Main Edition
US
FR
August 23, 2024 - 10:00am
Women no longer exist as a separate category in Australia. Sex is “changeable”, according to the judge who has just ruled in a case that effectively destroys single-sex spaces and services for Australian women. It’s a devastating blow for female rights in the country, which is experiencing an “epidemic” of violence against women according to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
The court case turned on whether a women-only app, Giggle for Girls, could legally exclude a trans woman. The judge decided that Roxanne Tickle, who is biologically male, suffered indirect discrimination when he was excluded from the app by its CEO, Sall Grover. She set up the app as an “online refuge” for women after experiencing the damaging effects of social media abuse while living in the US.
The implications of the judgment, while not directly about sexual and domestic violence, are far-reaching. There has never been a more urgent case for single-sex services in Australia, yet the outcome confirms that “gender identity” now takes precedence over sex. One of the most shocking features of the case is that the result has been welcomed by Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who issued a press release stuffed with familiar jargon.
“Gender equality means equal treatment for people of all genders, including trans people,” the statement said. “We will continue to stand with trans communities and advocate for the rights of all women, including women who are trans.” The extent of the assault on women’s rights was exposed during the hearings, when a barrister acting for the Australian Human Rights Commission claimed that “sex is not a binary concept and it is not exclusively a biological concept”.
These are shocking sentiments, elevating an undefinable — and unverifiable — “gender identity” above biological sex. But while an array of courts, politicians and human rights organisations have decided that sex is no longer obvious and immutable, the same cannot be said about the assumptions of men who murder women.
Last year, 64 women were killed by someone known to them in Australia, a higher rate even than in the UK. In April, six people — five of them women — were murdered in a rampage in a shopping mall in Sydney. It belongs in a horrific series of attacks based on sex that stretches all the way back to the Montreal massacre in 1989, when 14 female engineering students were murdered. The latest addition to this grim list happened in the UK last month, when three little girls were killed at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis judge should be punished for treason. In democracies, laws come from parliament and judges legislating from the bench should be dealt with as well as litigators attempting to get legislation changes via the judiciary.
Australia has a common law system
In Canada, the unelected judicial branch has been making law for decades. And it is getting worse. New loyalty oaths to progressive values drive out non progressive voices. The recent decision against Jordan Peterson which will force him into ideological training to keep his psychologist license is telling about Canada.
You haven’t understood the situation – the judge has interpreted the Australian Sex Discrimination Act as it currently stands where ‘sex’ has been replaced with ‘gender identity’. He has not tried to make or subvert the legislation but has shown it up for the nonsense it is.
Whilst his ludicrous remarks do seem to mark him as a fan of gender ideology, I fail to see how he could have ruled differently.
It is the law that is wrong and the case will now proceed on appeal to the High Court where the legislation and its effects will come under closer scrutiny. Hopefully this will lead to clarification and legislative amendments.
Let’s hope there is a huge popular cry for the 2013 amendments to the Act law to be scrapped.
What I fail to understand in all this is that the App appears to be a private endeavour. How can any private group be forced to include someone they don’t want?
I manage a couple of private Facebook groups, am I open to a law suit by refusing entry?
We also have a local group, which has questions before admitting people, similarly, is this group at risk of prosecution by denying access to someone who lives miles away?
Fair, sane point. I’d like to know the answer to that as well. This has all the flavour of unjustifiable intrusion in a private endeavour and I find it distastefully heavy handed.
You and Mr. Buckley are hitting the nail on the head. What we are watching is the modern world repudiating what it means to be modern; namely, the distinction between state and society or the distinction between the public and private spheres. In the now disappearing private sphere one could do as one pleased. We can have none of that any longer, can we?
It’s not just distasteful, it’s completely illogical and unscientific.
“sex is not a binary concept and it is not exclusively a biological concept”.
Really? We have suddenly allowed this change in thought after 5,000 years of human history, precedent and understanding. How “progressive”. Perhaps we can now chose to identify as any color or profession also. If so, I’m now a black pediatric surgeon.
I suspect there will be a commercial element to it: i.e. you have to pay to join, even if it is a small membership fee. At that point, the full weight of discrimination and equality legislation falls on your head.
“How can any private group be forced to include someone they don’t want?”
How about truth in advertising?
Er, not just off-topic, but off-planet…
No, they were apparently a fee for access public entity.
It is.fairly simple; if you refuse to offer your groups’ services to an individual (or class of individuals) on the basis of a ‘protected characteristic’ which is protected by law – you are guilty of discrimination.
As a bald person with ridiculously bushy eyebrows, I find that egregiously unfair, as I am so far without recourse.
The Tickle Vs Giggle case is ‘indirect discrimination’ because under Australian law Roxy Tickle is a woman, & can access any women’s service. It’s irrelevant that they’re trans, & so to exclude them or any other trans woman from a service for women is indirect discrimination. In the UK there is a Supreme Court case in November which will clarify whether a trans woman w a Gender Recognition Certificate (a ‘legal woman’) has full rights to all women’s services, or whether some rights are only for biological women. Even if it is established that some services may exclude ‘legal women’, there will need to be a clear reason. It’s not certain an app such as the one in this case could meet that.
The “state” that can legislate away genetics is a clear and present danger.
Yes, if you exclude on a basis that is specified protected by law. No, if you exclude on some other characteristics.
As a rule you can’t exclude ppl from a business/organisation etc. on the basis of a ‘protected characteristic’: race, gender, age, etc. Exceptions would be eg ‘over-65s club’, ‘Brythonic DNA group’ etc. Yes you can be subject to a lawsuit if shown to be breaking equality laws ie discriminating on ‘innate/protected characteristics’ rather than suitability of individual character.
This case actually dates back to 2013 when the Julia Gillard government amended the Australian Sex Discrimination Act to make gender a protected characteristic, and to remove the definitions of “man” and “woman”. It was a sneaky move and most people in Australia had no idea it had happened, but we have been living with the results ever since. The Tickle vs Giggle case represents the first time the amended law has been tested in a court. Now, suddenly, everyone is shocked when the judge tells us what our law says: Gender trumps sex. Woman must ‘include’ men who say they are women.
The action of a woman prime minister – oh, the irony!
Activist prime minister
Sometimes women are their own worst enemies.
Tickle vs Giggle. How did I miss that?
Yes, women have been stitched up by Gillard and her party. Only altering the daft statute will bring back sanity. It is 1984 or Alice in Wonderland where the state says words mean exactly what I want them to mean.
Edit
This Post was made on the basis of misinformation in the Unherd article and the linked to BBC article.
I always felt this was the wrong hill to mount a stand on. Now I have read the actual judgment (see my other post) I am further convinced of that but my further opinion is Sal Grover should cough up the $60k and let sleeping dogs lie.
