Jacques1194
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2023
Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation
- Thread starter Not Dr. Evil
- Start date
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2024
That's not exactly what they found.
Also, the contents of the case are hilarious,
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
- Joined
- May 30, 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_sine_die
They literally just ran out of time. His concept of "defeat" is as shaky as his concept of "lesbian".
goat sneed
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2022
Late reply to this, but it seems every draconian law related to gays and troons in CA goes back to Wiener. Underage kids on hormones? Check! No punishment for knowingly spreading HIV? Check! Easing up on the laws for LGBT sex offenders? Check! He's like if Jewish "blood libels" were a person.
I don't actually follow this spawn of Moloch much, but I would wager an irony: This freak who made spreading AIDS a misdemeanor more than likely made a big fuss about wearing masks in '20, didn't he?
- Joined
- May 30, 2023
Probably. Really though, he just made sure that even in a public health policy disaster, faggots got special treatment.
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/covid-19
Also he made a bill so teenagers can get a Covid vaccine without parental consent, because he loves injecting teens with fluids:
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/202...s-choose-vaccines-act-—-allow-young-people-12
Funnily enough, the man who thinks spreading AIDS is no big deal thinks we should use technology to force cars into being unable to drive over the speed limit:
California could require car ‘governors’ that limit speeding to 10 mph over posted limits
Presumably, it's because teenage boys are more likely to die in speeding incidents, and Scott Wiener votes in whatever makes it easier to rape boys.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
That people would be willing to restrict freedom of movement or freedom of speech out of some self righteous "desire" to save the planet, but entirely unwilling to impose any sort of restriction on gross alternative lifestyles that spread STDs and fuck society in a myriad of ways...
Really makes ya think.
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
One of the biggest things to help a loved one (or even a mere associate) to leave a cult is to PHYSICALLY REMOVE them from the cult, cut off their access.
Now adoptive parents can help deprogram children of degenerate brainwashing. So massively based.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
Unless we're talking teenagers (14+) there's no such thing as an LGBT kid. Even children that are obviously flaming and will likely grow up to be dick loving dudes deserve to have the freedom to grow up and figure out who they are for themselves without having a label slapped on them.
Yeah, maybe your little boy who's into pink and musical theater is gonna be gay. Or maybe he's going to grow out of it at puberty. Or maybe he's gonna be a straight guy who's a little fem and has an amazing career on broadway.
Forcing labels on people, especially children, doesn't help them grow or gain a sense of self.
Yeah, maybe your little boy who's into pink and musical theater is gonna be gay. Or maybe he's going to grow out of it at puberty. Or maybe he's gonna be a straight guy who's a little fem and has an amazing career on broadway.
Forcing labels on people, especially children, doesn't help them grow or gain a sense of self.
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
That used to be the "woke" tolerant position.
A boy could play with dollies or make Dylan Mulvaney look like Mike Tyson but that was ok! He was still a valid boy who should be encouraged to enjoy and explore.
Nowadays, a kid walks past the dolls section in a toyshop and he is clearly destined to be a stunning and brave adult woman.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2023
Sall Grover had such a bad time on social media she needed therapy. There had to be a better way, she thought, “a place without harassment, mansplaining, dick pics, stalking, aggression … the vision was to create an online refuge,” according to her lawyer. She created the app Giggle for Girls. When joining it, you uploaded a photo which would be assessed as male or female by AI. Users could also dob in men if the AI didn’t spot them. From the off, it was attacked both by men and TRAs for daring to be a place for women, proving why it was needed in the first place.
Enter Roxanne Tickle, a True and Honest woman and accountant living in rural New South Wales, Australia. He has had the chop, changed his birth certificate, plays on and changes with a female hockey team, and says that spiritually and psychologically he is a woman. Out of respect for this position, I will refer to him as a man. Roxy says he passed the AI test but then had access restricted. He is now suing for unlawful gender discrimination under the federal Sex Discrimination Act, which is the first time this issue has been considered.
