Heard of Tickle versus Giggle Court Case?

[RavVid]

Who do you hope wins this court case?

Giggle For Girls is a social media platform for girls by birth or natal girls if you prefer.

Roxanne Tickle is a trans woman who is not a girl by birth.

Yeah, Tickle vs Giggle is a real court case in the Australian Federal Court and has to be one of the most amusing law suit titles ever.

Tickle signed up for Giggle and got past the AI male detection by providing a fuzzy photo. Sometime later the owner of Giggle for Girls booted him out and Tickle decided to sue for discrimination and very hurt feelings and disparagement from those who naturally piled on and sank the boot in. As you would.

Tickle has to argue that not only is gender fluid but sex is also fluid despite there only being two viable combinations of X and Y chromosomes.

There is also a constitutional issue because the power of the Federal gov't to legislate a Sex Discrimination act was based on it ratifying a UN treaty on discrimination against women. A later (woke) gov't removed references to men and women and replaced with vague gender statements. As the UN convention still says men and women it is dodgy the gov't had the power to slide in gender instead.

The poor bastard of a judge now has the pleasure of defining what a Woman is when nobody else in the world has been able to. The hearings took two days and the deliberations are expected to take the rest of the year. Not surprising.

Then it is all going to the Australian High Court for a replay and ruling on the constitutional aspects.

Is's a great giggle about tickles don't you think?

[strateguy632]

shocking, the private company is for girls, so the company should have privilege to choose. a decent court would reject the case because private company.

this is horrible.

it is like a girl scool when teacher said good morning girls but some complaints to principal "she can't call us girls we are boys", but if true can't be in girl scool or just lied.

[RavVid]

It is potentially of importance outside of Australia because there are a large number of signatories on the UN convention (incl US) most of which have also ratified it (excl US). The UN convention continues to use the words 'men' and 'women' and doesn't mention the other 101 genders.
Our Sex Discrimination law is purely based on the constitutional Federal power to make treaties and ratify them in laws. So that is where constitutional challenge can be made in our case.

Our Federal Court is extremely woke - they routinely make judgments that illegal immigrants who have done serious crimes can't be deported. That's why we fly illegals to Nauru for a sunny tropical island holiday as soon as they arrive by boat to keep them away from Federal Court. Currently three new boatloads are living the life there. Is also why we excised the whole coastline of Australia as an immigration zone. No claims of asylum possible then.
In short I expect Federal Court to make a silly judgement.

Our High Court is slightly more sensible but not by much. Nonetheless they do make judgments against the Federal often enough, the later should be embarrassed into sensibility.

Like your girl school analogy. But maybe, just maybe, we should just agree that gender and biological sex is fluid and implement XX only schools, XX only toilets/change rooms and XX only sports. XX has got nothing to do with gender so it couldn't be discriminatory. Use their argument against them if the Court decides sex chromosomes are only chromosomes and nothing to do with sex.

It is a good giggle.