End edit
I was afraid this might happen, as the case for biological female only online spaces is not as compelling as the case for physical spaces, but the ruling here will get applied across all spaces. This only applies in Australia for now, but those who want men to have access to women’s spaces here will point to it as an important precedent.
The only potential cause for hope is that Maya Forstater lost her initial case and sanity only prevailed on appeal and that is what we need to hope for here.
It’s a dating app, they’re going to end up in physical spaces.
The government is making it so that Lesbians will have to go `underground’ if they want to be comfortable, safe and date other females.
You TERFs are already persona non grata, thrown out of every LGBTQ venue I know of but your own. It’s because you are not in fact lesbian as a first matter, but misandric troglodytic LGBTQ hating bigots first and foremost. You hate the near half of the LGBTQ who are men, those who you think are men, and view as infantile sex traitors those who you think are women and say they are men. You’re down to yourself at best tolerating at most 1 quarter of the LGBTQ community, but are so hateful to the other 3/4ths most of that 1 quarter want nothing to do with you when take your mask off.
Those TERFs who are lesbian have made yourselves the enemy inside the wire.
It’s all only on you.
I suggest that you read Andrew Sullivan’s “The Weekly Dish”on this subject. Assuming the statistics in the US are similar to the distribution in Australia, your numbers are wrong. Also, Sullivan led the movement for marriage equality in the US, so his bona fides are unimpeachable. He believes that that the passionate adherence to Trans ideology, such as you’ve expressed, harms children who in fact will be gay or lesbian if they are not automatically affirmed. Further, he holds that that ideology harms the distinct communities of LGB people. Even should you disagree with him, addressing a different perspective may be useful.
I suggest you not pretend I am not already aware of Sullivan’s deliberately ignorant bigotries with regard to transgender people — I am.
His “bone fides” are trash — he is a bigot who has secured license as he sees fit from the all powerful state and who has no compunction about it as long as it also oppresses those he thinks to be his lessers.
It appears that the only actual bigot on this thread is Talia.
Apparently you don’t know what a bigot is.
My strong dislike of you is brought about by your insistence you should and have the right to disadvantage, injure, mutilate, and abuse transgender people. It is not bigotry because facts show my views are perfectly reasonable. Sullivan’s in this case are not.
Neither of you have any facts which justify you.
Your violent anti-human delusions are part and parcel with the spittle flecked rage that sustains your delusions. The only large scale violence regarding the gender dysmorohia you embrace us that of gender delusionists attacking those who fail to enable their delusions, and against themselves when the medically or surgically poison or disfigure themselves.
You can not name any violent or anti-human delusions I have, or any delusions at all.
You also have no ability to defend yourself factually from the perfectly true observation you want to hurt transgender adults and children. You do.
Poison and disfigurement have nothing to do with it, and your claims only point out how insane you are.
Of the two falsehoods all gender critical cultists believe, which one do you have? That gender has no physical existence, or, that it is magickally always the same as the sex of a person?
Are you on drugs?
What an incoherent rant of ignorance.
Prove it, “What an incoherent rant of ignorance.”, and, no.
Google “incoherent”.
Your answer is a click away…….
No fool, I know what I wrote is not incoherent — that’s just the dodge you are trying because all you really bring to the discussion is mindless hatred and factless stupidity.
Speaking of hateful troglodyte…..
That is yourself, yes. And without a relevant fact a one in your pocket.
This has already happened in Australia. The Lesbian Action Group is on to it. https://lesbianactiongroup.org.au/about-lag
It has already happening in Scotland. The Edinburgh Rxxe Crisis Center is run (the last time I looked) by a trans women (aka a man). There is at least man who works there. Women have left, because they don’t want to talk about their rxxewith a pervert, excuse me, a man in a dress. These women are transphobic and need to reeducate themselves. The man who runs the center once wondered out loud if a woman had an oxxxxxm when she was being rxxxd.
And in similar cases in the western world, biological men are taking over women’s sports, and biological men can “self-identify” as females in order to be on the female side of the jail instead of with the rest of the men.
So clearly, society has gone crazy. And what gets lost in all of this is that it is secularization that has led to all this madness. When some geniuses thought it would be to the benefit of society to secularize the west, we have come to a place where we don’t even know what a male or female is. in Romans 1, this is called God’s judgement, and no matter how much intellectual society becomes, society only becomes more confused and immoral–this judgment remains unless we turn to Jesus Christ for salvation.
Before the old and new testaments were written (by whoever and whenever that was) do you seriously think biological sex was a matter of confusion? If not, what makes you think those scripts make the blindest bit of difference?
Unfortunately religion plays into the whole “men can become women and vice versa” dialogue especially in societies where homosexuality is seen as immoral or illegal. Part of the problem is religion, all religion.
Science has proven that mammals do not change sex and cannot change sex. Even those thought to be “intersex” still have either XX or XY chromosomes. It doesnt matter what a changed birth certificate says, ask any pathologist what they find after death… Only what biology and science gives them, the person was born either male or female.
“religion plays into the whole “men can become women and vice versa” dialogue”
That needs a bit of explaining.
’Progressivism’ is the new religion. Unlike older religions it offers no grace or forgiveness
All these new men-can-be-women laws will be overturned, not by Christians who have turned the other cheek, but by the large immigrant Islamic contingents that the virtuous
Guardianista elites have let in.
What’s utterly baffling about all this is why so many women go along with it. That has to be the best example of gaslighting in history.
See the comment above about Julia Gillard.
1) Young females are profoundly naive. Deep genetic coding so males have sexual access. Normally we’d be profoundly realistic at 20 having birthed the resulting baby & it not surviving if we’re not. But we aren’t having babies til 30 if at all. It’s changed everything.
2) Intra-sexual competition. Females now have power outside the domestic sphere for the first time in history & we only really compete with our own sex. If overarching legal protections are removed from ALL women, a Patrician & Plebian class of women emerges. Julia Gillard et al are far more powerful vis a vis other females as a class now. They (& their daughters) will never need a bed in a rape refuge or prison cell. It’s immoral but not illogical.
Both are very smart insights, pointing beyond the usual posturing about the topic. Thank you.
Acute, thanks.
Mary Harrington has written about why.
Women didn’t so much as go along with it, they CREATED it. From the Wikipedia site for fourth-wave feminism:
Fourth-wave feminism broadens its focus to other groups, including people who are homosexual, transgender and people of colour, and advocates for their increased societal participation and power.
It also notes the new focus on ‘intersectionality’ starting around 2010. Granted, a lot of women are shaking their heads in wonder and disbelief as are most men. But, make no mistake – this was brought to us by a large contingent of women who are feminist thinkers and academics.
And the money to support it has been provided by male billionaires.
Imbecile, no such thing is true.
You make of yourself an obvious, hysterical, confabulationist idiot to claim it.
Have you seen the videos and articles where Jennifer Bilek outlines the situation? I don’t appreciate the insults.