Sall Glover is not holding back. With a crowdfunded warchest of nearly half a million, she is mounting a simple defence: that’s a man, baby. She’s even calling an evolutionary biologist to testify, along with terf heroines Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock. (I kid. The defence is a bit more complex. But yes, she refuses to call Roxy a woman).
The app is now defunct. IDK why, but perhaps being sued by an entitled man might have had something to do with it. That is not stopping our Roxy from continuing to go after his pound of flesh. He’s just like Rosa Parks, clearly, if Mrs Parks had been a badly dressed, scruffy, total cunt.
Foxy Roxy has privated his socials. What a spoilsport. His bio from his blogspot is still up:
I would not be surprised if this went all the way to the High Court, if both sides have the cash for it. While Sall Grover’s funding is transparent, it’s hard to believe the applicant is funding himself all from Ko-fi. Presumably right-thinking charities and advocates are helping to crush the idea of women-only online spaces.
Posted 7h ago7 hours ago
In February 2021, Roxanne Tickle downloaded the Giggle for Girls social networking app, which was marketed as a platform exclusively for women to share experiences and speak freely.
Users needed to provide a selfie, which was assessed by artificial intelligence software to determine if they were a woman or man.
Ms Tickle's photograph was determined to be a woman and she used the app's full features until September that year, when the account became restricted because the AI decision was manually overridden.
In a case before the Federal Court, Ms Tickle alleges unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
It is the first case alleging gender identity discrimination to be heard by the court since 2013 changes to the Sex Discrimination Act.
Ms Tickle's counsel Georgina Costello KC told the court her client has a birth certificate stating her gender as female and has had gender affirming surgery.
"She perceives herself as a woman," Ms Costello said during an opening address.
"She presents herself as a woman, she uses a woman's name … and she feels in her mind, psychologically, that she is a woman."
She said the case law in respect of "sex, gender, man and woman" was clear that "sex and gender and man and woman are not binary categories … a person can change from one to another".
It was not purely a biological question but partly psychological and partly social, Ms Costello said.
The respondents have invoked parts of sex discrimination law which contain a "carve out" for measures intended to achieve substantive equality between men and women.
But Ms Costello said that could not apply because Ms Tickle is a woman.
"What you see here is really a series of artificial, after-the-fact justifications for conduct which is really discrimination against transgender women," she said.
Ms Nolan said it was clear from the terms of use that a user needed to be over the age of 16 and be female.
It came under attack even in its nascency, but by 2021 had about 20,000 users, the court heard.
A selfie photo was seen as the "least controversial requirement" of a user signing up, but it was intended that any males who "got through" would be "caught by human eyes" or other users reporting them.
Ms Nolan foreshadowed evidence from evolutionary biologist Colin Wright that "it was perfectly and objectively and scientifically reasonable for Ms Grover to identify [Ms Tickle] as male."
She said the respondents wished no indignity upon Ms Tickle or others who express gender identity, but said "sex is discriminatory".
"It always has been, it always will be," she said.
A decision was made to not live stream the proceedings, after a screenshot of a previous hearing was posted online with inappropriate commentary.
"I appreciate the issues from this case give rise to strongly held-views and emotions," Justice Robert Bromwich said.
He said he will deal with the case based on the issues arising from the pleadings and was not taking sides.
"I will be interpreting and applying the law as it exists. It's no part of my function to determine what the law should be," he said.
"We all need to behave in this case, despite the emotions involved, with civility."
The hearing is expected to run for four days.
link
Useful resources
Unusually, parts of the court file are accessible to the public without application, because of the public interest. Knock yourself out.
Sall Grover’s crowdfunding page has her side of the story plus the growing sum for her to defend herself.
Another helpful news story, surprisingly balanced given it’s the Guardian.
Enter Roxanne Tickle, a True and Honest woman and accountant living in rural New South Wales, Australia. He has had the chop, changed his birth certificate, plays on and changes with a female hockey team, and says that spiritually and psychologically he is a woman. Out of respect for this position, I will refer to him as a man. Roxy says he passed the AI test but then had access restricted. He is now suing for unlawful gender discrimination under the federal Sex Discrimination Act, which is the first time this issue has been considered.
