ChatterBank0 min ago
Man Gets $10K For Not Being Allowed In Women Only Club....
32 Answers
https:/
Radio Rental!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"But Justice Robert Bromwich said in his decision on Friday that case law has consistently found sex is “changeable and not necessarily binary”,"
I think Judge Bromwich, and anybody else involved in the case law he mentions, needs to brush up on their 'O' Level biology before becoming involved in similar cases.
Sex is determined at conception. There are only two variants (bar the extremely rare incidences of hermaphroditism, which it seems was not an issue here) and it is immutable. It certainly cannot be changed by "declaring" yourself one or the other and growing your hair. I think Giggle's CEO Sall Grover has it right.
When Tickle’s lawyer Georgina Costello KC cross examined Grover, she said:
“Even where a person who was assigned male at birth transitions to a woman by having surgery, hormones, gets rid of facial hair, undergoes facial reconstruction, grows their hair long, wears make up, wears female clothes, describes themselves as a woman, introduces themselves as a woman, uses female changing rooms, changes their birth certificate – you don’t accept that is a woman?”
“No”, Grover replied.
She also said she would refuse to address Tickle as “Ms,” and that “Tickle is a biological male.”
It seems the goalposts have been moved. According to Judge Bromwich, his ruling did not address the question of gender (which is meaningless and largely a matter of opinion) but sex (which is absolute and a matter of fact).
Dangerous territory indeed when judges begin to rule against immutable fact.
anyone so minded can read the whole judgment here -
https:/
.....my head hurts.......
Indeed Naomi.
Calling this man, who is very clearly a man, a woman is just patently absurd.
But I have to be careful - a few years ago I posted a thread about a man, who was clearly a man pretending to be a woman, and referred to him as him and he, and the AB Editor posted "she, Deskdiary, it's not that difficult". So I was being told how to think.
This travesty happened because the Australians passed a law in 2013 which undermined Womens' rights.
This judgement is the natural conclusion of that idiotic law.
Sall Grover will be appealling the decision and every right-thinking person, not just in Australia, ought to be praying that sanity is restored.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.