Thank you for your second paragraph. It’s so clear how this ideology removes women’s existence in law and thus removes our rights. I will use it when I visit my MP in a couple of weeks. She thinks she is a feminist and bleats on about VAWG, but if she can’t define what women and girls are how can she protect them against male violence?
Thank you, Sarah. I appreciate the Judge was constrained by the Australian legislative framework (thanks, Julia Gillard!) but, nevertheless, it is very hard to watch a middle aged man deny, with apparent sincerity, the indisputable evidence before him of another middle aged man! When politicians and the judiciary lose, or pretend to lose, a grip on reality, we are in very deep and dangerous waters. Sall Grover must have our support.
I recall watching a video where Sall Grover discussed this case in relation to CEDAW.
This ruling in Australia could have huge ramifications for women globally. The Convention to Eliminate All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the UN that recognises the specific needs of women. Since Justice Robert Bromwich rejected CEDAW and women's rights in favour for contested gender ideology it may have ramifications for the 186 countries that have ratified CEDAW (including the UK). Hopefully there will be an appeal and truth and justice will prevail.
I believe that this movement is for the complete erasure of women's rights and only the truth will save us. The truth will set us free. Free from the lies, free from gaslighting, coersion, manipulation, psychological abuse, narcissistic abuse, delusion and the global agenda that seeks to distort reality.
Why does a man want to join an app that’s for women, anyhow? He’s not a woman, and, I’m not convinced that a man living as he thinks a woman lives, doesn’t know, inside, that he’s a man, unless it’s a kind of hitherto unrecognised mental disorder.
I understand a lot of males tried to join Giggle but when they were rebuffed by the screening they accepted it. Mr Tickle is bolstered by the Lie and so far seems to have succeeded. Sall should probably get a new legal team for the appeal, who can interrogate the distinctions between direct and indirect discrimination and use CEDAW more effectively.
I have just cancelled my regular payment to Amnesty International, having contributed to the organisation for nearly 3 decades. A drop in the ocean I know. And I do feel bad for the political prisoners whom Amnesty has always fought for and no doubt continues to fight for. But I will not support an organisation that promotes Genderism, an authoritarian belief system that harms children, women, and same-sex attracted people.
In doing a search on my laptop documents this morning I accidentally came across a letter I wrote to Amnesty two years ago, telling them I would not donate as long as they clung to their misogynistic denial of the truth of only two sexes. In thos e two years they have only got worse. I too feel so torn about the good work they do, but this is now an issue for 50% of the world's population, and so has to be priority. Only by a loss of income will they get the message.
I think the initial screening was done by AI and Sall followed up the very few that AI couldn’t deal with. There are billions of ways to be a woman but we humans can tell the difference in milliseconds.
You kind of glossed over the bit where the site’s owner screened all new applicants - sometimes 500 a day - by glancing at their submitted photo and deciding whether they looked like a woman.
Because nothing promotes feminism like insisting that women look a particular way, right?
A fair point. As we can see from the many outlets who would rather publish a stock photo of a stereotypical female than an actual photo of a very visible man. I agree the test is not how pretty we are. The question is whether we are male or female. Do you agree women have a right to single sex female spaces? If not - why not?
The number of people who are women and who look, obviously and unambiguously, like women is far greater than the number of people who are women but look androgynous enough that it's not easy to tell, on the basis of a photo (or better, a short clip of video) what sex they are. Those people in turn are far more numerous than the people who are women but who look like obvious and unambiguous men - such a degree of masculinization is vanishingly rare. (Roxy Tickle looks obviously and unambigiously like a man, but it's far more likely that that's because Roxy Tickle *is* a man.)
A.I. can handle the first category easily, and humans can help with the second category. For the third category, to the degree that they exist, I dare say it would be possible for the operators of a women-only app to require them to go to a doctor for a medical certificate confirming their biological sex, which, yes, is a hassle, but it's not the greatest hardship in the world, and it allows the vast majority of women who want to have easy access to female-only spaces to do so.
Unfortunately, the interests of ordinary-looking women who want to have women-only online spaces and lesbians who want to have female-only dating apps without having to go through the hassle of medical certification is unavoidably in conflict with the interests of abnormally masculine-looking women in having access to the same things, and your comment seems to suggest that in that conflict, the interests of the extraordinarily masculine-looking women must be prioritized over the interests of the (numerically vastly greater) ordinary-looking women. I'm sure an argument could be made, for that, but you have not made it here.
You say, sarcastically, that "nothing promotes feminism like insisting that women look a particular way", and in isolation, that's a fair point, but in context it's a bit of a stretch if you expect people to accept that that promotes feminism *less* than a rule that has the practical effect of outlawing women-only spaces.
Very weird comment. 99.9% of the time you can absolutely tell whether someone is male or female by a quick glance at their face. Women can spot a trans-identifying man in a milli second. Giggle wasn't making a judgment on how pretty someone is, or how much makeup they have on or their hairstyle to decide they are a woman, which is what your comment suggests. I look like a woman regardless of all that because I am one and "Roxanne Tickle" look like a man because he is one.
Thanks Sarah, it is a grim time to be an Australian woman. We are all deeply indebted to Sall Grover who is very courageous
Thank you for your second paragraph. It’s so clear how this ideology removes women’s existence in law and thus removes our rights. I will use it when I visit my MP in a couple of weeks. She thinks she is a feminist and bleats on about VAWG, but if she can’t define what women and girls are how can she protect them against male violence?