Sall Glover is not holding back. With a crowdfunded warchest of nearly half a million, she is mounting a simple defence: that’s a man, baby. She’s even calling an evolutionary biologist to testify, along with terf heroines Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock. (I kid. The defence is a bit more complex. But yes, she refuses to call Roxy a woman).
The app is now defunct. IDK why, but perhaps being sued by an entitled man might have had something to do with it. That is not stopping our Roxy from continuing to go after his pound of flesh. He’s just like Rosa Parks, clearly, if Mrs Parks had been a badly dressed, scruffy, total cunt.
Foxy Roxy has privated his socials. What a spoilsport. His bio from his blogspot is still up:
link | archive
I would not be surprised if this went all the way to the High Court, if both sides have the cash for it. While Sall Grover’s funding is transparent, it’s hard to believe the applicant is funding himself all from Ko-fi. Presumably right-thinking charities and advocates are helping to crush the idea of women-only online spaces.
Women-only social media app Giggle for Girls taken to court by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle after her account was restricted
By Jamie McKinnellPosted 7h ago7 hours ago
- In short: Transgender woman Roxanne Tickle is suing social media platform Giggle for Girls after she was excluded from the women-only app.
- She is alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity while the app's founder has denied she is a woman.
- What's next? The hearing is expected to run for four days.
In February 2021, Roxanne Tickle downloaded the Giggle for Girls social networking app, which was marketed as a platform exclusively for women to share experiences and speak freely.
Users needed to provide a selfie, which was assessed by artificial intelligence software to determine if they were a woman or man.
Ms Tickle's photograph was determined to be a woman and she used the app's full features until September that year, when the account became restricted because the AI decision was manually overridden.
In a case before the Federal Court, Ms Tickle alleges unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
It is the first case alleging gender identity discrimination to be heard by the court since 2013 changes to the Sex Discrimination Act.
Ms Tickle's counsel Georgina Costello KC told the court her client has a birth certificate stating her gender as female and has had gender affirming surgery.
"She perceives herself as a woman," Ms Costello said during an opening address.
"She presents herself as a woman, she uses a woman's name … and she feels in her mind, psychologically, that she is a woman."
Debate over 'carve out' of parts of sex discrimination law
Ms Costello said the respondents, including app founder Sally Grover, "flatly deny" that Ms Tickle is a woman.She said the case law in respect of "sex, gender, man and woman" was clear that "sex and gender and man and woman are not binary categories … a person can change from one to another".
It was not purely a biological question but partly psychological and partly social, Ms Costello said.
The respondents have invoked parts of sex discrimination law which contain a "carve out" for measures intended to achieve substantive equality between men and women.
But Ms Costello said that could not apply because Ms Tickle is a woman.
"What you see here is really a series of artificial, after-the-fact justifications for conduct which is really discrimination against transgender women," she said.
'Sex is discriminatory'
Barrister Bridie Nolan, representing the app and founder, said the app's "vision" was for "a little corner of the internet where women from all over the world could have refuge away from males".Ms Nolan said it was clear from the terms of use that a user needed to be over the age of 16 and be female.
It came under attack even in its nascency, but by 2021 had about 20,000 users, the court heard.
A selfie photo was seen as the "least controversial requirement" of a user signing up, but it was intended that any males who "got through" would be "caught by human eyes" or other users reporting them.
Ms Nolan foreshadowed evidence from evolutionary biologist Colin Wright that "it was perfectly and objectively and scientifically reasonable for Ms Grover to identify [Ms Tickle] as male."
She said the respondents wished no indignity upon Ms Tickle or others who express gender identity, but said "sex is discriminatory".
"It always has been, it always will be," she said.
Protests outside court
Two small, opposing rallies gathered outside the Sydney court for the opening day.A decision was made to not live stream the proceedings, after a screenshot of a previous hearing was posted online with inappropriate commentary.
