Pinned Tweet
We won in Federal Court in April. Our appeal will go to a new Tribunal panel after Justice Moshinsky found the original decision to deny our appeal was legally flawed. It will now be decided using new @AusHumanRights Exemption Guidelines that comply with the law. We fight on.
16
86
489
16,757
Lesbian Action Group retweeted
There seems to be some confusion amongst some people, so I will explain it as clearly as I can:
Australia’s sex discrimination act was created for women, on the basis of our sex. When it was enacted in 1984 (ominous year, in hindsight) employment was a big part of it.
There was ion 7D, that allowed “special measures” where things exclusively for women weren’t even classed as discrimination, basically when it was being a woman is what actually mattered in the situation. Specific employment/opportunity provisions and… woman-only spaces fell/fall into this category.
In 2013, the Gillard amendments introduced “gender identity” while taking the definitions of woman & man out of the act. Sex was never defined, but in a normal world it didn’t have to be. It could only have meant one thing (a mistake, again in hindsight).
By the time the trans absurdity hit fever pitch, Australian institutions were captured. This included those meant to be the custodians of the SDA. Suddenly, all they cared about was “gender identity” aka transgender ideology.
When the Tickle v Giggle case came along, it started with an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint. To settle it, aka not have it advance to federal court, I was expected to just agree with transgender ideology. I don’t.
I wish I could say I completely understood the magnitude at the time, but it’s almost impossible to. You think you do, but you don’t really until it hits you like a bus.
But what I did know, instinctively, was that if I folded, I couldn’t live with it, nor would it help because all it signaled was that “we” would just accept it if threatened. I found myself in a position to challenge the absurdity, and I did, because I knew not doing it would have been worse no matter what.
Obviously, everyone knows now, the courts ruled against me in every way they could. From what a woman is, to 7D, to damages. I lost - and have lost - everything.
But what does it mean to everyone else in reality?
It means the sex discrimination commissioner told the court that the ordinary meaning of woman includes men who claim to be women, and the court accepted that. Men who claim to be women are women in Australia, via the only legislation they have to validate it.
It means that for every aspect of the SDA, per the SDC’s demand, woman includes men who claim to be women. From employment to women only spaces to pregnancy protections, because of section 7D.
Did we warn about this in our court submissions and arguments? Yes. That was actually our entire case. You can read it. It’s all publicly available.
The high court said that we would have no possibility of success. We were arguing that women is adult human female and this matters in, tada, section 7D. That was it. The high court said “hell no way”. The high court is captured too.
As it stands, due to legal precedent, a special measure for women based on sex does not provide a defense to gender identity discrimination. That means that all special measures for women fall to gender identity, which will only be used by men who claim to be women, and includes - tada - employment, and women only spaces.
It means that men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women, while simultaneously taking away our rights.
I don’t know how many more times I could say the “Tickle v Giggle” case is about more than “just” one app, I’ve been saying it for almost 5 years, but I will continue to do it until everyone understands. They wiped women’s rights off the map.
It’s a f—ing mess. It doesn’t work. It’s incoherent. It’s ideological. It writes women out of law. It’s corruption. It’s totalitarian. It’s bullsh-t.
It’s the test of any government: are you ok with legislating a lie?
Australia’s sex discrimination act was created for women, on the basis of our sex. When it was enacted in 1984 (ominous year, in hindsight) employment was a big part of it.
There was ion 7D, that allowed “special measures” where things exclusively for women weren’t even classed as discrimination, basically when it was being a woman is what actually mattered in the situation. Specific employment/opportunity provisions and… woman-only spaces fell/fall into this category.
In 2013, the Gillard amendments introduced “gender identity” while taking the definitions of woman & man out of the act. Sex was never defined, but in a normal world it didn’t have to be. It could only have meant one thing (a mistake, again in hindsight).
By the time the trans absurdity hit fever pitch, Australian institutions were captured. This included those meant to be the custodians of the SDA. Suddenly, all they cared about was “gender identity” aka transgender ideology.
