Ms. H

Giggle v Tickle has been referred to as a “landmark” case by the ABC. Thanks for the acknowledgement, but… When I submitted an op-ed to the ABC about the importance of the case back in June, I was told, and I quote, “the issues we keep coming up against have to do with pervasive inaccuracies in your presentation of both the SDA (what it allows, what it forbids, what exemptions - eg, for single sex spaces - it allows for, and how pervasive were the changes in 2013) and the Giggle v Tickle judgement; and overstatement about the extent to which changes to the SDA present a threat/danger to women and single-sex spaces.” My piece was 100% accurate, but written from the perspective of actual women. So the ABC deemed it to be inaccurate and an “overstatement”. But when it comes to “trans”, it’s a landmark. Remember how I say that every claim gender ideology/ideologues make, the exact opposite is true? Here is example number 74848284776.

Basically, some men aren’t women, but other men can be women. Like if they’re really, really dangerous, then ok he’s not a woman. But those other sex offenders and domestic abusers in women’s prisons? Yeah, somehow they’re women. Does any of it make sense? No. And it’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to make you feel like you’re losing your mind. That’s a part of the overall goal. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want this POS anywhere near a woman’s prison. The Western Australian supreme court made the right decision. But at what point is it in breach of federal discrimination law? Is this man going to use the Giggle v Tickle legal precedent to eventually achieve his demand? Will the sex discrimination commissioner intervene on his side? (All of her existing GvT legal submissions will work in his favor anyway) Is there a point where all the people - judges, politicians, human rights commissioners, activists - who are currently patting themselves on the back for a job well done in GvT realize that we were right all along? Because I knew this was inevitable, yet had to listen for years to the AHRC tell the federal courts that a man only had to have the thought of being a woman & that’s enough for him to be included as a woman in federal discrimination legislation & anyone who doesn’t validate his thought is open to punishment. If they don’t think this man will use that against them, they’re even stupider than we currently think they are (and I think they’re irredeemably stupid). A lot of people say that losing in GvT was inevitable because of the law, but that simply isn’t true. The law can be interpreted correctly. The WA Supreme Court has managed it. It was a choice to interpret the SDA against women & reality. Potentially an order. The moment you allow men to be women in law, the absolute worst men in society will use that to their advantage, and they are. Never, ever, say we didn’t warn you.

“If trans activism poses no threat to women’s rights, why is it that every attempt to protect women’s rights is ‘anti-trans’?” - J.K. Rowling They’re answering this question by never answering it.

This is obviously demonstrably false. Young girls saying they’re boys, middle aged men saying they’re women & telling gay people they’re “genital fetishists”, amongst a hoard of other horrific things, simply has NOT always been part of our communities or society.

“Prime Minister Albanese has dismissed efforts to fix the Sex Discrimination Act as a “culture war”. If that is the label he prefers, then he is content to watch a culture war in which some men threaten women while the government remains on the sidelines.” My latest op-ed 👇

“This isn’t the first time the broadcaster has shown just whose side they’re on. In June, former Australian of the Year Grace Tame received the public backing of director Hugh Marks after she dismissed the rape of Israeli women and girls on October 7 as “propaganda”. In the same month, we learned that the broadcaster also rejected a submission for an opinion piece by Giggle app founder Sall Grover, who has been sued successfully by trans-identified male Roxanne Tickle. ABC Religion & Ethics editor Scott Stephens refused Grover’s revised works twice, citing “overstatements” regarding threats to women and “inaccuracies.” At a time when devastating gendered violence rates are being discussed almost daily by the ABC and the government of the day, what a bitter disappointment it is to learn that these statistics only matter, when it concerns one of their own.” 👏👏👏 🩷 @LucyZelic