"I appreciate the issues from this case give rise to strongly held-views and emotions," Justice Robert Bromwich said.
He said he will deal with the case based on the issues arising from the pleadings and was not taking sides.
"I will be interpreting and applying the law as it exists. It's no part of my function to determine what the law should be," he said.
"We all need to behave in this case, despite the emotions involved, with civility."
The hearing is expected to run for four days.
link
Needless to say, Australia’s 1901 Constitution is silent on the Federal Government’s power to legislate to prevent discrimination. The Government however has a slick move which won High Court approval in 1983: the Federal Government can sign international treaties. It stands to reason that it can legislate to effect those obligations under the treaties in domestic law. It signs an international treaty on eliminating discrimination, and suddenly the Government can legislate on it. Neat.
The Act was amended in 2013 to include gender identity. Sall is going ladyballs out by arguing that there were no treaty obligations to recognise gender identity, and thus no constitutional power to make that change, and further that the change makes a complete fucking nonsense of the Act, which was based on quaint notions of biological reality. From her crowdfunding page:
The Act was amended in 2013 to include gender identity. Sall is going ladyballs out by arguing that there were no treaty obligations to recognise gender identity, and thus no constitutional power to make that change, and further that the change makes a complete fucking nonsense of the Act, which was based on quaint notions of biological reality. From her crowdfunding page:
Constitutional Validity
S51 Heads of Power - plenary and purposive laws with respect to making laws
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:….
S51(xxix) external affairs power – can make laws with respect to international concerns such as treaties, conventions and agreements to which Australia is a party i.e. CEDAW
Sex Discrimination Act
The Sex Discrimination Act (Cth) was successfully enacted in 1984 to eliminate discrimination against women and to achieve equality with men in the public sphere.
The purpose of the legislation was to eliminate discrimination against women on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy in the areas of employment, accommodation, education, provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs, and to prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace and educational institutions.
Objects of Act
The objects of the Act were to give effect to certain provisions in the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other international instruments; to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of equality of men and women in all facets of political, social, economic and cultural life . CEDAW is concerned with the elimination of discrimination against women specifically on the basis of sex, not discrimination on the basis of sex generally.
Australia was a signatory to CEDAW in 1980 and ratified in 1983.
Review of the preparatory work supports the proposition that the Convention sought to vindicate the principle of equality by creating obligations for State Parties to eliminate discrimination against women by placing theirr ights on an equal footing with the rights of men.
CEDAW was drafted in its entirety into the Act as a schedule, which is regarded as part of an Act, therefore it is part of Australian law and may be considered in interpretation of the Act. The interpretative principles to be applied are those recognised by international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Articles 31 and 32 with the text of the treaty given primacy, but refer to context, object and purpose for interpretation.
The Act recognised women were subjected to discrimination on the basis of the biological and reproductive capabilities of their sex class by explicitly addressing discrimination that arose from the categories of sex, marital status, pregnancy, potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities that result in “economic and social disadvantage, and a significant impediment to the exercise by Australian of fundamental rights and freedoms” as evinced by deeply embedded structural inequalities.
Discrimination
The legislation provides that discrimination on the basis of a specified ground, attribute or status is unlawful not only if it is directly based on that ground, attribute or status, but also if it is based on a characteristic appertaining generally to those of the relevant status or attribute, or is based on a ground or attribute generally imputed to persons with that status.
Exemptions
Exemptions are available if a condition, requirement or practice has or may have a disadvantaging effect if it is reasonable under the circumstances, or if the measures are for the purpose of achieving substantive equality between the protected attribute and a comparator, further fortified by CEDAW Article 4.
The lawful exemptions in the Act allow services or facilities that are needed exclusively for members of onesex, including where sex is a genuine occupational qualification (s30), for women in relation to pregnancy or childbirth (s31), services that can only be provided to members of one sex (s32), student or employee accommodation (s34), residential care of children (s35), voluntary bodies (s39), religious educational institutions (s3, sport (s42), combat duties (s43) and others.
