MattE wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2024 at 6:10pm:


The law - s 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) - is an ass, yet again.
The SEX discrimination Act, introduced in 1984 to PROTECT and ENSHRINE women's equality before the law, smuggled in a little phrase, 'gender identity' that has now come back and DENIES women their identity.

From the judgement:

BROMWICH J:

PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1    The applicant, Roxanne Tickle, by an originating application and amended statement of claim, sues the first respondent, Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd, and the second respondent, Sally (Sall) Grover, the founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of Giggle, for alleged unlawful gender identity discrimination in the provision of services, contrary to s 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA). These reasons refer to Giggle and Ms Grover collectively as the respondents.

2    The topic of the gender identity of a person, as distinct from the sex that a person had or was assigned at the time of birth, is one that Roxanne Tickle regards as straightforward and supported by the SDA and other legislation, as well as international law, including treaties to which Australia is a party. The respondents regard only sex at birth as being a valid basis on which a person may claim to be a man or woman. The respondents do not accept that a person’s sex can be a matter for self-identification. Correspondingly, they do not accept either the validity or legitimacy of the gender identity discrimination provisions of the SDA. This Court is confined to determining, only to the extent necessary, the validity, meaning and application of the SDA, including in particular whether there has been a contravention of the proscriptions on gender identify discrimination.

3    Roxanne Tickle was of the male sex at the time of birth, but is now recognised by an official updated Queensland birth certificate, issued under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 (Qld) (Qld BDM Registration Act), as being of the female sex. This followed from, and was predicated on, sexual reassignment surgery, being the term used in the Qld BDM Registration Act, which will be used in these reasons. Roxanne Tickle’s updated birth certificate gives rise to an entitlement to be referred to by female pronouns. Accordingly, in these reasons I will refer to her as Ms Tickle.

4    The term cisgender features in Ms Tickle’s amended statement of claim and appears in numerous places in these reasons, but does not appear in the SDA. As I noted in Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 553 (Tickle v Giggle No 1) at [11], cisgender refers to a person whose gender corresponds to the sex registered for them at birth. That is to be contrasted with a person whose gender does not correspond with their sex as registered at birth, commonly referred to as transgender. The respondents do not accept the legitimacy of the terms cisgender and transgender.

5    The gender identity discrimination asserted by Ms Tickle is in relation to the provision of services, alleging both direct discrimination as defined in s 5B(1) of the SDA, and indirect discrimination as defined in s 5B(2). The conduct said to constitute both direct and indirect discrimination arises from Ms Tickle being prevented by the respondents from using a mobile phone digital software application, commonly known as an App, marketed for social communication between women (the Giggle App). While both direct and indirect discrimination may be alleged in the alternative, only one of the two can ever succeed in relation to a given allegation of discrimination. While both are alleged, Ms Tickle confirmed at the hearing that her allegations of direct and indirect gender identity discrimination were advanced as alternatives.

6    Ms Tickle seeks declarations of contravention, damages (including aggravated damages), a published written apology and an order to allow Ms Tickle to access the Giggle App on the same terms offered to other female users. The claim for aggravated damages was not particularised, nor well evidenced. Ms Tickle’s pleadings were not well drafted.
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fc...

Man sues women for saying he is, really, a man.

The court says the women are wrong, the man is as much a woman as real women like  like them.


Madness.  Who made that decision?  This woman:




There is an active hatred and repudiation afoot for women, for the ordinary working class, for children, ordinary married family life, settled cultural traditions - every aspect of the culture that was hospitable and open to the world in the hope of spreading civilisation.
It has been repaid by repudiation by a flood of haters and undermines.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/domestic-abuse-charity-allows-men-who-...

And some of you sock ring-holes here wonder why - on top of the abuse I copped from the illustrious sock Lefty - I now, having looked into it - oppose this dreadful trend:-

https://womensrightsageofgender.quora.com/This-is-One-of-the-Saddest-Stories-I-v...

MattE wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2024 at 8:26pm:


That's exactly what they're doing.

Quote:


No evidence that there is one. Just people doing the best they can.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2024 at 8:44pm:



Then it won't hurt to not be there in drag, will it?  The kids can be kids without that.

Where is the need for it and what are the benefits - apart from some airy-fairy idea designed by some 'social scientist'?  Do you seriously reckon all those kids, unless subjected to this garbage, will grow up to be poofter bashers or something?  Poofters are the LEAST bashed other than by one another, and the alleged hunting down of trannies is nothing but a lie.

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 6^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2024 at 9:24pm:


Ridiculous inversion ... there is no need for children to see people in drag.

What experience is that for a tot?  Why would they need it at that age?

Keep the queers out of schools.