When the Tickle v Giggle case came along, it started with an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint. To settle it, aka not have it advance to federal court, I was expected to just agree with transgender ideology. I don’t.
I wish I could say I completely understood the magnitude at the time, but it’s almost impossible to. You think you do, but you don’t really until it hits you like a bus.
But what I did know, instinctively, was that if I folded, I couldn’t live with it, nor would it help because all it signaled was that “we” would just accept it if threatened. I found myself in a position to challenge the absurdity, and I did, because I knew not doing it would have been worse no matter what.
Obviously, everyone knows now, the courts ruled against me in every way they could. From what a woman is, to 7D, to damages. I lost - and have lost - everything.
But what does it mean to everyone else in reality?
It means the sex discrimination commissioner told the court that the ordinary meaning of woman includes men who claim to be women, and the court accepted that. Men who claim to be women are women in Australia, via the only legislation they have to validate it.
It means that for every aspect of the SDA, per the SDC’s demand, woman includes men who claim to be women. From employment to women only spaces to pregnancy protections, because of section 7D.
Did we warn about this in our court submissions and arguments? Yes. That was actually our entire case. You can read it. It’s all publicly available.
The high court said that we would have no possibility of success. We were arguing that women is adult human female and this matters in, tada, section 7D. That was it. The high court said “hell no way”. The high court is captured too.
As it stands, due to legal precedent, a special measure for women based on sex does not provide a defense to gender identity discrimination. That means that all special measures for women fall to gender identity, which will only be used by men who claim to be women, and includes - tada - employment, and women only spaces.
It means that men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women, while simultaneously taking away our rights.
I don’t know how many more times I could say the “Tickle v Giggle” case is about more than “just” one app, I’ve been saying it for almost 5 years, but I will continue to do it until everyone understands. They wiped women’s rights off the map.
It’s a f—ing mess. It doesn’t work. It’s incoherent. It’s ideological. It writes women out of law. It’s corruption. It’s totalitarian. It’s bullsh-t.
It’s the test of any government: are you ok with legislating a lie?
167
1,422
6,147
101,268
That’s right, @AusHumanRights, there are perfectly legitimate and necessary “exclusionary” scenarios that adults need to create, and spaces exclusively for lesbians is one of them.
In other news, lesbianism excludes all sorts of people.
It is not ‘inclusive’ at all.
We exclude;
Heterosexuals
Bisexuals
Men
Men who think they’re women
Men who take oestrogen
Transvestites
AGP’s
Fetishistic men
And anyone who dislikes cats.
2
4
42
806
Well said, @LucyZelic.
A very annoying interview on 'breastfeeding.' He's talking about compromise, she's talking about human rights & the only person making any sense is Lucy Zelic stating very clearly that only women breastfeed, but now the NSW government has decided to use gender neutral language.
3
5
57
1,099
Every state in this country is going in the wrong direction at light speed. Australia has over-engineered every aspect of navigating "gender identity" and we are in very deep trouble right now. Billions are being wasted on it, the rights of women and gay people have been obliterated and gender ideologues in government, whose salaries we pay, will not engage with our views. Our political system is infested and corrupted by gender identity ideology and the opportunity to vote federal and state governments ignoring us about it, can't come soon enough.
ERASED.
Tasmania's Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill deletes "homosexuality", "bisexuality" and "heterosexuality" from the Anti-Discrimination Act, and replaces them with attraction to a "gender".
The bill doesn't say what gender means.
A law meant to protect lesbian, gay uldn't write us out of the law.
Read more here and sign the petition.
lgballiance.org.au/tas/erased-fro…
4
65
269
2,722
Brilliant work again at the National Press Club from Dr Megan Poore, National Director of @aawaaadvocacy
This minister, Mike so many in @AlboMP’s incompetent and out of touch cabinet, is not fit for this role and needs to be sacked.
This minister, Mike so many in @AlboMP’s incompetent and out of touch cabinet, is not fit for this role and needs to be sacked.
