Australian womens rights activists recieve death threats in the lead up to a Sydney Womens rights rally

[Manyanamanyana]

Sal Grover and Kirralee Smith, both recently fined ($100k and $95k) for misgendering men imposing on womens spaces, have recieved death threats from a range of transactivist organisations. Sal Grover, a single Mum, has pulled out. I don't blame her one bit. It is sickening that women exercising free speech in this country are subject to this bull sh*t. Kirralee has decided to proceed and both are Warriors. Let Women Speak events in Australia require (and tbf, recieve) considerable police presence in order to defend these (usually middle-aged) women from the "be kind" crowd, who have in the past been violent and are always abusive and disruptive. What Government boasts about having sex-parity with the party, and yet sides with Men who behave like this towards women asking for their rights? All of them, actually. In Australia our sex discrimination act was altered beneath the radar to remove the definition of women and men, and elevate gender identity, meaning that a man who identifies as a woman is for all purposes, a woman in law. This is what Sal and Kirralee are fighting for: a repeal of the changes. Our Prime Minister and his tribe of handmaidens call this a culture war. It is in fact a war on womanhood.
https://archive.md/Eaeru

Yes, this! The SDA was implemented in acknowledgement OF existing disadvantages experienced by the female sex pretty much across the board and existing advantages held by the male sex, also across the board.
Greta knows this, but 1. believes and trans identified male people are actual women, while at the same time 2. that "natal women" should go to court and spend time and money (both of which women tend to have less discretionary) to fight for exemptions to keep trans-identified male people out.

The position fails logically and Greta knows this but won't say it out loud.

Taking Gretas position means that all court cases brought by "natal women" would fail (as they currently seem to be doing), on the grounds that trans-identified males are women based on identifying as such, so there is no grounds for exemption on the basis of sex, i.e. both varieties are women, ergo, you can't keep some women out of women-only spaces.

Greta and the like are comfortable with this state of affairs, and if uppity "natal women" want to discuss this, well then, death threats and exclusion from public life are just understandable and natural responses to not accepting that 2+2=5.

I would ask Greta and her team this: Can I, a "natal woman", identify as a transwoman?

The answer is no, because I am a woman. To be a transwoman, you need 1st, to be a man. Therefore, a transwoman is a man, and with that has all the advantages, physical and social, of any other man.

That this is irrefutable causes fury and aggression in those men, leading to violence, oppression and death-threats.

And Governments and organisations all over the world, are ok with this. As is Greta.

Again, you don't seem to understand how anti discrimination laws work broadly or even what they are. Are you seriously suggesting no one should be able to challenge whether they were discriminated against in court as Roxy Tickle did?

Your posts really defy logic on a monumentally profound level.

I dunno. I’m a kiwi and half my family are Aussies and I’m not sure it’s a cultural difference issue. I just think the whole subject seems to have little cut through in the media here - although to be fair I haven’t managed to find / finalise a broad range of local media sources yet. The issue seems mainly one of ignorance (in its non-pejorative sense) rather than self-censorship, although I note your slightly sinister suggestion that expressing the “wrong” view could be career limiting in some professions - that was where the U.K. was five years ago but it seems to be changing. I really don’t recognise what you say about women being especially cagey or writing people off based on unacceptable views (or more prone to peer pressure?) - maybe I am really a bloke 🙄?!?!

Grover's case was highly publicised being on the nightly news & in all major media outlets not to mention many interviews & articles in The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Sky News Channels & social media so to say it hasn't received broad media coverage here is bonkers. In fact one could make the argument that the coverage particularly by the vast Murdoch owned media has been particularly one sided.

The reason it isn't 'cutting' is because it doesn't 'cut' in everyday peoples lives as an issue to worry about probably because trans people are comparatively an infinitesimal group so have little impact. And as I mentioned upthread Australian law already provides exemptions for sex. Public toilets are not really an issue here because there have been gender neutral toilets for years & speaking for myself Ive never witnessed a trans person in them (not that I could tell anyway).