I have no reason to care that you think accurate description of you is any insult. Jennifer Bilek can no more outline the the situation than a Flat Earther can prove the Earth is flat.
So you have not watched or read anything produced by Jennifer Bilek?
I have no reason to, she can say nothing true which is relevant, if she is pretending that people being transgender is caused by a billionaire.
Effectively she is on a “no Moon landing” level of conspiracist imbecile.
I know the history of people being transgender. She plainly does not – it quite predates all billionaires now living, and by about — oh — 100, 200, 300 thousand years at least. It is solely a matter of genetics and what influences the expression of genes.
And nothing more new.
You sure about the drugs?
Once I wrote something on a thread in response to a K Stock article, that feminists may want to realize that men, in general, are not the enemy. (Women comfortable in their woman-ness know it ab ovo, so to say…) Normal, well-socialized men are protective of women, especially against abnormally socialized male thugs and cheats. The idea that women need men as much as fish need a bicycle has always been biologically illogical, but it is also, clearly, socially destructive. Women can’t go it alone.
Women can’t go it alone.
Neither can men. We need women to do the things that only women can do – not to try to do the things that only men can do.
(1) Women respond to the Be Kind message from transactivists. (2) Women with offspring who transition become warriors for the cause. Some of them are members of parliament.
Australia is doomed..
Why is that?
I agree. It will follow what is happening in Canada. Judicial tyranny.
“Australia is doomed”
Here you go Jim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Said_Hanrahan
Trying to combat an epidemic of violence against women, rather than eliminate the violence they chose to eliminate women.
I agree this is both serious and ludicrous and that the only way back is to scrap all this “protected characteristic” nonsense and stick with biological reality.
But I’m far from convinced there really is any “epidemic of violence” either in Australia or here, whether against women, “women” or in general. The word epidemic gets bandied around a little too freely these days and can result in all sorts of unwanted side effects (like two year lockdowns).
A woman is killed by a man, usually a man she knows, every 3 days in the UK. It is documented here https://www.femicidecensus.org
Very few make the headlines.
We know that men kill more men than women, the media tells us often in graphic detail. But women are killed too but these murders and homicides are not reported in the same way. It is only the ones done by men in positions of authority that make the headlines.
We also know from stats published some time ago in Unherd that TW (men) are a great danger to the public than the public are to TW. When a TW is killed, it makes the headlines, when the killer is a TW, it tends not to.
No, you don’t know that. No such statistics exist, because the idea is your wishcasting and nothing other.
That’s because a TW hasn’t been murdered in years in Britain. Same thing in Europe. Google it.
But it will lead to male rapists declaring that they are women and should be housed in a female prison, increasing the pool of victims.
It also brings up the obscene spectacle of rape victims having to refer to the rapist as she/her, and`her’ p***s. This has happened in UK courtrooms. The judge wouldn’t want the rapist to have hurt feelings.
Not sure we disagree here.
One more thing – we need to get rid of this ridiculous modern idea that feelings have any place in UK courts. Or that the law can or should be used to protect feelings. Harriet Harman was one of those who introduced this dangerous nonsense with the absurd “victim impact statements”. Stretching things a bit, it’s almost as if once we abandon a clear binary view of the world (e.g. there is a) evidence and b) other stuff that’s not relevant and inadmissable in a court), we’re fully signed up to two (or three/four/many more) tier justice.
This judge has now ruled that feelings and ideology take precedence over the facts. This insanity, for that’s the only accurate term for it, seems to get a lot worse with time
It goes along with the definition of “fact” in law. A “fact” in law is what a judge decides to be a “fact”, objective reality be damned.
God is laughing. Bitterly.
Yes, the Australian Human Rights Commission is no friend of women.
Australia is a very difficult place for women. Be white, thin, silent and compliant, and you’ll succeed. It’s important to remember that the First Fleet ships that arrived initially only brought.men. When the women arrived it was, well lets say, consent didn’t come into it. It’s been a man’s world ever since. I know many Australian women are feeling very depressed tonight. We saw this coming, the wider culture supports our erasure. All power to Sally and all hope that an appeal may succeed in a higher court.
“the wider culture supports our erasure.”
Of course this is not true and you are attacking the vast majority that do support women on this issue. And it’s not true that the first fleet brought only men.
Do you live in Australia? The wider culture is very dismissive of women who stray from beach babe/compliant wife role, or, god forbid, a woman who speaks her mind and has opinions. As for the first fleet, the first 3 ships carried 400 men and only 24 women. On the second day the Lady Penryhn arrived with 130 odd women. The men outnumbered women 3 to 1 in the early days and months of the colony
That characterisation of Australia seems very outdated. I vaguely remember that time — it ended around the time of the 1988 bicentenary. Since then, the Australian bourgeoisie has bent over backwards to accommodate every latest affectation of the global elite. The huge immigrant cohort just do their own stuff all under the indulgent eye of the patronising inner-city bien-pensants. The white lower classes are divided between the classic but dwindling beer-drinking suburban strugglers (where you’ll find the views you claim are mainstream) and the out-there often feral rural working class who are not easy to define (but absolutely hated lockdowns).
Just nonsense, Yes I live in Australia. The wider culture, some 50 years ago, was very male orientated. It’s hardly like that now. To say the wider culture supports your erasure is ridiculous. As I said, the majority are not happy with this issue at all. The state of Victoria and the ABC might insist men can be women, but to say that Australia is generally for it is nonsense. Like most countries the whole trans/women thing is driven by a minority.
As for the first fleet, you said there were no women, not that they were the minority, but you seem to be playing games there (because you obviously know it’s not true) as a way to paint Australia as misogynists.
Why don’t you get out a bit more instead of making wild claims about the country you live in?
Brett, this legislation is in effect in every work place, University, TAFE etc etc etc and you are more than likely to lose your job if you speak out against it. I know of a number of women currently facing court charges for ‘misgendering’ work colleagues and the like, academics having their classes ‘banned’ by activists etc etc. In Australia. The majority, ‘the pub test’ if you like, may think this is a joke, but what power do they hold, what are they willing to do about it? Most will have a drink and a laugh about it and think it will never effect them. As for attitudes towards women, nothing much has changed really, just a bit of window dressing. I think it has gotten worse as third wave feminism unfortunately embraces the whole idea of the ’empowerment’ of women through sexuality and appearance, and that plays right back into the mainstream cultural expectations. Some women have themselves to blame for that. I don’t know where you hang out, maybe it is the place where all the good men are, and I have just missed it. I have ‘gotten out’ as you say, but I have seen and experienced the same attitude pretty much everywhere. As for the first fleet, I checked my figures as you queried them and I believe in arguing fairly. 25 women is a small number on the first 3 boats, and as far as I can tell, these women were 90%+ the wives of the military or free settlers and not convicts. The bulk of female convicts came on the Lady Penrhyn.