2013 Amendments
Gender Identity
Amendments were made in 2013 that made it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, as well as same-sex couples under the definition of marital or relationship status. It is inarguable that this provided landmark protections for LGBTI people.
“Gender identity” became a protected attribute on separate grounds for discrimination via s5B, with the definition inserted into s4 procured from the Yogyakarta Principles:
“gender identity is the genderrelated identity, appearance or mannerisms or other genderrelated characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth”.
Amendments Ultra Vires
The definition was sourced from the Yogyakarta Principles which were devised by a group of private individuals, human rights campaigners, lawyers and functionaries and they do not have legal power or effect either internationally or within Australia.
The Yogyakarta definition is circular as it relies on itself to define itself, and “sex” and “gender” are not defined in the Act or in CEDAW. To ascertain construction, reference to Explanatory Memoranda as extrinsic material to discover underlying purpose or object, and confirm the ordinary meaning that was intended, the expressed intention of legislature regarding s5B was to “provide maximum protection for gender diverse people”, including the way they express or present their gender, recognising that a person may not identify as male or female, and acknowledged discrimination may be caused by the discord between the person’s gender presentation and their identity”.
This explanation raises further questions rather than providing clarity. If ambiguity is present, recourse to reports of parliamentary inquiry or committees is permissible. The Principles were acknowledged by the Senate Standing Committee as having no statutory power in Australia, even though there were calls to include them as “relevant international instruments” by the Human Rights Law Centre.
“[T]he Yogyakarta Principles have no legal force either internationally or within Australia. They were developed by a group of human rights experts, rather than being an agreement between States”.
According to the Committee, the purpose of the inclusion was to extend the grounds for protection against discrimination by introducing these new protections on the basis of “gender identity”, rendering the discrimination unlawful in the same circumstances as the other grounds already covered by the SDA, the meaning of “gender identity” is obfuscated.
The AHRC and Law Council of Australia supported the changes to the SDA by referencing the eight international conventions that underpin the AHRC. However, none of these instruments refer to gender identity, they only deal with discrimination in relation to biological sex, no human rights agreement specifically deals with gender identity, instead they rely on the Yogyakarta principles which have no status in international law.
Despite this, YP have been shopped around to international bodies and legislatures to be ratified, and they have been rejected by the UN on multiple occasions. Through protracted and strategic efforts of transgender activists the definition is endorsed to legislative and regulatory bodies as obligations by which they must be bound, and have thus made their way into Australian legislation.
YP have been relied on by various Australian states, such as VIC and most recently by the Queensland Human Rights Commission at the parliamentary inquiry into Attorney General Shannon Fentiman’s BDMR amendment bill for sex self ID.
One of the original 29 YP signatories (majority men and women pretending to be men “transmen”) Canadian born academic Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College, London renounced the YP and is now a trustee for LGB Alliance. He says women’s rights were not raised or considered during the meeting, and a “key factor in my change of opinion was listening to women”.
The meeting in Yogyakarta in 2006 was hosted by Canadian company Allied Rainbow Communities International (ARC International). ARC international is funded by Arcus Foundation, an international charitable foundation focused on issues relating to LGBT rights and social justice founded by Jon Stryker, heir to the multi-billion dollar Stryker Corporation medical supply company.
Removal of the words “woman” and “man”
The original SDA Act recognised women were subjected to discrimination, and consequently provided lawful protections that were fortified with the express inclusion of the meanings of man and woman: woman means a member of the female sex class irrespective of her age, and man meaning a member of the male sex class irrespective of his age.
The amendments removed the terms man and woman from the Act with the intention that they will take their ordinary meaning to the extent that they appear in the Act, and to ensure they are “not interpreted so narrowly as to exclude, for example, a transgender woman from accessing protections from discrimination on the basis of other attributes contained in the SDA”, with recourse to the dictionary as an accepted technique if required.