'Wrong think' isn't just limited to gender critical ideology. Depending on the individuals concerned 'wrong think' could be just about anything so its makes pragmatic sense to be prudent about expressing any political views. And this isn't anything new given the age old saying never talk politics or religion in polite company. That this age old wisdom has now has been repackaged as 'sinister' & 'censorship' is usually a function these days of an attempt to 'legitimately' propagandise hate speech rather than any attempt at the genuine discussion of ideas. And its not as if just because you can't blurt out your political affiliations socially or at work without consequences that free speech is undermined because there's plenty of other alternatives as mentioned above.

My views on political discussions with women have been shaped by my experiences with them. I wasn't making the claim that this was a fact.
I've been in various women's circles my whole life & they just aren't going there except for feminism but in my experience men do.

To say women tend to write others off more over political opinions because of peer pressure seems to infantilise them just like the patriarchy did. Although I have come across quite a few shrewd operators in my life who will be anything you want them to be if there's something in it for them. My own 'writing off' is a function of my standards & Ive lost more friends than gained so I don't relate to the peer pressure thing. Perhaps women have higher standards than men when it comes to political consequences particularly regarding human rights? Given their propensity for conflict I wouldn't be surprised.

Any group, no matter how small in number, whose interests take priority over the existing protections and rights of other groups is having a pretty major impact. Makles are not female. In enlightened countries care is aforded to provide a measure of dignity and value to female people. A measure that is not up for compromise, and which remains a core priority.

Societies have been around for long enough to know why we have single sex categories - and that once you include people in that catregory, who are not of that category, then you have fatally under-mined the protections and the integrity of that category.

Males who identify as women, and their supporters, can campaign for their own discrete provisions, just like every other group has had to do before them. Colonising the spaces of another group is not the progressive way forward.

That Australia has seen fit to fatally under-mine women's rights and protections by over-riding them with the concept of assumed 'gender identity' is the logic defying move here.

Yes he should be able to have the legal foundation to go to court for discrimination because he as a man has been excluded from a woman's only service. But he should have lost. And once transactivists lose a couple of times, most would then stop litigating because as men they were excluded from women services.

On what basis did he win?

She won because a social media networking app doesn't meet the criteria for a special exemption.

What next? Denying black people access to a white social media networking app?

On what basis did he win?

On the basis that Sall Grover’s legitimate claim she excluded him because he was a man was false, she should have known he was trans because he was wearing a V necked top 🙄

@Gretel346 “Are you seriously suggesting no one should be able to challenge whether they were discriminated against in court as Roxy Tickle did?”

He wasn’t discriminated against. He is a man who was accessing a women only app. He was then rightfully banned and didn’t like it!

He is still a man!

Do I think a male person should have the right to take a lesbian group to court for excluding him?

No.

I typed a reply to this but it was eaten or disappeared or I had a tech fail (likely the latter). Anyhoo, I’m not going to fight about the media coverage situation I wasn’t here so would be making stuff up, all I can note is the anecdotal level of awareness of the issues amongst those I come across in daily life. And there seems to be less general awareness than in the U.K. is all.

I thought you were suggesting that women were more susceptible to peer pressure / societal pressure (or flip side of the same coin, more reticent about expressing views
because cogniscent of potential consequences), but maybe I missed the point. Personally a fight club dinner party where every goes home afterward knowing you’re all friends and have each others backs despite political differences is my fav thing. But maybe a Gen X thing rather than Gen Y/ Millennial or whatever (ie I am a dinosaur)

A person who was born with a male body and heterosexual attraction to female bodies does not become a lesbian by taking oestrogen and chopping off body parts.

They are a heterosexual male who prefers to behave at the female end of the culturally defined gender spectrum.

The lunacy of the belief they have become a lesbian is, to me, the pinnacle of the lunacy of trans activism.

She He won because a social media networking app doesn't meet the criteria for a special exemption.

For lurkers, this is not why Tickle won. He won because it was determined that Grover had excluded him on the basis of his gender identity of being a woman, which Grover should have known because of his appearance.

Bromwich found that "even if the Giggle App could have been considered a special measure to achieve equality between men and women, that would not have allowed the respondents to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, which is distinct from discrimination against women on the basis of sex under the SDA. The respondents' argument therefore conflicted both with longstanding law as to how sex should be understood in the SDA, and the gender identity provisions of the SDA".

In other words, the SDA allows men with a gender identity of “woman” to be prioritised, and “special exemptions” doesn’t even come into it.

There are no official white social media apps, that would be racial discrimination.