So this is Australia to you; university and TAFE, and those that drink at the pub. That’s a lot you’ve left out. These are almost comical in their simplicity: the intellectuals against the plebs. A lot has changed for women, including the female Prime Minister who signed in the ridiculous act you’re upset about, and you would surely know of the successful women across Australian society. I’m surprised you’ve found the same attitudes everywhere. That’s a very unusual experience.
I said ‘every work place’, is that not all encompassing? You still won’t say where your Australian Utopia actually resides.There are successful women in Australia (always have been) but the fundamental culture is little changed really. Women are maybe smarter at playing the game and getting what they want, but the deep down attitudes are still there. I don’t think my experience is at all unusual, certainly my circle of friends and associates concur. It is perhaps secret women’s business, you would be unlikely to be privy to it. It is the way women travel through the world, the fear of certain places and behaviours, the imbalance of reward for effort, the in club and the outsiders. My feeling from what you have written is that you don’t really care about this judgement and you don’t think it will actually matter, as Australia is such a fair and equitable place that doesn’t go in for such things. I guess it won’t effect you, so you don’t have to worry about it. I don’t share that sentiment
“My feeling from what you have written is that you don’t really care about this judgement “
Well then, there’s nothing I can say that would mean anything to you. But that’s quite obvious anyway.
It’s right through the education system. Relatives who work in schools tell me they are required to use the pronouns demanded by students etc.
That may be the case but it’s hardly proof that “the wider culture supports our erasure.” Even if teachers use the correct pronouns it doesn’t necessarily mean they believe it and nor does it amount to erasing women.
Not a word about the judge who issued this ridiculous decision.
That isn’t a woman. Why don’t trans women start their own dating app? Possibly because they’re actually men who want power over actual women?
Gender identity is an abstraction.
Biological sex is real.
The ruling elevates the abstract over the real. This is th nature of the sickness.
Progressivism is a kind of religion but without any grace
“Biological sex is real.”
So is biological gender. It is located between the ears in a person, not between the legs as is the sex — and unlike what is between the legs, is supposed to be in charge and take precedence.
“Biological gender” is as confused an idea as “biological nationality”.
No, it is not. It is unquestioned about 99.8% of the time and when questioned, found accurately but about 0.002% of the time.
You are confused.
And you are delusional.
No, I am not. You are though.
Despite the facts proving you wrong, you think either that gender is not physcially real, or, you think it is magically identical to the sex of a person.
Gender isn’t physically real. Sex is.
Of course it is idiot — that is why it associated with particular genetics and imaged anatomy.
Change “imaged “ to imagined and you’ll be getting closer, you halfwit.
No as I have cited before, the imagery of gender is physical reality.
And you are too emotionally immature to deal with that fact rationally.
No, because there is exclusively evidence for it. That is why your sort never produces any evidence against it.
Excellent Talia. That’ll make it easy to detect which men are ‘trutrans’ and which ones are just misogynist crossdressers, predators and pèrvërts.
If you’ll just tell us where we can look for this biological reality…
The WPATH standards of care do just fine and divining it, being only 1 part in 45,000 accurate at worst.
XX or XY — in every cell of every mammal. That’s the immutable reality. Your exaggerated bouffant wigs, garish lipstick and affected sashaying are mere ideology and only have weight in the decadent, confused and highly neurotic West — and even there, only among the affected, psychologically insecure elite class. Most people in the world know what’s what.
“XX or XY — in every cell of every mammal.” <– Which has nothing to do with it. It is the anatomical result which matters.
“Your exaggerated bouffant wigs, garish lipstick and affected sashaying” <– Do not in my case even exist, moron.
“the decadent, confused and highly neurotic West” <– It is Russia with its satrapies of corruption which merits that description. Fortunately, Putin’s Russia will stop existing when he does, and his end is nigh.
“Talia” exists at the intersection of ignorance and motivated, magical thinking.
Except of course Talia is my actual name and I’m the only person here mention relevant facts, that, you know, real.
The facts you do not have the emotional maturity to deal with sanely.
What a load of unmitigated bollocks. See if you really believe that “what is between the ears” takes precedence over reality then next time you meet someone with Alzheimer’s disease.
“What a load of unmitigated bollocks.” <– Then prove it.
“then next time you meet someone with Alzheimer’s disease” <– You mean my mom. Funny, Alzheimer’s has nothing to do with it.
Gender ideology is fact free. Your posts are embarrassingly delusional.
And yet there is no gender ideology but the gender critical one, and you never seem to be able to point out anything I write which is so little as incorrect.
Gender ideology is an abstraction of philosophy ergo it is not a physical reality i.e it’s made up crap.
Sex is a reality.
I err’d above. You are barely a quarter wit.
There is no such thing as gender ideology, but that held by you.
The “gender critical” ideology holds that gender has no physical, anatomical existence — or — that it is magickally identical to the sex of a person.
Which delusion do you have?
Still wondering which delusion possesses you.
I contributed to Sall’s fighting fund and, if she appeals, will do so again.
I hope ardent feminists realise how much they have contributed to this debacle. Once they decided that men should not have their own spaces – Muirfield Golf Club, the Garrick – it was inevitable that men wouldn’t be that bothered about defending women’s spaces.
There is a big difference though. Women’s spaces are largely for the safety and dignity of women, and are required because of (some) men’s bad behaviour. This is not the case with men’s spaces, as women rarely pose a threat to them.
Thank you for sticking up for women by contributing to Sall’s fighting fund.
Shall we play a little game of “where’s Talia”?
Just a bit further up. Still DAD’S. (Dumb as Dog Sh)
And further down.
And if you had any facts to justify you, then you’d have a point of some sort.
it seems when someone does try to submit some facts and construct an argument with you, suddenly the thread disappears. Funny that
I’m about the only one here mentioning facts, the Herd here must be protected from them by the management
where is our conversation about gametes and chromosomes and heart attacks? Did you delete the comment and therefore the replies? If you did, then you’ve not a fair player
No fool, I just said The Herd protected itself.
The UnHerd is the unfair player, and for your love of hateful irrelevance and lies, so are you.
Ok. Eighth wit.
Still nothing relevant from you, and you think yourself a legend in your time.
You’re sad.
‘And if you had any facts to justify you,’. Excellent use of gibberish.
The meaning is perfectly clear to anyone with English as a first language. You have no facts which justify your opinions expressed here. It is called concision, fewer words of equal meaning are better.
Is anyone else worried about the world when Australia of all places embraces all this kind of thing?
It happens easily here as Australia is so anti-intellectual. Nothing gets discussed seriously. Once upon a time the ABC would attempt it, SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) might tentatively raise a topic, but it is not considered polite to seriously debate a topic in company. Most people would have no idea about the changes to legislation that Gillard introduced. Most people couldn’t care less about politics, and think it’s rude to talk about it.