The effect of this is that the ordinary meaning of the words as based on the reality of biological sex has been replaced in favour of an interpretation where “woman” now includes a biological male who may have a gender identity that causes him to identify as a “transwoman” which is absent meaning in the Act and extrinsic materials but under the ordinary meaning is a “male to female transsexual” according to Oxford Dictionary. However, according to Stonewall UK is a person “assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman” , which begs the curious question as to what it means to “live as a woman”.
S5 Sex and S5B Gender Identity Construction
The function of the court is to construe the intention of legislature through the words used in a statue by the application of the accepted canons of construction.
A construction that promotes the purpose of the Act is to be preferred, rather than one that does not advance its purpose or object, even if there is no ambiguity, with the ascertainment of legislative intention via the object or purpose underlying the legislation, and to determine meaning in light of that. This purposive approach is applied by adopting an interpretation of the words that is consistent with that purpose (Heydon’s case) by looking at the statute as a whole.
Context is considered from the beginning, has wide meaning, including the mischief it is remedying by reference to extrinsic materials.
S5 Sex
Despite “sex” not being defined in the Act or the Convention, the purpose of this section in light of the context of the Act, upon review of extrinsic materials such as the treaty, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech of the affected Act is to eliminate the “mischief” - discrimination, both direct and indirect -towards women on the basis of their sex. This protected attribute has not been disturbed by the 2013 Amendments.
S5B Gender Identity
This provision mirrors the words of s5, replacing “sex”with “gender identity”, and is an expressly protected attribute in the objects of the act. The purpose is to eliminate, as far as is possible, direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of the protected attribute in the same areas that apply as per s5. This was in response to the high levels of discrimination faced by the LGBTI community, and the lack of protections for gender identity in Commonwealth legislation.
Sex and Gender Identity Definitions
The function of definitions is to provide aid in construing statutes, by reading into the text of the substantive enactment and exercise construction to address logical infelicities.
Neither the Act, nor other Commonwealth laws, define either “sex” or “gender”, but the 2013 Explanatory Memorandum regards them as different concepts for the purpose of the section with “gender” not being used a synonym for “biological sex”, particularly as the definition of “gender identity” relies on recognition of “birth sex”. Neither “gender”, nor “gender identity” are mentioned in CEDAW.
Words absent definitions are given their plain and ordinary meaning, with recourse to the dictionary as an accepted technique. If the ordinary meaning of “sex” is relied upon, with recourse to the dictionary, it means “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions”.
The definition of “gender identity” is found in s4 of the Act, its construction is circular, in that it relies on itself to define itself and results in a problematic logical fallacy. In the absence of definitions for “gender”, or “sex”, “gender identity” it is defined as “gender-related identity”, “appearance” and “mannerisms” or “other gender-related characteristics”. The Explanatory Memorandum describes it as a reference to a person’s identity and how they present and are recognised within the community, based on name, outward appearance, mannerisms and dress, and recognises birth sex and gender may not align, or may be rejected altogether.
The meaning has scope to be applied to any “appearance” or “mannerisms” or “characteristics”, with or without regard to the person’s birth sex, and no explanation as to these elements. A person could claim discrimination on the basis of subjective, ambiguous and undefined features– their name, how they choose to visually present themselves, or how they speak or behave. It could be implied that these elements are demonstrative of culturally relative sex-based stereotypes, contrary to Art.5(a) of CEDAW which expressly provides for the elimination of prejudice and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.
This is compounded by both the view that one’s gender identity is regarded by its proponents as being “self-defined”, and that it labours under the assumption that each person has a deeply felt internal and individual sense of gender. Essentially, the section introduces a subjective category of a self-declared personal identity as a protected attribute that relies on stereotypes contrary to the purpose of the legislation.
Removal of the definition of the words “woman” and “man”, as it pertains to the legislation, means each category could now be expanded to include persons of the opposite sex. Each sex could have expressly excluded those of the other sex under the affected Act, but now that transgender women are able to rely on the protections as they relate to women, there is no threshold for males who may choose to identify into the category of woman by claiming a “gender identity”. The “plain and ordinary” meaning of these words have been rendered absurd or meaningless as it now includes persons heretofore expressly excluded by the statutory definition, and under this law they can now overcome exclusion based on a self-declared identity.
