Why can't a man be just like a woman?

[old man emu]

It sounds like the humorous name for a firm of lawyers, but a soon to begin case in Australia will forever be known as Tickle -v- Giggle. Its outcome will not only crash through Australian societal norms, but a victory for the complainant, Tickle, will reverberate through over 136 countries around the World. The case will answer the simplest of questions: What is a woman?  If you reckon a "woman" is a human born with the potential to complete a pregnancy, it seems you are wrong. The Law as it stands right now in Australia is that a human is a woman if they say they are. In the immortal words of Humpty Dumpty, ‘When I use a word,’ ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’

 

The case questions whether certain parts of the Sex Discrimination Act are legal according to the Constitution. This is an extremely important case - far more important than even Mabo, since the result will affect so many countries. And yet, Australian Media is ignoring a landmark fight to reclaim sex based rights and protections for all women and girls.

 

This constitutional law case is not only relevant to Australia; it could potentially redefine women's rights around the world as it is based on a UN convention to which most countries are signatory. Sall Grover is the Australian founder of an independent female-only social media, networking platform and app called ‘Giggle’. Giggle was created by Sall as a platform centred around women connecting with, and supporting, other women. The purpose was to provide an app that allowed women to safely connect; an important consideration when dealing with strangers. Giggle uses biometric technology to scan faces to ensure the app remains single-sex.

 

Sall is being taken to court because she wants her Giggle app to remain female-only. The complainant, Tickle is a genetic male who claims to be a woman, and who was excluded from the Giggle app because of his Y-chromosome. At the moment, Grover is in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act.

 

The following video is 40-odd minutes long, but the early part sets out the background to the case. Since the case is not being reported in MSM, this is your chance to get a level-headed briefing on how the case came to be and the the effects on genetic females if the verdict goes the way of the complainant.

 

Ironically, while Tickle is fighting for Transgender Rights, a win to Tickle will have adverse effects on the LGB community as well as heterosexual females.

 

 

[facthunter]

WE used to Bar them from a lot of places and if a teacher got married she HAD to resign. A lot of parts of the world could do with changing. Hands up those who would prefer. to be a woman Oh it think I spotted one.. Oh you didn't hear the question clearly? Ok we won't hold you to it.  Nev

[old man emu]

45 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Oh you didn't hear the question clearly?

Look. I know that a lot of times I post smart-arsed replies to posts and often create threads that are of a trivial nature, but this topic is very serious. If the complainant wins, it means that your wives, daughters and any cisgender female will be at risk of losing her safe places such as toilets, change rooms, etc.

 

Please don't trivialise this topic.

[octave]

9 minutes ago, old man emu said:

daughters and any cisgender female will be at risk of losing her safe places such as toilets, change rooms, etc.

 

Why is it that males pose a safety risk to females? Perhaps there is a problem here that males must address.

[old man emu]

5 minutes ago, octave said:

 

Why is it that males pose a safety risk to females? Perhaps there is a problem here that males must address.

If you watch the video, you will learn what unintended consequences "gender identity" has produced which basically remove the equal rights women, and right to physical and mental safety that we males have agreed to over the past 50 years.

 

Yes, it is a problem with males. It is also a problem of a "Me. First, last and every other bloody time" society.

[facthunter]

OME HOW could you Misinterpret my post so completely?. That is a PERFECT example of an out of context quote. I'm not trivialising anything. PLEASE read it again,  slowly, and don't rush to conclusions. It's meant as an example of entrenched undesirable attitudes in an imaginary situation.  It's a bit of a try out of a new and better style for me .  Nev

Edited April 13 by facthunter

[octave]

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

Since the case is not being reported in MSM,

 

I am not trying to be deliberately picky here but I was already aware of this case and it has been in the MSM that I read.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/11/what-is-a-woman-court-asked-to-rule-on-definition-in-transgender-womans-case-against-giggle-for-girls-platform

 

https://theconversation.com/tickle-vs-giggle-in-a-world-where-transgender-people-are-under-attack-this-is-a-test-case-for-australia-227702

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-11/transgender-woman-seeks-damages-giggle-for-girls-app/103696500

 

Social change has always thrown up conundrums that eventually get solved.   I don't believe this is some terrible crisis such as the likes of Trump and DeSantis bang on about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

OME HOW >>>>>>>>>

I wasn't going against what you said, I just grabbed that sentence to keep you in the discussion. Notice how in this reply I have only quoted some inconsequential words, but that quote qill alert you to the fact that I have posted something that you might like to follow. In future, If I what to give anyone a Hoy!, I'll just quote a word or two so I won't be misunderstood.

