A judge in Australia has just ruled that “sex is changeable”, an utterance that flies in the face not only of common sense but also of incontestable biological facts. For those of us who have been concerned about the ongoing capture of our major institutions by an ideology that demands acquiescence in the denial of reality, we had hoped that the judiciary might be immune. In Australia at least, this is evidently not the case.
The story began when Sall Grover, a former Hollywood screenwriter, established a new social media platform for women only in 2020 called “Giggle”. One of the innovations of the app was the introduction of facial recognition software to ensure that men could not participate. In the wake of #MeToo, this seemed like an uncontroversial notion.
The software wasn’t foolproof. A man who identifies as a woman and calls himself “Roxanne Tickle” was somehow accepted, and when the mistake was noticed he was barred from the app. For anyone who thinks there might be any ambiguity about Tickle’s sex, this is what he looks like:
Affronted at being denied access to a women’s only space, Tickle took Grover to court claiming discrimination. And now the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has ruled that this was indeed an instance of indirect discrimination (as opposed to direct discrimination, as it was not proven that Tickle’s “gender identity” was the discriminating factor). The ruling puts it this way:
A necessary part of proving that action has been taken by reason of a person’s gender identity, and therefore amounts to direct discrimination, is establishing that the alleged discriminator was aware of the person’s gender identity. The evidence goes no further than establishing that Ms. Tickle’s exclusion was likely to have been a byproduct of excluding those who were perceived as being men, by the use of visual criteria that failed to distinguish between cisgender men and transgender women.
We can all see the problem. A women-only app quite obviously will discriminate on the basis of sex, otherwise it will cease to be a women-only service. The law in Australia insists that “gender identity” is a protected characteristic, even though the overwhelming majority of people do not believe that such a thing exists. This is due to amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that were passed by the federal parliament under the Labour government in 2013. Fast forward eleven years, and a judge has determined that one man’s belief that he has a gendered soul should automatically grant him the right to access women’s only spaces. Tickle has been awarded $10,000 and Grover will have to pay his legal costs.
Grover had relied on the definition of “women” in the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). As it happens, this case has not tested this definition, as the judge explained:
I was not satisfied that the kind of gender identity discrimination alleged by Ms Tickle under s22 would be supported as an enactment of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) (CEDAW). The respondents contended that this was because CEDAW grants protections only to women, and the word “women’”in CEDAW only means adults who were female sex at birth. I do not need to decide whether that is correct or not, because the way in which the term “discrimination against women” is defined in CEDAW means it refers only to discrimination that places women in a less favourable position than men. It therefore does not cover the kind of four discrimination that Ms. Tickle alleges in this case, which is discrimination that placed her in the same position as men.
At the very least, we can say that in the wake of this judgement the international definition of “women” still holds firm. And yet if a man can successfully take legal action for being denied access to a women’s service, this effectively means that single-sex spaces for women can no longer exist. The Australian judiciary has decided that it is illegal for women to organise in their own interests.
We have seen countless instances of men identifying their way into women’s spaces, from sports to hospitals and, perhaps most disturbingly, prisons. Most lesbian dating apps are now mixed-sex, and the option to filter out men is not permitted because this is considered “transphobic”. In other words, lesbians are being shamed for being same-sex attracted by the very organisations that are meant to support them.
All sexuality is discriminatory. It could hardly be otherwise. To suggest that women who are attracted exclusively to other women should include men in their dating pool is about as homophobic as it gets. That this is now codified into law should surely be a cause for concern for anyone who believes in the rights of minorities. And when it comes to women more generally, it is a clear-cut matter of safeguarding. Women’s spaces exist because 99% of sex crimes are committed by men and 91% of victims of sex crimes are female. This really shouldn’t be difficult to understand.
Of course Tickle is entitled to equal protection under the law. But he should not be entitled to enter spaces where women have decided to gather with their own sex. There will hopefully now be an appeal to the High Court, and with any luck the 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act will be deemed unlawful. There is a strong case here, as many have pointed out that it is unconstitutional to redefine “woman” as a matter of identity rather than biology.
Above all, we should all be chilled by that phrase “sex is changeable”, uttered by the judge as though any of us could possibly believe it. The law might well seek to upend reality, but that does not make it true. Not even the most senior judge in the world can simply decide that human biology no longer exists. Yet such is the power of this new religion of gender identity that even the judiciary will state falsehoods in its name. If nothing else, this ruling has settled once and for all the question of whether this ideology has seized control of our society. Case closed.
Andrew Doyle is a writer, comedian and broadcaster who hosts the GB News show Free Speech Nation. He is the author of Free Speech and Why It Matters and The New Puritans. He created satirical Left-wing activist Titania McGrath, whose two books are Woke: A Guide to Social Justice and My First Little Book of Intersectional Activism. This article was first published on his Substack. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Feel free to indulge in all the fantasies and beliefs or ideologies you want but you are not doing it in my daughters changing room or toilet.
The way the elites want it to be, they will and soon.
The Age of Enlightenment has given way to the Age of Stupidity.
That picture of the pervert had me chuckling. I have seen some fugly women in my time but that looks barely human.
It’s Barbra from Royston Vasey.
A lie is a lie even if one million people repeat it.
Incidentally the devil is the “father of lies” (John 8:44). Make of it what you will.
Maybe we should protect “trans” as a separate “sex identity” then they can set up “trans-only” spaces and have “equal rights” with everyone else, and stop bleating about “trans rights”. I mean they could probably set up “trans only” spaces now and I doubt anyone but “trans” people would want to muscle in on them.
I have a much better idea: Tell this bristly bearded entity who looks very much as if his middle name was “personal hygiene?” that a growing number of the women and girls he likes to impose his self onto have fathers, brothers and husbands who are muslims and known to take a particularly humourless view on such matters.
There’s no point trying to appease people openly playing Might makes right! games.
Yeah I like your idea better than mine.
This would mean separate facilities everywhere. So 3 changing rooms and 3 toilets everywhere. How totally impractical is that? There would need to be legislation. All public buildings would afford this nonsense because it is just more tax payers money, but it would be absurd to ask all private companies, shops etc to do so
The suggestion was partly tongue in cheek but I was more thinking of things like dating sites, the social media site mentioned in the article, private clubs.
As Clarence Thomas put it, rights have traditionally been seen as a question of freedom from government action rather than entitlement to state benefits.
But you make a good point.
The actual statement is case law has consistently found sex is “changeable and not necessarily binary” But that’s not for case law to find because facts about the natural world are not subject to judical opinion statements. Judge Robert Bromwhich and his many many companions who really believe that the positions they’re illgetimatly occupying subject the whole universe to their political opinion statments can declare that rivers run uphill all they want but they cannot make a single river actually do this.
Christ, what a double whammy of misogynist bullcrap, shatting on the rights of females from a high height. First by the mentally ill fantasist who gets off on larping as a woman, secondly by the male judge, Justice Robert Bromwich, ensuring women’s spaces will never be single-sex and truly safe again. The cherry on the Cake of Travesty is that Sall is going to have to pay this deranged dude a shed-load of money, despite the fact she and fellow females are the ones who have been wronged here. Evidently some men just want to have their cake and eat it;
”This wasn’t a scene from an old Monty Python sketch. Nor was it a question at a support group for people with split personality syndrome. And no, this wasn’t overheard at a sci-fi convention.
These were the frightening words of a judge demanding that Sall Grover pay $10,000 (AUS) in damages to Roxy Tickle, a man who adopted a porn star name to gain access to Sall’s app for the women’s safety, Giggle.
His ruling was that this constituted unlawful gender identity discrimination.
Now, not only will Roxy profit enormously, but other fetishistic men will take advantage of this precedent. Safe spaces for women across Australia – and perhaps the wider world – will now be penetrated by sex-addicted men (the very people they are looking to avoid).
The judge – a serious and dull man with grey hair, glasses and a black gown – stared down at his notes with an inscrutable expression, while reading out utter tripe about sex, gender identity and the meaning of women.
For those who haven’t kept up with this case, Sall Grover is the Australian businesswoman defending Giggle – her mobile app for women to talk with one another about women things – from a man who calls himself Roxy Tickle (the porn star name that gives even less weight to the notion that we should change laws to allow men to indulge their fetishes).
Yet Tickle – and trans rights activists – would have us believe that this stretches beyond fetishism and psychological disorder. Earlier, he responded to a lawyer’s question about what he had done to “live as a woman” to explain that he*:
https://www.andrewgoldheretics.com/p/sex-is-changeable-insane-judge-rules
Its rather ironic isn’t it that a real woman, is told by a Male Judge that the man who presents himself in womens clothes, is the same as she and she must accept his judgement that any man can be her as long as he says so, because a Male judge has told her so, and biological truth is a lie.
Yep it’s doubly insulting alright. This is the Law of Clown World. Brought to you by the same people who think men can have periods and women have penises.
And who invented the crapola, nonsensical term ‘gender identity’?
Well it was a male psychiatrist, popularised by that pervert Money, as I shared in the article yesterday.
There are also some more far-ranging implication: The notion behind this is that it’s up to the state to make people into men or women by issueing suitable decrees, IOW, that the biological identity of some person isn’t that person’s anymore: You may think your’re a man or a woman but if the state disagrees, then, you’re legally barred from being that. That’s a monstrous incursion into people’s human rights.
How far does this go. If it is a clear statement of the position why cannot all male pensioners claim they identified as female long ago and claim back pensions.
I’m sure they closed that loophole. Last year, when the self-identifying lunacy was all over the papers (children identifying as cats) I wrote to Mel Stride, Pensions Minister telling him I was self-identifying as an 80 yr old woman and they owed me 20 years backdated pension. I wanted to claim it as a lump sum.
It was obviously a joke but they took it seriously and I got a series of letters from DWP asking for my NI no. DoB etc …… before finally writing to say that the legislation didn’t allow me to claim 🙂
I feel that my early life was very feminine or oriented to seeking the feminine. I mean the divine feminine not titties and a vagina. In the sense that it felt like a spiritual movement in accordance with the times. As Lao Tse said, know the masculine but follow the feminine. But the times we live in now require a serious injection of spunk so I would say temporarily follow the masculine if at all possible.This feminization and infantilization of the culture isn’t being done with a good purpose in mind.
Notice that it rarely happens that women masquerade as men in order to invade “men-only” spaces such as locker rooms. The real purpose of this is to encourage men and boys to masquerade as females in order to sexually assault women and girls in “women-only” spaces, sexual assault including voyeurism. This is part of Point 8 in the following list:
Frankfurt School 11-Point Plan to Destroy the West
1. Create Racism Offences for Whites Only.
2. Induce Trauma through Injustice.
3. Teach Sex and Sodomy to Children.
4. Undermine Parents’ and Teachers’ Authority.
5. Force Mass Immigration to Destroy Ethnic Identity.
6. Create Confusion by Continual Change.
7. Empty the Churches.
8. Encourage Crime to Destabilize Society.
9. Create Dependency on the State by Welfare Benefits.
10. Promote Drugs, Pornography and Alcoholism.
11. Encourage the Breakdown of the Family.
According to this website there are 108 genders and it has a list of them although seemingly without definitions for each.
It includes categories for men, women and heterosexual.
So the question is this – if someone wants a specialist interest group for one of those genders only – how can that be considered under the law not objectively justifiable and so discriminatory – because those falling outside that category cannot justifiably qualify?
Abinary
Agender
Ambigender
Androgyne
Androgynos
Androgynous
Aporagender
Autigender
Bakla
Bigender
Binary
Bissu
Butch
Calabai
Calalai
Cis
Cis man
Cis woman
Cis female
Cis male
Cisgender
Demi-woman
Demi-boy
Demi-man
Demi-girl
Demi-guy
Demiflux
Demigender
Dual gender
Endosex
Eunuch
Fa’afafine
Female to male
Female
Femme
FTM
Gender questioning
Gender gifted
Gender diverse
Gender nonconforming
Gender variant
Gender bender
Genderfluid
Genderflux
Genderfuck
Genderless
Genderqueer
Gendervague
Graygender
Heterosexual
Hijra
Intergender
Intersex
Kathoey
Male to female
Male
Man of trans experience
Man
Maverique
MTF
Multigender
Muxe
Neither
Neurogender
Neutrois
Non-binary
Non-binary transgender
Omnigender
Other
Pangender
Person of transgendered experience
Polygender
Queer
Sekhet
Straight
Third gender
Trans woman
Trans man
Trans male
Trans female
Trans
Trans person
Transfeminine
Transgender woman
Transgender person
Transgender female
Transgender man
Transgender male
Transgender
Transmasculine
Transsexual woman
Transsexual person
Transsexual male
Transsexual female
Transsexual man
Transsexual
Travesti
Trigender
Tumtum
Two spirit
Vakasalewalewa
Waria
Winkte
Woman of trans experience
Woman
X-gender
Xenogender
““The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” Winston Smith toes the Party line, rewriting history to satisfy the demands of the Ministry of Truth.
This now needs updating to say “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes, ears and the immutable laws of physics and biology. It was their final, most essential command.”
Absolutely bonkers.