More nonsense. It is not considered rude to talk about politics. Maybe it is among the people you know but politics is constantly being debated among others. Australia is anti-intellectual in the sense that they have an innate distrust for authority and especially for the progressive left policies and their intellectual posturing. The law does not necessarily represent the people. This decision certainly doesn’t represent Australia. You know the progressive left do not represent Australia. It’s difficult to know just who you represent.
Hard to unpick all that, but I’ll try. Politics may be debated by some ‘others’ as you put it, but the public political discourse is appallingly lacking. Point out the discourse to me about trans issues in the press, TV, radio? The SBS article re this Tickle judgement closed comments after 20 mins, not before deleting around 80% of comments. I used to live in inner city Sydney, some 25 yrs or so ago, and it was more vibrant and open then. Maybe it still is there, living in regional Tas now so I don’t have first hand experience. I have lived in regional NSW, Vic and Tas, and it is pretty much as I described. There are always enclaves of hopefulness, but overall I would stand by my claim that Australia is deeply anti intellectual. Compare quiz shows UK has Only Connect, University Challenge, Eggheads, Mastermind etc, we have thankfully Mastermind, but then such gems as Guy Mont’s Spelling bee and the 100. If the law doesn’t represent the people, then we are deeply in trouble. If this decision doesn’t represent Australia, where is the wave of push back? I am aware of only one sitting politician Senator Clare Chandler who is publically speaking critically re trans issues. Who do I represent? My own informed opinion. For clarity, I used to be progressive left, but moved away from that position because of issues such as the trans issue, and the fact there was no room for dissent. But I don’t see much dissent anywhere else, and I certainly don’t think someone like Pauline Hanson provides any sort of a reasoned or intelligent alternative. Who do you represent Brett?
Skye and The Australian are vigorous in their coverage of trans/women’s issues and very much for women’s’ rights, probably more than any of the media. You may not think much of Pauline Hanson but she most definitely speaks loudly for womens rights.
I represent the people you believe don’t exist in large numbers in Australia.
I take your point about SOME Skye commentators, I find sorting through the dross is quite difficult though. Similar problems with The Australian. Pauline does not speak for me or virtually any woman I know. She is an ignorant virago in my estimation and if that is who you think of as a beacon of intellectualism and women’s rights, then we are most certainly doomed. As for who you represent, what a pisstake. At least own your persuasion and be honest. A circular affirmation with no facts is pretty weak really.
What sort of facts would you like?
Who are these people for whom you speak? Do they care about this judgement, will they do anything about it? What are your own political leanings and how do you form the opinions that you hold, is it just a via negativa, or are you actually upholding certain principles?
“Who are these people for whom you speak?”
Kim, Rob, Karen, Marc, Ellen, Casey, Mitch, Josh, Dan, Aiden, Merv, Kev, Julie, Di, Lynn, Bob, Al. Haven’t spoken to them all since the announcement but pretty sure they’d be against it. Not sure what they can do except write to local member and change the government. Politically right of centre but once a Labour supporter. How do i form my opinions: by staying informed. Do I uphold certain principles: yes. Particularly not bending the words of others or exaggerating and distorting facts to put down others.
Listing a whole lot of christian names is pretty meaningless, and it would be great if you could answer without having a dig.
Well it’s a pretty ridiculous question, isn’t it?
Your question first to me ‘it is difficult to know just who you represent’
Yes, the comment was “it’s difficult”, not who are they? I didn’t ask who you represent, just that you seem to be caught between progressive policies and what you might regard as ‘the right’ who support the rights of women against trans agendas. These people you regard as ‘anti-intellectual’ and mired in misogyny are the people who support women in this conflict. They do not support the the left and their support of trans people over women. These are the very people who support your position but you are against them. That’s the difficulty I have, in understanding who you represent in your comments, the progressives or the right.
I wish I could comfortable belonging to the ‘tribe’ as you point out, but the left has abandoned me, not the other way round. I think there are many ex lefties who have had to call time given the trans issues, and yes, it does put us in a difficult place… I think historically I fall close to the left leaning libertarians, if you’re really looking for a label. But I’m certainly not going to flip and suddenly embrace all things right wing because I agree with some of them on this issue.
No, you don’t have to flip, just accept that their position on trans women is the same as you and they they represent a lot of Australians.
Brett, when did I not accept that? I am very appreciative of this space and the ability to converse on this subject. I never said that it was right wingers who were misogynistic or anti intellectual. I said that the Australian culture was. If I hated right wingers or thought I had nothing to learn from them or indeed any different opinion, why would I be reading and contributing on Unherd? I don’t know where you’re coming from: I agree with commenters here and I don’t really care if they are right wingers or not… I don’t really think in those terms anymore. I think more in terms of whether someone thinks for themselves and doesn’t just stay in their club. I haven’t much time for people who stay in the echo chamber and only talk with people the same as them. Do you still read left wing publications? Do you talk to left wingers? I am really bemused as to why you have some issue with my position.
And you’re very wrong if you think that I think all misogynists are right wing and anti intellectual. Many left wing intellectuals are very misogynistic.
Your enemy’s enemy is your friend.
You can find allies for individual situations and still disagree on other issues. It’s ok to do that.
The ABC actively endorses gender ideology because it goes along to the ACON Australian Workplace Equity Index, for which it pays to belong with money that comes from our taxes. https://www.womenscooee.org/2021/10/23/how-our-abc-is-failing-women/
Maybe just donate to Giggle crowdfunding,
I have done so and I will again.
I wasn’t being sarcastic, I just meant that it would have a more immediate benefit.
Thanks for that Brett.
Australia does not embrace this sort of thing.
So this is your response to the federal court ’embracing this sort of thing’. You either deny it, or say it doesn’t matter, noone really believes this, ‘Australia is not its laws’, . Sure is if you fall foul of them. This HAS happened, it effects ALL women and their right to have separate spaces. This is a highly misogynistic decision. I’ll agree with you when I see push back from the majority of Australians you claim to represent. Exactly which Australia do you refer to?
From what I can see among the comments here most people are aghast at thus decision. I don’t know who is and who isn’t Australian here, but it’s an odd assumption to assume people in Australia don’t also feel this way.
I do not believe the people of Australia in general embrace this decision. What are you accusing me of denying? I haven’t said it doesn’t matter. What I initially said was that I don’t agree with your statement “the wider culture supports our erasure.”
The people of Australia are not it’s laws. They are subject to the laws legislated in parliament. Right now we have a government voted in by 1/3 of voters. Hardly the people of Australia. I said the law does not necessarily represent the people, not, as you quoted “Australia is not its laws”.
But if these majority of Australians are not prepared to do anything about this, then does it matter that they don’t agree with it? The old ‘She’ll be right mate’. And I’m not assuming Australians don’t feel the same as these commentators…I have READ the comments on other media outlets and there are hundreds of supportive TWAW commentators from Australia, applauding the decision
What do you suggest they do?
