Sall Grover is infinitely admirable and courageous. The decision is infinitely asinine and idiotic. Someone put up this poem, by Wendy Cole, and I thought it worth including here:
So, in Australia now, if you call a man, a man or perceive him as such from the evidence of your eyes; you can be sued for discrimination if he id's as female? At what point do we 'observe' the change from natal male to female, so we can avoid being sued? Lipstick? Length of hair? Painted nails? What if a gay man presents fem but is not transgender? Can he also sue? How does this law work in practise?!
Jules, one way might simply to pull down his pants, or observe him having a pee?
PS. In Canada where I live, a person , of undefined sex, was upset because the Ontario public healthcare declined the request to have a vagina and a penis . At least his or her date has an option! Bizarre.
I heard about the person who wanted both! Apparently he wanted it to be funded by the taxpayer too! (Good grief!) Tickle has been castrated from what I hear! But it doesn't matter now if the law says any pronouncement of 'femaleness' from any man must be acted upon without question! All men's motives are honourable in the eyes of the law now and a man's right to female spaces and services are his to claim. Women are on the wrong side of the law if they question him or even see him as a man. The law compels them to pretend. A safeguarding catastrophe in Australia! And probably the end of female sports. Women's right to single sex spaces have been swept away in one stroke by this ideologically captured judge! Dark times ahead!
If Tickle has been castrated, then at least it can't breed, so some good news from this diabolical episode. I fear for the future of all my lovely female family and friends
Yes men need to step up now to help too! Many will not wish to see their female relatives put into this position of inferiority with this new 'holy caste' of privileged men. Women are now denied the opportunity to meet together as a sex class and to enjoy female company away from the men wanting to colonise our demographic. We have effectively been gagged and cannot pursue our own unique female interests and concerns without having to accommodate these voyeuristic cuckoos! (I think there will be many!) They, as men, can fully impose on us now, but still not genuinely participate! They have all the rights of their male sex ironically! Sex denialism is just a form of discrimination against women - men get all our stuff at no cost to themselves and women break the law if they refuse to collude in these men's paraphiliac behaviours! Shocking that a judge would willingly put us in the way of such harm - a terrible situation! Jim Crow laws now for women in Australia!
So far as the Tickle creep is concerned, you need only look at the stubble thicket around his chin and neck. Evidently his facial hair removal didn't extend that far.
This is outrageous and brutally unfair. This case should make all women wary of, in this case, the Austrailian legal system. It could turn out to be a global issue - yet a comedian’s delight to raise awareness of the idiocy at play.
Thanks for this, Andrew. The insult to injury? Justice Bromwich referring to this cry-bully as “Ms Tickle” and “her”. Can Canada-style compelled speech be far behind? Also very angry at Julia Gillard for altering the SDA in 2013 - an object lesson in the unintended consequences of virtue signalling.
Very much looking forward to your interview with Sall Grover on Free Speech Nation.
I'm absolutely depressed by this decision, especially considering it seems to have been the first major piece of litigation in the anglosphere that has come out against sex realism.
However I'm also concerned about the way it's being discussed. First, you can't necessarily hold it against the judge for saying sex is changeable if that's what follows from the way the legislation defines sex. The problem is almost certainly with the law, and not with the judge. He's talking about sex *as defined in the Sex Discrimination Act*, not sex as a well-known biological category.
Second, you can't mount a constitutional argument solely on the basis that a law is absurd. It needs to fail some constitutional test. There are relevant constitutional tests here, but the arguments aren't strong. Sall needs to appeal the decision, definitely, but there is only so much even a High Court with 3 women judges out of 7 can do.
Third, there is a history in Australia of absurd or oppressive legal outcomes being corrected by legislation. That's what we have to hope for here: a strong enough outcry to get the politicians to figure out what's going on. And actually, a political victory, rather than a legal one, will be way sweeter.
Hello Petula, you're right the decision should be discussed in calm and reasoned terms and the issue is with the legislation. In Ireland, we have a Gender Recognition Act. It states in section 18 (Effect of gender recognition certificate generally) that "where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman". In other words, the effect of the Gender Recognition Certificate is not only to legally recognise the preferred gender of the individual concerned but, at the same time, to change the sex of the individual. Parliaments enact legislation, the judge in the Tickle v Giggle case had regard to the reality that the law in Australia already recognises and facilitates a change of sex. I read the full judgment and I wouldn't be confident that his decision would be overturned on appeal. However, different judges do look at the law differently and this is an evolving area. Thanks again for your comment which helped me clarify my own thoughts. Kind regards, Peter
Once again it’s all about language. The judge talks of cisgender men being treated differently from transgender women, and conflates the infinitely changeable, nebulous and disputed concept of gender identity with immutable biological sex. While that sort of Newspeak is accepted in court, Sall is wasting her time appealing. The law should be changed but won’t be because the Australian political class is ideologically captured.
A judge who thinks that sex is changeable cannot be trusted on any other spoken utterance or word that he or she writes.
The judge is upholding a bad law. The latter needs to be changed.
https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/2024/08/25/tickle-v-giggle-sex-and-gender-identity/
This person thinks the judge is wrong, rather than the law.
It's not just homophobic, it's misogynistic to demand that women accommodate male desires, fantasies and fetishes.
That is gender identity ideology in a nutshell.
...as well as their delusions, hallucinations, and deceptions.
In Islamic theocracies they use God and brutality. In liberal democracies they use ‘progress’ and ‘human rights’ law. Women are under attack globally.
Sall Grover is infinitely admirable and courageous. The decision is infinitely asinine and idiotic. Someone put up this poem, by Wendy Cole, and I thought it worth including here:
HE TELLS HER
He tells her that the earth is flat —
He knows the facts, and that is that.