Your example would be more akin to supporting white people being able to black up and then claim discrimination if they are excluded from a group for black people.

Would you support that?

The comparison would be denying a white person access to an app meant for people of colour. I would in both cases say that that was a legitimate aim. On what basis would you say otherwise?

Personally a fight club dinner party where every goes home afterward knowing you’re all friends and have each others backs despite political differences is my fav thing. But maybe a Gen X thing rather than Gen Y/ Millennial or whatever (ie I am a dinosaur)

Look, I agree with this in principle as you can always chalk misguided views down to ignorance rather than malevolence. When my 'friend' started making Trump appreciation noises that's how I justified it. But now its Pauline Hansen & all the usual far right talking points that effectively hurt people. If they don't believe in equality how can they be a real friend? Politics is down stream from personality & that has implications not only on how society is organised but how your relationship will be.

Funny thing is I really enjoy discussing politics & probably nudged her to express her opinions so we could have more interesting conversations that didn't just revolve around our personal life bubble…. that I now regret hearing. I take responsibility for luring her into a false sense of securely since I'm generally quite non judgemental so she opened up. But as I unexpectedly found there are limits to tolerance.

This is interesting. So the judge did not look at if the app would have met the criteria of achieving equality. The judge only looked at the law and said that gender identity outranked sex and you cannot exclude based on gender identity of woman. Do I have that right?

Maybe we agree to differ here. I trust that my friends mean well and have good morals. Just because people agree with some of the things Trump, Hanson, anyone else think on some things doesn’t mean they agree with them on everything.
And if you think your friends are mistaken then make the best argument you can about why your ideas are correct? (Disclosure: I think Trump and Hanson are right about some things and wrong about others. Also I have yet to work out why democracy is good but populism is wrong).

And just to add - if you think your friend is
generally an OK person then why not rethink the “limits to tolerance”
thing. Make your argument and see if you can convince her? Can we try and agree that cancel culture is unhelpful for everyone?

Also - I would like to understand what you mean by politics being downstream from
personality. If you have time 😁

Correct.

Wrong.

Grover appealed to the federal court for special measures after her loss at the SC (Judge Bromwich) & lost because she did not meet the standard for special measures:

"The Federal Court also rejected Grover’s claim that her exclusion of Tickle from the app was a permissible “special measure” under s 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act. The Giggle for Girls app could have been classified as a permitted special measure if it was aimed at achieving equality for all women, and did not simultaneously perpetuate discrimination on a ground prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act — namely, gender identity.

The Court found the analogous examples provided by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, helpful: for instance, that it would not be a legitimate special measure if a women-only adult swim class sought to exclude lesbians, or a landlord concerned about women being locked out of the rental market offered properties for female tenants, but excluded women who are breastfeeding."

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/giggle-for-girls-v-tickle-judgement-good-trans-womens-rights/106694548

The Giggle for Girls app could have been classified as a permitted special measure if it was aimed at achieving equality for all women, and did not simultaneously perpetuate discrimination on a ground prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act — namely, gender identity.

This proves the point 🤣🤡 . A man claiming to be a woman has to be included first before “special measures” are even considered. It didn’t even get to that part.

So the app/space/sport/prison has to be beneficial to women and men who say they’re women before you can determine it’s a space that is special enough to exclude men who don’t say they’re women and be considered a “special measure”.

Nice try. The equivalent would be if I were to create a networking app for my fellow black women, and having a white person who feels black on the inside, suing me for discrimination.

My parents were immigrants to Australia so to generalise about immigrant inferiority hits pretty hard whic his what appeals to my friend about Trump & Hanson.

While I can appreciate arguments about orderly & sustainable immigration I don't on cultural generalisations. I could make the same cultural inferiority generalisations about anglo Australians regarding drinking, gambling, poor work ethic & treating women like disposable sex objects but that wouldn't be fair would it? It would also show me to be of an over simplified 'in group' mentality that's easily vulnerable to hate…a trait that is not exactly friend 'material'. Its a huge red flag that they are incapable of understanding even the most well explained reasons. In other words I don't believe some people are able to understand nuanced arguments let alone change their minds because of their in born personal traits so to attempt a 'conversion' is a lost cause.

Also I have yet to work out why democracy is good but populism is wrong).

It might make more sense if you ever lived as a minority?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority