Thank you for this factual and apparently balanced account.
I've been involved at different times over the last 55 years in various feminist activities and work. I also happen to be lesbian and was involved in the first lesbian political group in Australia (Australasian Lesbian Movement 1970 -72). This current case has had implications for lesbian women because the AHRC has ruled that men can become women can become lesbians. First iteration lesbian women are no longer legally allowed their own spaces.
There have always been trans-sexual women. Some have been my friends and colleagues over the years. We have had no difficulty co-existing peacefully.
To me, the way the application of transgender ideology in the last 10 years overseas and in Australia has been appalling. Transgenderism is an ideology, not rational scientific thinking. I doubt that the community realised the consequences of changes to the SDA in 2013, and I also doubt that the wider community realised the consequences of the Self-ID legislation in Victoria in 2019. There has been little moderate, informed public discussion of the impacts of that legislation. The trans campaigns seem to be based on aggression and unsubstantiated victimhood. And there is an awful, intimidating and uninformed silence in mainstream media. Trans issues alongside biological women's rights are so complex that it is hard to have peaceful discussions. I hope that Tickle v. Giggle can enable this to happen.
Thanks Julie for such a good background and research on the key issues of this "Gender ID Discrimination" case. Really, Oz needs our own JK Rowling as a counter voice to this threat to women and girls - a threat which up until now has been effectively silenced. Julia Gillard should reflect upon the 2013 changes to the SDA which have created the "perhaps" unintended consequences we real women now face, with no guarantee of women's right to safe spaces and fair sporting competition. More importantly the ability to put the question "what is a woman"? without the hysterical reaction from the Trans and their activist 'friends'? Hopefully this legal case will highlight the current situation of women's hard won rights taking a back seat to the "rights" of the Trans demanding their fantasy becomes our social reality without challenge. Good luck to Sally Grover in Court over the next few days so hope that Giggle will win over Tickle and the facts and outcomes are widely publicised without fear or favour
Julia Gillard deliberately employed a young trans woman in her woman and girls project which is international. So we know her views. Some trans people find current behaviour of their aggressive peers wrong. Sylvia
This is so important. It is a must read. I do hope it circulates widely and that it can lead to a decent and respectful but robust discussion of this most important issue. Looking forward to Julie’s take on the Federal Court’s decision when it comes.
Thanks for this article, although I knew about the tickle v giggle case I did not know the background to the establishment of giggle. So tragic re CEDAW, which I used to be indirectly involved with appraising the ten yearly government report, and contributing to the development of thE NGO report. It’s is interesting to note that only trans women (males sex) seem preoccupied in harassing women who just want private spaces, no similar harassment of mens spaces by trans men (female sex) seems to be happening. Is it just another example of male bullying of women. I believe it is. Currently I work with other older women to create our private spaces, in secret.
You're absolutely right there is way more evidence of trans-identified males pushing for access to women's spaces - but I have definitely seen discussion from gender-critical gay men asking what all these trans-identified females are doing in their spaces.
And let's never forget the legal exception in the UK, to prevent trans-identified females inheriting peerages over their younger brothers. A tiny demographic, but all the more telling for that
What troubles me about this case is that it has a very weak fact pattern for a test case. The complainant has a legally changed gender identity, and apparently has had surgery (though there seems to be some debate about its nature, most people seem happy to assume it was on the complainant's genitals); and the activity from which the respondents excluded the complainant was not a matter of physical safety, fairness or economic advancement. (I'm sure most of us can see the need for an app like Giggle, but it's not as pressing or as readily comprehensible as things like safety in sport and prisons.) If only the case had been one involving a self-identified football player or something. Then the issues could have emerged more clearly. I hope that the respondent's lawyers make some good arguments about the thick end of this particular wedge, and that the judge listens.
Another thing that's kind of driving me crazy is this idea that the discrimination was on the grounds of 'gender identity'. This rests on the notion that a 'trans woman' has a different 'gender identity' from a 'cis woman'. Maybe that will come back and bite the TRA movement, as it certainly seems to undermine 'trans women ARE WOMEN'
Being a woman is so much more that hormones, breasts and a vagina. Living as a girl and growing into a woman in society, any society, has its own uniqueness. I can never fully understand the perspective and life of a trans woman, and a trans woman can never fully grasp what it is to be a woman. Trans women and trans women and should be respected and valued for who they are. And women are women and should be respected and valued for who we are. And sometimes we just want to hang with women, people who have a similar experiences, outlooks etc. and of course there should be protected spaces from trans people too should they seek to create them, and it would make complete sense for people who are not trans to not be allowed in.
Thank you for this factual and apparently balanced account.
I've been involved at different times over the last 55 years in various feminist activities and work. I also happen to be lesbian and was involved in the first lesbian political group in Australia (Australasian Lesbian Movement 1970 -72). This current case has had implications for lesbian women because the AHRC has ruled that men can become women can become lesbians. First iteration lesbian women are no longer legally allowed their own spaces.
There have always been trans-sexual women. Some have been my friends and colleagues over the years. We have had no difficulty co-existing peacefully.
To me, the way the application of transgender ideology in the last 10 years overseas and in Australia has been appalling. Transgenderism is an ideology, not rational scientific thinking. I doubt that the community realised the consequences of changes to the SDA in 2013, and I also doubt that the wider community realised the consequences of the Self-ID legislation in Victoria in 2019. There has been little moderate, informed public discussion of the impacts of that legislation. The trans campaigns seem to be based on aggression and unsubstantiated victimhood. And there is an awful, intimidating and uninformed silence in mainstream media. Trans issues alongside biological women's rights are so complex that it is hard to have peaceful discussions. I hope that Tickle v. Giggle can enable this to happen.
Thanks Julie for such a good background and research on the key issues of this "Gender ID Discrimination" case. Really, Oz needs our own JK Rowling as a counter voice to this threat to women and girls - a threat which up until now has been effectively silenced. Julia Gillard should reflect upon the 2013 changes to the SDA which have created the "perhaps" unintended consequences we real women now face, with no guarantee of women's right to safe spaces and fair sporting competition. More importantly the ability to put the question "what is a woman"? without the hysterical reaction from the Trans and their activist 'friends'? Hopefully this legal case will highlight the current situation of women's hard won rights taking a back seat to the "rights" of the Trans demanding their fantasy becomes our social reality without challenge. Good luck to Sally Grover in Court over the next few days so hope that Giggle will win over Tickle and the facts and outcomes are widely publicised without fear or favour
Julia Gillard deliberately employed a young trans woman in her woman and girls project which is international. So we know her views. Some trans people find current behaviour of their aggressive peers wrong. Sylvia
This is so important. It is a must read. I do hope it circulates widely and that it can lead to a decent and respectful but robust discussion of this most important issue. Looking forward to Julie’s take on the Federal Court’s decision when it comes.
As always -insightful . This is a really tricky issue. The case will be fascinating.
Thanks for this article, although I knew about the tickle v giggle case I did not know the background to the establishment of giggle. So tragic re CEDAW, which I used to be indirectly involved with appraising the ten yearly government report, and contributing to the development of thE NGO report. It’s is interesting to note that only trans women (males sex) seem preoccupied in harassing women who just want private spaces, no similar harassment of mens spaces by trans men (female sex) seems to be happening. Is it just another example of male bullying of women. I believe it is. Currently I work with other older women to create our private spaces, in secret.
How sad that you need to be secretive...
You're absolutely right there is way more evidence of trans-identified males pushing for access to women's spaces - but I have definitely seen discussion from gender-critical gay men asking what all these trans-identified females are doing in their spaces.
And let's never forget the legal exception in the UK, to prevent trans-identified females inheriting peerages over their younger brothers. A tiny demographic, but all the more telling for that
What troubles me about this case is that it has a very weak fact pattern for a test case. The complainant has a legally changed gender identity, and apparently has had surgery (though there seems to be some debate about its nature, most people seem happy to assume it was on the complainant's genitals); and the activity from which the respondents excluded the complainant was not a matter of physical safety, fairness or economic advancement. (I'm sure most of us can see the need for an app like Giggle, but it's not as pressing or as readily comprehensible as things like safety in sport and prisons.) If only the case had been one involving a self-identified football player or something. Then the issues could have emerged more clearly. I hope that the respondent's lawyers make some good arguments about the thick end of this particular wedge, and that the judge listens.
Another thing that's kind of driving me crazy is this idea that the discrimination was on the grounds of 'gender identity'. This rests on the notion that a 'trans woman' has a different 'gender identity' from a 'cis woman'. Maybe that will come back and bite the TRA movement, as it certainly seems to undermine 'trans women ARE WOMEN'
Being a woman is so much more that hormones, breasts and a vagina. Living as a girl and growing into a woman in society, any society, has its own uniqueness. I can never fully understand the perspective and life of a trans woman, and a trans woman can never fully grasp what it is to be a woman. Trans women and trans women and should be respected and valued for who they are. And women are women and should be respected and valued for who we are. And sometimes we just want to hang with women, people who have a similar experiences, outlooks etc. and of course there should be protected spaces from trans people too should they seek to create them, and it would make complete sense for people who are not trans to not be allowed in.