MattE wrote on Aug 23
rd, 2024 at 6:10pm:
We shouldn't need a referendum to define WOMAN and MAN.
But if the courts aren't going to apply common sense, we may need to define it in the basic law.
The court ruled Sally Grover indirectly discriminated against Roxanne Tickle. He awarded Tickle $10,000 and awarded costs to a maximum of $50,000.
What women's only organisation is safe with this precedent?
Something has to change.
Legislation should be amended to reverse this travesty, by defining what "sex" is and afford legal protections to individuals, groups, clubs and businesses who set themselves up as being for people of a certain biological sex.
This ruling isn't an everyday thing. It is a landmark ruling unless the High Court sets it aside.
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...