Thank you, Sarah. I appreciate the Judge was constrained by the Australian legislative framework (thanks, Julia Gillard!) but, nevertheless, it is very hard to watch a middle aged man deny, with apparent sincerity, the indisputable evidence before him of another middle aged man! When politicians and the judiciary lose, or pretend to lose, a grip on reality, we are in very deep and dangerous waters. Sall Grover must have our support.
Thanks Sarah, this time in history will be known as 'The Age of Madness' because it certainly is that.
Thank you, Sarah.
I recall watching a video where Sall Grover discussed this case in relation to CEDAW.
This ruling in Australia could have huge ramifications for women globally. The Convention to Eliminate All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the UN that recognises the specific needs of women. Since Justice Robert Bromwich rejected CEDAW and women's rights in favour for contested gender ideology it may have ramifications for the 186 countries that have ratified CEDAW (including the UK). Hopefully there will be an appeal and truth and justice will prevail.
I believe that this movement is for the complete erasure of women's rights and only the truth will save us. The truth will set us free. Free from the lies, free from gaslighting, coersion, manipulation, psychological abuse, narcissistic abuse, delusion and the global agenda that seeks to distort reality.
Why does a man want to join an app that’s for women, anyhow? He’s not a woman, and, I’m not convinced that a man living as he thinks a woman lives, doesn’t know, inside, that he’s a man, unless it’s a kind of hitherto unrecognised mental disorder.
I have concluded most of these men get off on exerting power and control over women.
I don't think it's unrecognised, although it's usually described as a 'paraphilia' than a mental disorder: autogynephilia.
I understand a lot of males tried to join Giggle but when they were rebuffed by the screening they accepted it. Mr Tickle is bolstered by the Lie and so far seems to have succeeded. Sall should probably get a new legal team for the appeal, who can interrogate the distinctions between direct and indirect discrimination and use CEDAW more effectively.
I have just cancelled my regular payment to Amnesty International, having contributed to the organisation for nearly 3 decades. A drop in the ocean I know. And I do feel bad for the political prisoners whom Amnesty has always fought for and no doubt continues to fight for. But I will not support an organisation that promotes Genderism, an authoritarian belief system that harms children, women, and same-sex attracted people.
In doing a search on my laptop documents this morning I accidentally came across a letter I wrote to Amnesty two years ago, telling them I would not donate as long as they clung to their misogynistic denial of the truth of only two sexes. In thos e two years they have only got worse. I too feel so torn about the good work they do, but this is now an issue for 50% of the world's population, and so has to be priority. Only by a loss of income will they get the message.
Actually that's not from Nick Yapp, but me, his wife, Ruby Lescott! Don't know how that happened.
Thanks, Sarah.
Great piece.
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/winters-bone
Dusty
I think the initial screening was done by AI and Sall followed up the very few that AI couldn’t deal with. There are billions of ways to be a woman but we humans can tell the difference in milliseconds.
You kind of glossed over the bit where the site’s owner screened all new applicants - sometimes 500 a day - by glancing at their submitted photo and deciding whether they looked like a woman.
Because nothing promotes feminism like insisting that women look a particular way, right?
A fair point. As we can see from the many outlets who would rather publish a stock photo of a stereotypical female than an actual photo of a very visible man. I agree the test is not how pretty we are. The question is whether we are male or female. Do you agree women have a right to single sex female spaces? If not - why not?
The number of people who are women and who look, obviously and unambiguously, like women is far greater than the number of people who are women but look androgynous enough that it's not easy to tell, on the basis of a photo (or better, a short clip of video) what sex they are. Those people in turn are far more numerous than the people who are women but who look like obvious and unambiguous men - such a degree of masculinization is vanishingly rare. (Roxy Tickle looks obviously and unambigiously like a man, but it's far more likely that that's because Roxy Tickle *is* a man.)
A.I. can handle the first category easily, and humans can help with the second category. For the third category, to the degree that they exist, I dare say it would be possible for the operators of a women-only app to require them to go to a doctor for a medical certificate confirming their biological sex, which, yes, is a hassle, but it's not the greatest hardship in the world, and it allows the vast majority of women who want to have easy access to female-only spaces to do so.
Unfortunately, the interests of ordinary-looking women who want to have women-only online spaces and lesbians who want to have female-only dating apps without having to go through the hassle of medical certification is unavoidably in conflict with the interests of abnormally masculine-looking women in having access to the same things, and your comment seems to suggest that in that conflict, the interests of the extraordinarily masculine-looking women must be prioritized over the interests of the (numerically vastly greater) ordinary-looking women. I'm sure an argument could be made, for that, but you have not made it here.
You say, sarcastically, that "nothing promotes feminism like insisting that women look a particular way", and in isolation, that's a fair point, but in context it's a bit of a stretch if you expect people to accept that that promotes feminism *less* than a rule that has the practical effect of outlawing women-only spaces.
Very weird comment. 99.9% of the time you can absolutely tell whether someone is male or female by a quick glance at their face. Women can spot a trans-identifying man in a milli second. Giggle wasn't making a judgment on how pretty someone is, or how much makeup they have on or their hairstyle to decide they are a woman, which is what your comment suggests. I look like a woman regardless of all that because I am one and "Roxanne Tickle" look like a man because he is one.