Don’t be the silent majority
So you think they are a majority? How should they go about that?
oh for goodness sake, stop playing games Brett. YOU are the one who has maintained that the vast majority of Australians don’t go in for this, not me. And I am not going to fall into your trap of giving a recipe list for activism just for you to shoot me down for doing so. One concession, support Sal’s crowd funder gigglecrowdfund.com
Sign the petition: https://www.womenforwomensrights.org/open-letter-un-women/sign-the-letter/
Maybe just donate to Giggle crowdfunding,
What a confabulatory, hysterical imbecile you are!
Good! If needs be, it can be defined far more accurately than sex can. 1 in 50 people have some — to the medical eye — variance in their externally visible sexual dimorphism. Fully 1 in 500 can not be nailed down in only one categorization, in one way or another out of chromosomes, alleles, phenotype. Gender identity isn’t even in question but in 1 person out of 15,000 — and after clinical evaluation, only 1 in 45,000 has a gender identity which is in any way indeterminate.
You do want to use the most accurate measure, don’t you, Smith?
Or, only what measure suits your bigotry?
Dribbler!
Show me the third gamete Tania and then we can have a discussion. You are just talking about biological variations within the two sexes, not a third sex, or a ‘continuum’. I guarantee you, if you have a heart attack and end up in emergency, the doctor will treat you according to your biological sex, not your ‘gender identity’, as the female body is different to the male body cardiologically. We don’t react to the drugs in the same way. But sit there and demand that there is no binary and you identify as whatever while they are trying to treat you, if you want to take risk.
“Show me the third gamete”
Why do you pretend I have proposed any such thing exists or has relevance? You have already reduced yourself to fighting the strawman you’ve stuffed.
“I guarantee you, if you have a heart attack and end up in emergency, the doctor will treat you according to your biological sex, not your ‘gender identity’, as the female body is different to the male body cardiologically.”
They damn well better treat me according to my biochemistry, which is quite typically female.
Because there are only two gametes (sperm or eggs) no matter if there are variations in chromosomes, alleles or phenotypes. Gametes are totally binary, as is biological sex, albeit with some variations. You are either male or female. And you are the one who argued (upthread here “So is biological gender (real). It is located between the ears in a person, not between the legs as is the sex — and unlike what is between the legs, is supposed to be in charge and take precedence”) that biological gender (your made up term, certainly not mine) should take precedence over biological sex.
Yes, and what I said there is real and relevant. Gametes are not.
well good luck with human reproduction if gametes are not real or relevant.
That has nothing to do with it. Whether someone is a man or a woman (or in far from few cultures, neither alone, or some other) is what we are talking about — and that status or the other (or a third, or fourth) has a very long history of being accorded on the basis of assumption, or preference, or appearance — not gametes. Gametes were never seen, ever, until there was a good microscope, so stop pretending that is what this is about, even in antiquity or the near modern era.
Get this through your thick goddamn skull, human reproduction is not at issue here. Most of human history saw half of all people ostensibly male people never successfully reproducing, and a good 1 in 10 people thought female never reproduced, out of who made it into reproductive years of age.
And here you are stupidly confabulating that something affecting only 1 in 150 is some problem, or even has anything to do with it.
The only thing this has to do with, with respect to youth is, why do you want to force any boys to have breasts and periods, and why do you want to force any girls to have beards and deep voices? That all banning gender affirming care will do, and it will do that to at least 99 for the sake of any 1 saved from experiencing that with any regret.
And at that, why do you expect to have any respect at all, when that is all this boils down to?
It’s not about reproduction in itself, it’s about our evolution as a sexually dimorphic species (along with other mammals).
Do you think that sex is a spectrum, and gender identity is specific and determined, in all mammals or only in humans?
Sex plainly is a spectrum in all mammals. Are you one of the morons who thinks spectrum implies or requires all possible results to occur equally commonly? It is only the recognition that intermediate results occur between the poles of a bimodal distribution, and so for every sexually dimorphic characteristic.
And it is about evolution — evolution does not require what you feel to be perfection in every individual result. It only results from whatever mix of genes is in common circulation in a population, moving to wards an equilibrium of successful maximized reproduction which result it never reaches, because circumstances change.
“why do you want to force any boys to have breasts and periods”
When you say boys, what do you mean?
As is obvious to the honest reading what I have written here, a boy is someone whose gender has developed 50% plus any in a masculine manner.
How is that measured?
Against the criteria for medical transition of apparent gender being recommended, per DSM5/WPATH standards of care.
The success of which demonstrate no matter whether you are an gender critical ideologue because you think gender has no physical existence or is always identical to the sex of a person, you are wrong.
So you’re saying it’s a scientific based criteria and not the person deciding their identity on how they feel?
It is your delusion the idea that someone must say they are transgender and want to transition for it to be recommended, is a requirement which invalidates the recommendation.
You have no factual excuse to claim what you imply.
I’m not claiming anything, I’m asking for clarification. How is a person’s gender decided?
“I’m not claiming anything,” <– Oh yes you are, you claim much — no little of which is ridiculous — and never prove any of it.
“How is a person’s gender decided?” <– I have already said how.
When they treat you they’ll need to take into account quetiapine 100mg tds.
If you’re going to use these figures to bolster your position then you need to supply sources, otherwise no one’s going to take your stats seriously. If I said “fully 1 in 50,000 cannot be nailed down…” you would ask me to prove it, which would be reasonable. So why don’t you cite your sources?
I already have and you have already ignored them. And in the vein of you deserving no respect, because of what you ignore.
***
You are trying to make this about me personally, and not what the facts are. It is really only about the facts.
The facts are there are no facts justifying what the gender critical say they want. What they say they want is for 99 boys and girls to be forced to grow up with respectively breasts and periods, and, beards and deep voices. That is the consequence of what they say they want — they either want that, or, they are ignorant of reality, or, they are evil, or, they are insane, or, some combination of the three.
It does not really matter which. What matters is that facts prove that consequence, and that that consequence is needless and unacceptable.
No Brett, the problem is that at the best you think all points of view are inherently equivalently justified, and never mind the facts behind them. There are no facts justifying the gender critical ideology.
“But you still haven’t explained what those you consider not to be emotionally involved, you know, the less than “most”, what their point if view is based on. It can’t be emotion, because that’s for the “most”. This is not sophistry. I’m asking you to look at this logically, not emotionally.” <– No sophist, you are not asking me to look at it logically.
“Disgust, fear, shame, simple bigoted hatred”, all of those have been reasons why people do awful things to other people for millennia. So is even simply picking a side and enjoying seeing it take power. It is not logical for you to claim or imply otherwise.
Whatever their motivation, what facts do you pretend justifies the gender critical ideology?
I haven’t used facts about gender critical ideology, or claimed anything. I asked why you don’t cite the source of the stats you use.
