights/news-story/209a04ba95767cf6163388f37d134790?amp=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2026.05.23-214835/www.theaustralian.com.au/world/protesters-rally-in-london-to-back-sall-grovers-fight-for-womens-rights/news-story/209a04ba95767cf6163388f37d134790?amp

Something wrong with the archive link to read the article - I made another one:
https://archive.ph/J1wwA

You can read some of the article, maybe not all (I don't have a subscription)
The interview with Sall G - different to the written article above - is available on the original link posted; reposted below, for clarity: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/protesters-rally-in-london-to-back-sall-grovers-fight-for-womens-rights/news-story/209a04ba95767cf6163388f37d134790?amp=%22

The protest was reported on British media - it came up top of my MSN feed this morning, but when I went back to get a link for here, it had gone. It was "women's rights" not trans.

www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/supporters-rally-for-sall-grover-at-london-protest-roxy-tickle-is-a-man-the-law-got-it-wrong/vi-AA23U1kv

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/viral/roxy-tickle-is-a-man-sall-grover-supporters-protest-in-london/vi-AA23TLHF

https://x.com/i/status/2058886845929590917

“This is not a culture war. This is reality”
a phrase thats cropped up in a few Aussie speeches on this. Good phrase

A few Senators grilled the AHRC on GvT and the LAG case, starting at around 6:27.00.

I'm still trying to parse their definitions.
They say sex is an inclusive term, and woman includes trans women, older women, etc including some non-binary people.
They say the definition of a woman is "an adult female human - and it includes trans women"
Gender identity is taken from the SDA (defined as the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of a person. This applies regardless of the person's sex assigned at birth or whether they have undergone any medical intervention.)
They seem to agree with the senator that the "or" above means gender identity could include just one thing eg a gender-related appearance such as wearing a dress.

A definition for sex is maybe being imputed from court cases, they say it's an inclusive term, that includes (and apparently has to include all 3?) a biological component, how one presents and how one is recognised. Later described as a biological component, how one identifies oneself and how other people identify us.
The biological component does not have to include surgery, nothing else was asked on what it does/may include.
The court ruling made it clear that having changed documents via state level legislation allowing self-id is not particularly relevant as state legislation is not relevant to the federal SDA, but is relevant to the idea that society now sees sex and changeable, alongside the 2013 amendments to the SDA. The ruling also mentions exemptions are available such as s32:
"Services for members of one sex Nothing in Division 1 or 2 applies to or in relation to the provision of services the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex."
But doesn't ask the question - if sex is inclusive what services would they be? Cervical smears and prostate checks can't "only be provided to one sex" if sex includes those with any type of body.

Overall, the impression given by the AHRC in the Senate Committee Meeting is that there is a stricter test to be a 'woman' (legal sex) than to be a transwoman (legal gender identity of transwoman), according to the sex discrimination commissioner. So her statement that woman includes trans woman seems inaccurate by her own interpretation of the law, as only some people who self-id as a trans woman would pass the more stringent criteria for 'woman' in the SDA. It implies there is a group of people who self-id as trans women but are not legally women. Nobody raised this, and it seems unlikely there would be any way for an individual to distinguish the legal women tw from the legal men tw.