Minister @AnikaWells made the case for preventing harm to women online. But her answer to us on sport left unclear how clubs can provide lawful female-only sport under @ausport guidance. Women’s protection must be consistent across portfolios @MRowlandMP @SenKatyG
6
24
120
2,089
Lesbian Action Group retweeted
@Jennabeangoode@PlanetFitnessts, voyeurs or domestic abusers, so there are plenty of trans women who pose no risk to women and girls.
However, some trans-identified men provably are a risk. We know this because it's a matter of public record. Trans women have been convicted of all the crimes listed above, and of femicide.
No study has ever proven that trans-identified men don't have the same pattern of criminality as every other kind of man. All available evidence points the other way: they are just as likely as any other man to be a rapist or a woman-killer. The evidence is plain to see in government statistics and court reports, however much you'd like to pretend none of those exist.
Demanding that women and girls pretend there is no risk to themselves, which you do constantly, is itself abusive. Your insistence that you belong in women-only spaces, and your pretence that the likelihood of harm to females in those spaces doesn't increase with every man who's allowed inside, mark you out as precisely the kind of man who should be nowhere near women's and girls' locker rooms.
Decent men, however they identify, respect women's boundaries. Even if they themselves would never dream of harming a girl or woman, they are under no illusions about what some of their fellow men will do if given access to spaces where women and girls are undressed or otherwise vulnerable.
As for women who commit terrible crimes: I have literally never heard any woman deny that Myra Hindley, Karla Homolka or Joanna Dennehy are female. Nor have I ever seen a woman argue that being a woman entitles them to enter spaces reserved for vulnerable people, without having a professional or family-related reason for being there.
Yet another difference between women and trans-identified men of your type is that the former aren't demanding, en masse, the right to go where they clearly don't belong - for instance, into a nursery where they have neither a child nor a job, or onto an intensive care ward when they know nobody and have no medical qualifications, purely because they consider themselves to be especially kind and nurturing. Even if such an interloper didn't hurt a child or a critically ill person, women as a class understand how inappropriate it would be to push themselves into those spaces and just how much justified disquiet they'd cause by doing so.
The entitlement and disregard you show for the feelings and boundaries of women and girls are of those of an unfortunately all-too-common type of male. You believe you have the right to demand that women sacrifice their own personal safety to validate your feelings about yourself. You're either indifferent to the fact that you might make women and girls uneasy at best, and scared at worst, or you're well aware that you'll have that effect, and the thought gives you a thrill. Nothing about that makes you a woman. On the contrary, you just keep proving, over and over again, that you are a man.
However, some trans-identified men provably are a risk. We know this because it's a matter of public record. Trans women have been convicted of all the crimes listed above, and of femicide.
No study has ever proven that trans-identified men don't have the same pattern of criminality as every other kind of man. All available evidence points the other way: they are just as likely as any other man to be a rapist or a woman-killer. The evidence is plain to see in government statistics and court reports, however much you'd like to pretend none of those exist.
Demanding that women and girls pretend there is no risk to themselves, which you do constantly, is itself abusive. Your insistence that you belong in women-only spaces, and your pretence that the likelihood of harm to females in those spaces doesn't increase with every man who's allowed inside, mark you out as precisely the kind of man who should be nowhere near women's and girls' locker rooms.
Decent men, however they identify, respect women's boundaries. Even if they themselves would never dream of harming a girl or woman, they are under no illusions about what some of their fellow men will do if given access to spaces where women and girls are undressed or otherwise vulnerable.
As for women who commit terrible crimes: I have literally never heard any woman deny that Myra Hindley, Karla Homolka or Joanna Dennehy are female. Nor have I ever seen a woman argue that being a woman entitles them to enter spaces reserved for vulnerable people, without having a professional or family-related reason for being there.
Yet another difference between women and trans-identified men of your type is that the former aren't demanding, en masse, the right to go where they clearly don't belong - for instance, into a nursery where they have neither a child nor a job, or onto an intensive care ward when they know nobody and have no medical qualifications, purely because they consider themselves to be especially kind and nurturing. Even if such an interloper didn't hurt a child or a critically ill person, women as a class understand how inappropriate it would be to push themselves into those spaces and just how much justified disquiet they'd cause by doing so.