 

Moving on:

Go to this link and read the this document:

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/112569/Affidavit-of-Julie-Catherine-OBrien-20230419.pdf

 

Julie Catherine O'Brien is the General Counsel of the Australian Human Rights Commission. The affidavit is an application to the Court to provide independent advice to the Court regarding matters that form the background to the caase.

[old man emu]

3 minutes ago, octave said:

it has been in the MSM that I read.

Hmmm. Did I notice a certain leaning in these articles to one side of the fence?

 

Have you watched the video I linked to?

[octave]

Just now, old man emu said:

Have you watched the video I linked to?

 

 

Does the video have a leaning?

2 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Hmmm. Did I notice a certain leaning in these articles to one side of the fence?

 

Fair point however....

 

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/disaster-sal-grover-to-defend-complaint-against-womensonly-app/video/df41f3388b0f6b07f4bd5063e6c69c44

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Flandmark-transgender-discrimination-case-gets-to-the-heart-of-the-issue%2Fnews-story%2Fb22d1b53bf48a5db1686015c38d7306e&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=HIGH-Segment-1-SCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append

 

https://www.aap.com.au/news/judge-to-ponder-what-is-a-woman-case-as-hearings-wrap/

 

 

[facthunter]

Forgive me if I say I have little time for Lawyers and legalese (if your honour pleases and due to many hours  like over years total in three  separate Cases I was authorised to control. I can honestly say That I'd rather do anything BUT be inside those places reading that$#1t over and over with lawyers  when you really know the game is crooked.. No I'm not going to elaborate beyond saying that I wasn't a defendant in any of them and I'd sure Hate to be..  Nev

[octave]

OME I have watched most of this video and I will watch the whole thing but I have a couple of points. Firstly let me just say I have not expressed an opinion on THIS case either way yet.  This video is only one side of the argument, I note that the YouTube channel is "The New Culture Forum" which is a right-wing think tank started by Peter Whittle a prominent member of the UKIP party. While this does not negate every point made in the video it does make me wary just as articles from the ABC may make you wary.    At around the 9ish minute mark, she mentioned the ABC and says they will not report on it and yet they actually have. I don't know if this was true at the time of the interview or not.

 

The interview was very much a soft-touch affair from a socially conservative think tank.

 

As I say I have not formed an opinion other than the sky is not falling.

 

By the way the other day I met a neighbour who has lived next door for 5 years but we have never spoken. They always seemed ultra-shy or extremely private. When they moved in they were female in appearance and have transitioned to a male appearance.   It was great finally meeting them and now we can have a brief chat while passing.  I have no idea whether they have a uterus or not (and I don't give a toss)  but I assume they were born with one.   I am wondering whether they would be able to join the app or would be excluded.

 

As I say I don't have any particular opinion on the actual case.  Perhaps it will come down the way you want it to and then that will be good for you won't it?

[Jerry_Atrick]

As ususal, relying on a youtube video is not always a great way to work out the details of a case. And, yes, it is being reported in the mainstream media - it is just not getting a lot of attention because, Ms. Tickle is suiing Giggle for discrimination on the grounds that, although born a make, she is now a female after having gone through gender affirmation surgery and the like.  But here is one MSM artive for you https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/11/what-is-a-woman-court-asked-to-rule-on-definition-in-transgender-womans-case-against-giggle-for-girls-platform

 

What Ms Tickle is suing for is damages for discrimination and harrasement resulting from online posts made by Ms. Grover that were, I guess, disparaging at best, but then may have unleashed a tirade of online hate. I have no idea who the Youtuber that presented that video is or what they stand for, but my spider senses tell me that they are not the likes of a social justice organisation.

 

I have little idea of the gender bender issues at the moment, so I am only going to take a legal lense to this..

 

First, I think the claim that the decision will have world-wide ramifications is, at best, fanciful. Australia has no special seniority in the international legal order. It can be used as pursuasive precedent in other common law countries, and by pursuasive in the common law sense, means it can (but does not have to be) taken into consideration. Just because Australia is a signatory of whatever international convention that covers these things doesn't mean it is a legal requirement in Australian law (it has to be explicitly provided for either in legislation or much more rarely these days, case law before it becomes binding in australia). And other countries have to give power to the conventions (or treaties) in their own legal system - and they may do that to whateever extent they want. In other words, a) just because a country is a signature to an interanational convention or treaty, does not bind them to it until the legislate (or in the case of some countries such as Ireland, pass a referendum); and b) aother countries will implement their obligations in they way they see fit.. If they think Australia has gone too far or not far enough, that is all they will do - think it.. No country is obliged to implement anything that relates to a treaty or convention just because another country has.   So, my BS radar is already showing up multipole contacts.

 

I watched the first few minutes of the video, and I have to admit, I didn't think it was worth wasting too much of my time remaining on this earth with...  Thee was a lot of posturing but not much fact on the ground... and that is another think that puts contacts on my BS radar.

 

So, let's deal with the facts:

• A transgendered, male to female person wants to join an online women's only community.
• The transgendered person is initially acccepted but then booted out.
• It woud seem, legally, this transgendered person is  a female if the article is to be believed - as the said peson has a female birth certificate. But, the peson was booted out for not being a female.
• the tansgendered person has had gender affirming surgery - so the full slide and dice, I would guess.
• It is alleged that posts by the defendant were at least disparaging (possibly inferring some form of political or ideological view)

I would think, on the surface, Giggle does have a case to answer. I don't know this area of law at all, and I am not going to do hours of research for it, but I would suspect being in posession of a (valid) femal birth certificate would indicate that legally, Tickle is a female, and as an adult female, that make Tickle legally a woman. So, there may be damages for discrimination, as it does not matter how this person became a legal woman - if someone advertises a womem's only club and a legal woman is rejected on the grounds of how that person became one - an attribute of that person - there may well be a case to answer.

 

The second part, which is the online harrasment will also turn on the facts; for example, was Giggle responding to harrasment by Tickle or notl was it excessive; was it designed to cause offence and incite online hatred, etc.

 

In these cases, courts will take into account "policy", which the "unintended conequences" will be considered. I would like to think or hope they take a balanced approach. The question would have to be between the rights of this legal woman against the rights of genetic women (please I am not going into the debate of whether it is right or not.. I am only going on the legal points as far as I know or at least can guess them).  For example, would those like Tickle, who live as a woman, went through the procedure (whatever it is) to obtain the legal classification of a woman, and have hasd the full slice and dice, act as a woman all the time, etc, be a threat to women in womens' only areas? Would people who generally identify as women be a disporoportionate threat to women, What about gender fluiditiy?  Hopefully the judge will take these sorts of things into consideation when also determining if Giggle is a female or not.

 

If I were a betting man, because Giggle has a female birth certificate, it will be very hard for a judge to say Giggle is not legally a female, unless there is something in the constituion that would override that. Australia does not have a bill of rights protected constitutionally, and judges have been willing to imply specific rights in specific situations. My guess will be, unless a constitutional construct can be found to invalidate Giggle's births certificate (and there would be a policy issue as well, because no doubt Giggle is not the only male to female transgendered person in Australia with a femal birth certificate), then Giggle will be found to be a woman, and the ratio (legal reasoning) will be a very narrow definition of what makes a trans person the other sex  - such as no fluiditiy, has to have lived full time and publicly open about being the other gender and havem or be substantially down the road of non-reversible surgery or other medical treatment to being affirmed as the gender.. or something like that. Then there will be an appeal to the High Court - you can bet your arse on that one - and it will be finally decided.

 

In terms of the threat to women - I will hold out until a decision - if it affirms TGs are in fact the gender they claim to be, then it will depend on the width or narrowness of the definition - if it is like above, then I would suggest it is not a big deal and that they represent no more threat statistically than women do to women. However, I have no numbers to back it up, so am happy to be corrected. If it was very broad and you are a woman when you think you are, then yes, I would consider that a very dangerous decision. Having said that, I understand why genetic women may not want a "proper" male --> female TG person in their womens only clubs.. It is seen as men or genetic males breaking down some of the privileges and rights they have fought hard for over the years. And I am not sure, no matter home much of a female a proper male --> female TG is, that they really are femaie in character, amongst other genetic females, so the conversations may be disporopritionately uncomfortable.. I don't know, of course. And then there is the question of sports, etc, which I have to say, I still think there should be a separate TG comp if they want to play sport.

 

For the above, I think this:

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

If the complainant wins, it means that your wives, daughters and any cisgender female will be at risk of losing her safe places such as toilets, change rooms, etc.

is, at this stage,  hysterical scare mongering driven by the sensationalising of one side of the case.

 

 

I think why those who support Giggle are trying to whip this up, especially with the ludicrouls claims of global ramifications, is to influence the policy component of the court decision, to save them a $100K payout amf further their ideology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

13 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

, I think the claim that the decision will have world-wide ramifications is, at best, fanciful. Australia has no special seniority in the international legal order.

The basis of the claim is that Australia is a signatory, along with 130-odd other countries, to a UN "policy". Notably, this case is the first of its type in Australia, but it might be a worldwide , "one in, all in" thing.

 

Honestly, I simply created this thread to highlight was I believed to be an important matter of public interest. Perhaps I would have been better of spending my time Mr Sheening the Zerk fittings on my bike.

[spacesailor]

Some may not be female ,

but

Some do live life " their way " .

And my nephew and Husband.

spacesailor

[octave]

8 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Honestly, I simply created this thread to highlight was I believed to be an important matter of public interest. Perhaps I would have been better of spending my time Mr Sheening the Zerk fittings on my bike.

 

OME this forum is about discussing things and of course, we will often disagree.    I don't believe anyone has done anything other than offer a counter-opinion.  You don't need to pick up the Mr Sheen and you are absolutely free to criticize the counter points.   

[octave]

In the video, she says at about 20:40 "if we lose women's rights cease to exist in international law, that's whats at stake"" 

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 minutes ago, old man emu said:

The basis of the claim is that Australia is a signatory, along with 130-odd other countries, to a UN "policy". Notably, this case is the first of its type in Australia, but it might be a worldwide , "one in, all in" thing.

 

Honestly, I simply created this thread to highlight was I believed to be an important matter of public interest. Perhaps I would have been better of spending my time Mr Sheening the Zerk fittings on my bike.

What policy is it, and what features of it would cause what  problem,and require ove 130 countries to comply with an Australian court ruling, precisely?

 

As I explained, when a country signs any international instrument such as a policy, treaty, convention, etc it does not bind that country or change the law in that country. The country has to ratify it and that, in most countries is a leglislative process. In Australia and every common law jurisdiction, a court will not recognise any obligations entered into without it having been leglislated. If we look at the International Convention of Refugees, of which Australia is a signatory, and our laws relating to refugees, we are grossly short of what we have signed up to.

 

This is a matter of important public discussion, and I am discussing it, and I am being careful to keep ideology out of it and deal with the facts and legal points. I am not treating this lightly at all.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 minutes ago, octave said:

In the video, she says at about 20:40 "if we lose women's rights cease to exist in international law, that's whats at stake"" 

That is their assertion, but on what basis, exactly?

[octave]

Just now, Jerry_Atrick said:

That is their assertion, but on what basis, exactly?

that is also my question. They make the assertion but don't provide an explanation.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I had hit the enter key too early, then hit the wrong key which cleared everything..

 

What rights do women lose is this Tickle is found to be legally a woman? Do they lose their right to equality? Do they lose their rights over their reproductivity as a result of this case? Do they lose their rights to work as teachers while married? I think most reasonable people would answer no. So, no, not all legal rights of women would cease.. complete furphy.

 

There are two primary legal issues, of which only one apparently hinges on whether Tickle is a woman - that being the discrimination issue in relation to access to the Giggle app. The other is simple harrasment, so if that part of the case is lost, it affirms that not even women are immune from their actions.

 

Actually the issue doesn't even appear to be whether Tickle is legally a woman, but whether that legal classification of gender extends to the "sex" of someone for the purposes of the Sexual Discrimination Act. In other words, it appears that it is a staturoty interpretation exercise - does gender and sex mean the same thing, or is gender something that you are now, and sex is what you were biologically.. for the purposes of the act.

 

Let's assume that the court finds that gender and sex are the same thing; Tickle has a female birth certificate, and therefore, Tickle is a she, and can use the app and attend female public dunnies and change rooms. From the perspective of a physical threat, would someone really go through all that trouble of slice and dice just so they could get into the ladies room and [no longer] rape or murder her? There may be a tiny minority of the population who would, but there are a tiny minoroty of the population who do all sorts of strange things with implements, yet we don't ban those implements. Let's face it, with the dark web and all, we would have banned the internet years ago.

 

But, I do understand why there is a concern. I think the infolrmation here implies it is easy to change sex. I am sure a simple ear piercing wouldn't do it, a what is a gender affirming procedure - and what would be the minimum to be able to change one's sex in NSW? https://www.nsw.gov.au/family-and-relationships/name-changes-and-corrections/change-of-sex. It would be better to tighten when one could re-assign gender to be when the irreverisble has taken place.. slided and diced (or for women --> men, whatever is the equivalent).

 

I am not saying trans people using womens facilities is not an issue, and IU certainly understand women feel threatened by it.. I am not a women and I can't know what the issues are for them. Of course, if the ruling was that all you had to do was get your ears pierced and say you're a woman, then I would be as aghast as anyone else. But, I a not sure that statistically this person would be any more a threat in the ladies than any other woman.

 

This seems a little ideological and designed to sway the findings on policy and maybe a little on ideologiy: " CEO of a women-only social media app will not address a transgender woman as “Ms”, saying “I don’t think it’s kind to expect a woman to see a man as a woman”."

 

 

 

[old man emu]

Actually, the whole case will be fought on the definitions of the words "sex" and "gender"

 

Sex etymology: from Latin sexus "a sex, state of being either male or female, gender,".  Sexus is a word of uncertain origin. The meaning "quality or character of being either male or female" with reference to animals is recorded by 1520s; by 19c. this meant especially "the anatomical distinction between male and female as evidenced by physical characteristics of their genital organs and the part taken by each in reproduction." 

 

Gender etymology: c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,". The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being,".

 

If you consider the etymology of the two words, arguing that there is a biological difference seems to be a circular argument, reminiscent of the behaviour of the Oozlum bird.

 

In Australian Law, “Gender identity” is defined in s 4 of the Sex Discrimination Act as follows: “gender identity” means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth. 

 

That means that the minimum a genetically defined male (XY chromosomes) has to do is to act in a way that a genetically defined female (YY chromosomes) does and tell the world, I identify as a woman". There is no requirement for the alteration of the body's appearance (crudely called a 'tuck and cut' operation).

 

At the same time, in Australian Law, the word “sex” is not defined in the Sex Discrimination Act.  It should take its ordinary meaning.  That meaning the way that the term has been used throughout Australia, including in legislation dealing with birth registers.

 

"must take into account the term has been used throughout Australia, including in legislation dealing with birth registers". therein lies the rub. Which usage do we follow? That one we know which has been in recorded use for over 800 years, or the one adopted in response to a situation that lawmakers decided to deal with? 

 

Descending into absurdity, does a chicken sexer ask each bird whether it identifies as a cock or a pullet? Does a midwife commit an offence in telling "Mrs Jones, you've got a lovely daughter"? Is the first example of an expression of gender identity found in "I'm a Boy" by The Who?

 

12 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

what features of it would ....... require over 130 countries to comply with an Australian court ruling, precisely?

Obviously there is no requirement for other countries to comply with an Australian court ruling, however countries with legal systems of a similar type to Australia's can take note of a decision here on a like matter in their own jurisdictions and use it to reach a decision applicable to their country. It is a thing called 'precedent",  early 15c., "previous instance or circumstance which may be taken as a rule in subsequent similar cases; a custom, habit, or rule established," from the adjective precedent "preceding in time, previous, former" (c. 1400), from Old French precedent (also used as a noun) and directly from Latin praecedentum 

[Jerry_Atrick]

12 minutes ago, old man emu said:

There is no requirement for the alteration of the body's appearance (crudely called a 'tuck and cut' operation).

Actually, according t the NSW site I quoted, there is.. there is no minimum stipulated, but there must be a gender affirming procedure tpo be considered the gender one wants to be on their birth certificate.

 

12 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Obviously there is no requirement for other countries to comply with an Australian court ruling,

And that is my point. Any other jurisdiction can (does not have to) treat anything Australia does as anything other than "persuasive").. You're right.. it goes back to the 15th century doctrine of stare decisis.. The thing about it is, the only thing binding is of a higher court in the same jurisdiction.. unless you can distibguish the facts in that jurisdiction.. ..

 

The assertion it will apply to 130 countries, is, in the vernacular of this country I am currently in, bollocks

Edited April 13 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

15 minutes ago, old man emu said:

At the same time, in Australian Law, the word “sex” is not defined in the Sex Discrimination Act.  It should take its ordinary meaning.

Agree with the first, but not necessarily the second.. Society moves on very quicly.. In Eseque v Attorney General (I think) NSW, 2023, the NSW supreme court held that the definition of a term should first take place in the context of the act it is used.  In the Sex Discrimination Act, I am not sure the differenceb between claimed and biological "sex" or "gender" was in the contemplation of the drafters.

[old man emu]

11 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The assertion it will apply to 130 countries, is, in the vernacular of this country I am currently in, bollocks

There are about 130 countries who are signatories to the UN policy. How influential an decision made in another country a decision made here would be is, of course, an unknown, but remains a possibility.