You have lied to imply I have not cited my sources. I have over and over.
You are evading the question because you love abusing transgender children and don’t dare let yourself be pinned down about any of the stupidities the gender critical believe to justify their child abuse.
What’s your source for this:
”1 in 50 people have some — to the medical eye — variance in their externally visible sexual dimorphism.”
Sexing the Body, Fausto-Sterling, 2000.
And you are still evading the question.
Is this the question:
“what facts do you pretend justifies the gender critical ideology?”
First of all all define what you mean by “gender critical ideology”.
There is something here that you either ignore or fail to understand. Citing a book is not good enough. Anne Fausto-Stirling did not do the research. She took it from its original source. That is what you have to cite. An author like Fausto-Sterling uses research to serve and bolster her theory. That’s not uncommon, which is why people insist of all reference in a book being cited i.e. it’s origins, it’s source.
No I am citing a compilation, which is perfectly fine. Anything I cite you would need to look up, quit dodging. My citing her book is no different from citing an encyclopedia entry which of course has its own sources.
Grow up.
This is my last comment here because it’s not the place for long drawn out conversations and it’s not the best form for something like this subject.
Clearly there are intersex people. Clearly their physical form may change as they develop. But clearly we know what a male and female are. Anything else is intersex. You have made some fair points in what you’ve said. But you have also muddled the waters. As I said this is not the place for further discussion.
“But clearly we know what a male and female are.” <– Dunning-Kruger on your part. What is clear is that male and female are two differing and not exclusive directions in which a human being may sexually dimorphize for any given sexually dimorphic characteristic.
In as much as a transgender person has some sexually dimorphic anatomy developing in one direction and other in another or quite indeterminately, we are intersex.
And this is a fine place for further discussion, that question you keep ducking.
Do you think gender does not physically exist, or, do you think it is always magickally identical to the sex of a person?
What about the “gender journey”? Do all these people have a determinate gender identity that morphs over time?
What about detransitioners?
What about all the people who don’t have any gender identity?
“What about the “gender journey”?” <– What about it? It is not for you to set their course.
“Do all these people have a determinate gender identity that morphs over time?” <– Apparently, however long they need to perceive it with assurance.
“What about detransitioners?” <– What about them? They number 1 in 100 or fewer out of whom transitions medically per WPATH standards of care. Show a way to lower their number which does not hurt that 99. Go ahead.
“What about all the people who don’t have any gender identity?” <– Everyone has a gender identity, insofar as no one has been found with the involved anatomy being absent. It does not matter if you don’t like that.
“They number 1 in 100 or fewer out of whom transitions medically per WPATH standards of care.”
Cite the source or we’ll assume you’re making it up.
I already have cited it from multiple sources, you have already ignored it.
Here is one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8751773/
“The extremely low rates are based on studies with flaws which compromise the reliability of their reported rates, or refer to a population with very different characteristics from the large numbers of young people contemplating or undergoing medical intervention today.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10322769/
So some claim, however, they produce no evidence of it in the statement you cite. Essentially, they throw up a lot of crap and hope some sticks.
Only evidence counts and they have none.
Some reading for you.
Cohn J. The Detransition Rate Is Unknown. Arch Sex Behav. 2023 Jul;52(5):1937-1952. doi: 10.1007/s10508-023-02623-5. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37308601; PMCID: PMC10322769.
I am well aware Cohn never manages to actually find any reason to suspect the detranstion rate is higher than now thought — and they take the tack of throwing as much at the wall as they can without ever producing anything that sticks. Concern with no basis in measurement is not really concerning.
From your cited ref.
”However, there is high subjectivity in the assessment of regret and lack of standardized questionnaires, which highlight the importance of developing validated questionnaires in this population.”
Which in no way changes the numbers or their significance. Asked if they regret the transition, less than 1% say they do. That it would be preferable for all 7900+ to have been asked the identical question does not move the needle.
The figures may suggest a low regret rate, but no one is as adamant as you are that they are reliable.
On the contrary, nearly everyone in the field is adamant they are reliable — it is only you “gender critical” ideologues who claim otherwise on the basis of nothing but that you prefer the number be far higher.
For that matter, the quite paltry number of people who choose to sue over recommended medical transition, sayinng it was wrongly recommended, is so small that it by itself works to very well to confirm the <1% figure.
The concern about the reliability of figures comes from your own reference. You said this “in no way changes the numbers or their significance.” It certainly changes the significance if the researchers themselves made such a statement as I cited.
No, it does not. There is no actual concern expressed there, the statistics do not support any such concern. What you are claiming is concern is usual scietific boilerplate which. And of course, reality with respect to lawsuits files confirms the conclusions quite nicely as being an upper bound — and also the utter inability of your side of this argument to develop contrary numbers leads to laughter from statisticians.
na
When is someone going to ask the obvious question: what exactly does someone identify as, when identifying as a woman?
You’re only a woman if you identify as one, yet there is no acceptable definition for that identification. Why did that work?
How does that work?
Truly shocking. How courts can act in this way, going against millennia of common sense, biology and legal jurisprudence, is beyond belief.
Welcome to wokery.
I look forward to a progressive Australian judge ruling that species is not a biological concept, but is just a formality which is changeable at any time. I personally was assigned at birth to H. sapiens, but feel inwardly to be a Himalayan snow leopard, except on weekends when I identify as a rhododendron.
Apparently there is a child in northern Tasmania who identifies as a cat and the teachers have been directed to affirm this child’s choice: toileting in kitty litter, wearing a tail, going on all fours. I have been told this by a member of the local council… I kid you not
I listened to the judgment live. That line stood out for me too, but also when the judge said that terms like “cisgender” are useful, even though Grover refuses to use them. I am sure the judge applied the law as it stands correctly, but he (?) could have made a bit of an effort not to look captured.
Seemingly, Grover expected to lose (or maybe she is putting on a brave face) and the real battle starts now trying to get the law changed.
Sall always expected to lose at this stage because the legislation is the problem. It will now be subjected to more rigourous scrutiny in the High Court which may ultimately lead to legislative amendment.
Well, Miss Tickle is certainly a lovely woman. I wonder if she can share her skincare and hair products?
Yeah “her” photo above shows she’s a stunner, alright. Not at all like a middle-aged, prematurely greying square-faced heavy-set trucker bloke who has made a desultory attempt at femininity by growing his hair long.
What does a man mean when he says he identifies as a woman or he feels like a woman, as I have heard said? I am a woman and I know how I feel but I cannot possibly know how other women feel. Maybe if I felt like my sister I would think I was a giraffe. It is not possible to discern other people’s subjective feelings and therefore it is meaningless if not mendacious to claim to feel like another, let alone to try to base one’s identity on such a matchup of feelings.