In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong.
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win. He stands his ground.
The planet goes on being round.
So, in Australia now, if you call a man, a man or perceive him as such from the evidence of your eyes; you can be sued for discrimination if he id's as female? At what point do we 'observe' the change from natal male to female, so we can avoid being sued? Lipstick? Length of hair? Painted nails? What if a gay man presents fem but is not transgender? Can he also sue? How does this law work in practise?!
Jules, one way might simply to pull down his pants, or observe him having a pee?
PS. In Canada where I live, a person , of undefined sex, was upset because the Ontario public healthcare declined the request to have a vagina and a penis . At least his or her date has an option! Bizarre.
I heard about the person who wanted both! Apparently he wanted it to be funded by the taxpayer too! (Good grief!) Tickle has been castrated from what I hear! But it doesn't matter now if the law says any pronouncement of 'femaleness' from any man must be acted upon without question! All men's motives are honourable in the eyes of the law now and a man's right to female spaces and services are his to claim. Women are on the wrong side of the law if they question him or even see him as a man. The law compels them to pretend. A safeguarding catastrophe in Australia! And probably the end of female sports. Women's right to single sex spaces have been swept away in one stroke by this ideologically captured judge! Dark times ahead!
If Tickle has been castrated, then at least it can't breed, so some good news from this diabolical episode. I fear for the future of all my lovely female family and friends
Yes men need to step up now to help too! Many will not wish to see their female relatives put into this position of inferiority with this new 'holy caste' of privileged men. Women are now denied the opportunity to meet together as a sex class and to enjoy female company away from the men wanting to colonise our demographic. We have effectively been gagged and cannot pursue our own unique female interests and concerns without having to accommodate these voyeuristic cuckoos! (I think there will be many!) They, as men, can fully impose on us now, but still not genuinely participate! They have all the rights of their male sex ironically! Sex denialism is just a form of discrimination against women - men get all our stuff at no cost to themselves and women break the law if they refuse to collude in these men's paraphiliac behaviours! Shocking that a judge would willingly put us in the way of such harm - a terrible situation! Jim Crow laws now for women in Australia!
Sall will appeal I think. Nil desperandum!
she definitely will appeal
Excellent 👍
So far as the Tickle creep is concerned, you need only look at the stubble thicket around his chin and neck. Evidently his facial hair removal didn't extend that far.
I read about this judgement on the BBC website and my immediate reaction was that the Law is clearly a fool.
Let’s hope that the funds are made available so that this ruling could be challenged. Please post a link when one is published.
If Judge can state the a male can be a female, then why can’t a criminal be made into a judge ?
This is outrageous and brutally unfair. This case should make all women wary of, in this case, the Austrailian legal system. It could turn out to be a global issue - yet a comedian’s delight to raise awareness of the idiocy at play.
Yikes!
Dear God
My favourite part - the app "failed to distinguish between cisgender men and transgender women.” That's because THEY'RE THE SAME THING!!!
Thanks for this, Andrew. The insult to injury? Justice Bromwich referring to this cry-bully as “Ms Tickle” and “her”. Can Canada-style compelled speech be far behind? Also very angry at Julia Gillard for altering the SDA in 2013 - an object lesson in the unintended consequences of virtue signalling.
Very much looking forward to your interview with Sall Grover on Free Speech Nation.
I'm absolutely depressed by this decision, especially considering it seems to have been the first major piece of litigation in the anglosphere that has come out against sex realism.
However I'm also concerned about the way it's being discussed. First, you can't necessarily hold it against the judge for saying sex is changeable if that's what follows from the way the legislation defines sex. The problem is almost certainly with the law, and not with the judge. He's talking about sex *as defined in the Sex Discrimination Act*, not sex as a well-known biological category.
Second, you can't mount a constitutional argument solely on the basis that a law is absurd. It needs to fail some constitutional test. There are relevant constitutional tests here, but the arguments aren't strong. Sall needs to appeal the decision, definitely, but there is only so much even a High Court with 3 women judges out of 7 can do.
Third, there is a history in Australia of absurd or oppressive legal outcomes being corrected by legislation. That's what we have to hope for here: a strong enough outcry to get the politicians to figure out what's going on. And actually, a political victory, rather than a legal one, will be way sweeter.
Hello Petula, you're right the decision should be discussed in calm and reasoned terms and the issue is with the legislation. In Ireland, we have a Gender Recognition Act. It states in section 18 (Effect of gender recognition certificate generally) that "where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman". In other words, the effect of the Gender Recognition Certificate is not only to legally recognise the preferred gender of the individual concerned but, at the same time, to change the sex of the individual. Parliaments enact legislation, the judge in the Tickle v Giggle case had regard to the reality that the law in Australia already recognises and facilitates a change of sex. I read the full judgment and I wouldn't be confident that his decision would be overturned on appeal. However, different judges do look at the law differently and this is an evolving area. Thanks again for your comment which helped me clarify my own thoughts. Kind regards, Peter
Excellent post,Andrew
On the (I hope) appeal Sall will be able to attack the Sex Discrimination Act itself. Onwards!
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/attaboy-clarence
Dusty
Once again it’s all about language. The judge talks of cisgender men being treated differently from transgender women, and conflates the infinitely changeable, nebulous and disputed concept of gender identity with immutable biological sex. While that sort of Newspeak is accepted in court, Sall is wasting her time appealing. The law should be changed but won’t be because the Australian political class is ideologically captured.
"The art of disagreement" comments not allowed? Have you been cancelled?