The entitlement and disregard you show for the feelings and boundaries of women and girls are of those of an unfortunately all-too-common type of male. You believe you have the right to demand that women sacrifice their own personal safety to validate your feelings about yourself. You're either indifferent to the fact that you might make women and girls uneasy at best, and scared at worst, or you're well aware that you'll have that effect, and the thought gives you a thrill. Nothing about that makes you a woman. On the contrary, you just keep proving, over and over again, that you are a man.
100
908
6,005
95,461
Anna Cody is literally the most ridiculous public servant in Australia right now (and there’s stiff competition for that title). Why are we paying her $408 k for this utter bullshit?
instagram.com/p/DdstWF0APs8/…
instagram.com/p/DdstWF0APs8/…
13
30
142
2,682
Ahem, @EqualityAu and @ACONhealth
In 2020 the LGBTQ+ lobby took out a press ad they thought was a gotcha. It contrasted 70+ LGBTQ+ groups who supported men being allowed access to women’s spaces with the only group that opposed it. If you want to be on the “right side of history” be more like @AllianceLGB 👇😉
2
7
44
1,181
This is what we need! Bravery to call out the homophobia of TQ, with humour! Give Vōng Shō a follow on Insta!
youtube.com/watch?v=dvOr1U…
youtube.com/watch?v=dvOr1U…
1
4
15
1,269
What a traitor to all women and especially lesbians you are, @SenatorWong
@SenatorCash He appreciates the support, @SenatorWong.
2
17
100
1,634
Lesbian Action Group retweeted
Look at all the assholes who don’t believe in restoring biological rights for women in Law.
2
6
31
460
And rightly so!
💜🤍💚 WE WON 💜🤍💚
I am delighted to announce that following my correspondence with the Victorian Police Commissioner’s office, and pressure from all you lovely people- the Police have changed their minds!
They WILL provide a dedicated Police exclusion zone and officers to id trans activists!!
So come along this Saturday & stand up for biological reality!!
@MsCarriggofreal
@angijones
@Juanita30622990
3
12
74
1,228
Lesbian Action Group retweeted
On this day four years ago, in a tribunal case brought by Mermaids and driven by the Good Law Project -- a failed bid to strip @AllianceLGB of its charitable status — Kate Harris was driven to tears at being forced by Mermaids’ barrister to defend the definition of “lesbian”.
e said: “I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women. We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”.
Kate will never stop fighting.
And neither will I.
e said: “I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women. We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”.
Kate will never stop fighting.
And neither will I.
52
533
2,802
51,103
Every. Word. Of. This.
All of Labor & Greens voted down a bill to put the accurate definition of woman & sex into the Sex Discrimination Act.
Prime Minister @AlboMP @AlboMPled this issue a “culture war”. But has never called men claiming to be women a culture war against women.
He voted to bring in the amendments to remove women from law & is now voting to keep women out of discrimination law.
It’s not a culture war, it’s a war against reality, and the leader of the country is perpetuating it. x.com/SenatorCash/st…
7
53
267
3,902
Send the meteor. This country is a joke: facebook.com/share/r/1BjyUm…
1
1
19
768
Yep, here is a new battlefront for Aussies. You can’t despise @AustralianLabor enough and the Federal election can’t come quickly enough. @AlboMP - you’re a disaster and a disgrace, “mate.”
Albo has proposed a Censorship Bill so extreme, it allows him to edit his own Wikipedia page and remove all references he does not like! He can even delete the edit history, too!
Sign our petition against this outrageous Bill now.
0
2
4
417
Anika Wells became Comms. Minister with no experience in comms., technology or media. Her background? Five years as a compensation lawyer, time as a political adviser, six years in Parliament. An incompetent minister with the power to sensor the internet.
@FSUofAustralia
@FSUofAustralia
Q: “Who Decides the definition of Harm online for censorship?”
Anika Wells- Corrupt Labor Politician that was caught stealing hundreds of thousands from Taxpayers: “I Guess… Me”
This is insane.
10
26
82
2,239