I know there is a school of jurisprudence, famously expressed here in the US by Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., which holds that the law is what the judge says it is. Apparently this has now morphed to the facts are what the judge says they are. Of course this is disastrous for the rule of law and therefore all our freedoms.This is only the result of the decades long war on objective science and objective morality. If I get to decide my own reality, then all social cohesion disintegrates. That is what we are seeing.
yes, Philosophically, it is a nonsense to say you feel like someone or something else, as it is impossible to step into their being and know how they feel.
An expert on the Australian constitution unpacks the law. Complicated indeed.
div > p:nth-of-type(2) > a”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuwHtX6rAj8&t=2s
Delusional obsessions are not amenable to the sort rational process you are employing.
A free / liberal society includes freedom of association. Which also means disassocation. Anyone should be free to associate or disassociate with whoever they please, for whatever reason they choose.
The denial of this right is (woke) fascism.
A truly Raygun-level mix of incompetence and pompous self-regard that only the Australian version of the professional-managerial middle class can achieve.
The world has gone mad, but one day sanity will return.
There is saying from somewhere (I cannot remember where) that goes: “There are some people who cannot be persuaded by any argument, only reality will prove them wrong.”
The Commissioner’s statement refers to “trans people.” Fine. Trans is a thing now; just don’t say they are men or women! And therefore, don’t admit them to spaces reserved for men, or women.
They are men and women who are transgender, and the judge said nothing other.
“Fine. Trans is a thing now” <– Only for a few hundred thousand years at least.
I realize you are slow, I should be more generous.
When I was young we called men who presented like women “transsexuals” or “transvestites”. No-one, including the men, believed they were women. The notion that they are women is very new.
“When I was young we called men who presented like women “transsexuals” or “transvestites””
Stupidly so, you did so, yes.
“No-one, including the men, believed they were women.”
Bullshit. That has been a constant in human history in all cultures in all societies throughout millenia — the question is whether or how people who felt so were abused or suppressed or not, or given a place in society.
If I was stupid so were the men who used those terms to describe themselves.
Not at all — you have the obligation to manage 20/20 hindsight. They have no more benefit of facts now known, then you have any excuse for ignoring them.
Seems this millenia-long phenomenon was hidden from everyone . . . When did you discover it Talia?
It has not been hidden at all. You have no excuse to claim it has been.
Did you know that “lady boys” in Thailand laugh at they idea that they should identify as women? According to Amanda Kovattana, a Thai lesbian and “Tom”, Thai culture hasn’t had the same imposition of gender roles as we’ve had in the west and hasn’t the same notion of gender identity that grew partly out of the strictly imposed gender roles over the decades.
In Thailand, gender nonconforming people have been able to express their nonconformity. They have a different way to explain the situation, not gender identity, but through past lives : e.g. a girl who acted like a boy was a boy in her past life. And she’s allowed to be a tomboy in her current life. You can look up Amanda Kovattana’s video interviews on youtube.
The “trans women are women” and “sex is a spectrum” are very Western ideas stemming from Judith Butler’s theories in the 1990s.
Gender diversity in nonwestern contexts can’t be crammed into this framework. Doing that is a new form of colonialism.
Seems like my comment got deleted.
Did you know that “lady boys” in Thailand laugh at they idea that they should identify as women? According to Amanda Kovattana, a Thai lesbian and “Tom”, Thailand hasn’t had the issues of strictly imposed gender roles that we’ve had in the west over decades, which contributed to the idea of a gender identity that doesn’t match a person’s biological sex.
In Thailand, they have a different way of explaining gender nonconformity: through past lives rather than the gendered soul that we now have in the west. As a third gender person Amanda was accepted by her family as a girl who had been a boy in her past life.
You can see her interviewed in several videos on youtube.
The “trans women are women” and “sex is a spectrum” are very Western ideas stemming from Judith Butler in the 1990s. Gender diversity in nonwestern contexts can’t be crammed into this framework. Doing that is a new form of colonialism.
“Did you know that “lady boys” in Thailand laugh at they idea that they should identify as women?” <– Did you know those who say that do not speak for all the “ladyboys” in Thailand, and, it does not matter how they say they feel per the nuances of their language and culture?
It does not matter what cultural differences there are in accommodating biology, the biology is the same.
Your post does point out you are obsessed with feelings, where I care about relevant facts.
That is the funniest bit of trolling yet.
Why no, you still can’t make a substantive counterargument to the plain truth.
Talia is an entertaining troll.
You are unable to a make a substantive counterargument.
It is a revolting judgement but not surprising because destruction of women’s rights is the only logical outcome of the law as it stands.
If you cannot define “woman” in such a way that it excludes men then all women’s rights are meaningless.
That is actually profound. Thank you.
In all these things it is worth reading the actual judgment and not what various commentators say about it (especially if it is the BBC).
Here it is: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0960
This is the important part which absolutely does not say what this article (judge rules sex is changeable) and other articles say – shame on you unherd for not doing a better job of fact checking.
(a) Ms Tickle’s claim of direct discrimination fails, which was not really the case that she brought;
(b) Ms Tickle’s claim of indirect discrimination succeeds, being the substance of the case that she did bring based on a condition being imposed for the use of the Giggle App that she was required by that condition to have the appearance of a cisgender woman;
(c) Ms Tickle is entitled to a declaration of contravention for indirect identity discrimination;
(d) Ms Tickle’s claim for general damages succeeds, but her claim for separate and additional aggravated damages fails;
(e) the respondents must pay Ms Tickle compensation in the sum of $10,000;
(f) Ms Tickle’s claim for an apology fails because it is futile and inappropriate to require an inevitably insincere apology to be made; and
(g) the respondents must pay Ms Tickle’s costs;
(h) the costs in respect of the constitutional validity and statutory construction issues is limited to $50,000, being the cap imposed in respect of those issues by order 3 made on 1 June 2023,
In short Tickle has been directly discriminated against because he is a man – that is ok, but has also been indirectly discriminated (disadvantaged) because he does not look like a woman ie someone who passed better would not have been kicked out. It is notable that the Judge has not ordered Giggle to accept him, they don’t even need to apologise.
“required by that condition to have the appearance of a cisgender woman”. Sall Grover would never have used the term “cisgender”. The requirement was that members be female and screening was done by photograph. Why didn’t the judge order Giggle to accept Tickle? Giggle is no longer operating. Tickle’s suing killed the site.
One of the outcomes of this judgement means some Muslim women in Australia will miss out on medical care, because no one can guarantee medical practitioners being biological females. The consequences of this will be taboo, like the consequences of forced marriage, child-rape, FGM & polygamy already are. In the name of Diversity, Inclusivity & Equity!
Their own bigotries are their responsibility, not cover for yours.
The anti-scientific clownshow distraction of gender insanity has allowed the emerging Western police state to emerge and degrade our culture and make us all prisoners.
The unscientific are you gender critical sorts. Which delusion is yours? That gender has no physical existence? Or that it is magickally identical always to the sex of a person?