By inserting the gender identity provision, biological males will now be able to claim the rights privileges and protections, and access to services previously granted to biological women via s5, effectively rendering women’s protections meaningless. The intention of the original Act, to protect biological women from discrimination by virtue of their sex, has now had its integrity compromised, its purpose subsumed and clearly and distinctly gives rise to a conflict of rights between women and those claiming a gender identity.
Conflict
The inclusion of the gender identity protection provisions have created conflicts within the interpretation and implementation of laws, guidelines and policies, the provision of services, and certain rights, privileges and protections heretofore granted to women under the law on the basis of sex. Highly contentious circumstances between biological women and those claiming protection under a gender identity have arisen in consideration of whether the category of sex or gender identity prevails in particular circumstances.
Analysis of the relevant extrinsic materials at the time of the SDA Amendments, reveal that the impact of the new protections on the existing protections for women on the basis of sex were not considered at all. In the SOGIIS Explanatory Memorandum women as a biological sex and protected category under the affected Act are not mentioned once, despite the entirety of the purpose and objective of the affected Act was to eliminate discrimination against them.
In the HRAD Committee Report, the submissions that are referenced in the body of the report were all in favour of the gender identity provisions and it is acknowledged that many submitters were in favour of their inclusion, those in opposition objected primarily on a religious basis, rather than from a women’s interest perspective.
Professor Sheila Jeffrey’s objected on the basis that inclusion of gender identity could “create a clash of rights between male-bodied transgenders and those disadvantaged on the basis of sex, namely women”. Jeffrey referenced legal challenges where trans-identified males successfully sought access to spaces previously reserved for women, including prisons.
Constitution S109: Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a state is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
State laws enacted for the purpose of gender identity, gender or transgender would therefore be invalid if they are inconsistent with the SDA.
Federal government has the constitutional authority to implement CEDAW, so state legislation that derogates or undermines sex based rights, such as the gender identity protection provisions, would be inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation.
In the TvG matter, women and girls (females) are discriminated against on the basis of their sex due to gender identity. Women and girls are having their right to male free spaces when they're vulnerable intruded upon by biological males who claim a female gender identity. The male's gender identity is displacing women's hard-fought sex-based rights to vulnerable spaces.
It is an egregious affront to women and girls that rights fought for over centuries are being displaced by a male self declaring a gender identity that gives him licence to enter into spaces where he was previously excluded on the basis of his sex.
Should the T v G matter proceed, it would force the situation that all state attorneys general would intervene as it has the capacity to impact state and territory law pertaining to gender or gender identity.
Co-interpretation Statutory Principle
The co-interpretation principle declares that amending acts to an existing, or affected, acts are to be regarded and read together as one connected and combined statement of the will of parliament and may change the context of the affected Act.
However, the 2013 amending Act is statutorily precluded from affecting any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the affected Act.
In practicality, this is not the case with institutions and government departments choosing to favour a pro-gender identity interpretation over one which considers women, and which explicitly fail to consider the statutory rights and protections expressly created for women by the SDA. This could be argued to be contrary to statutory interpretation obligations as the objects, purpose and constructions of the statutes of the sex based protections remain undisturbed, and there is no evidence that the legislature intended to reform the Act so broadly it would extinguish women’s sex based rights.
Useful resources
Unusually, parts of the court file are accessible to the public without application, because of the public interest. Knock yourself out.
Sall Grover’s crowdfunding page has her side of the story plus the growing sum for her to defend herself.
Another helpful news story, surprisingly balanced given it’s the Guardian.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2019
Here’s day one of of the tribunal Link the account tribunaltweets2 is following it. Obviously it was day one so it was just laying the ground work. But the main take away is that they’ve refused to have Helen Joyce give evidence but it will allow it as submission instead.
Naturally there were multiple troons rejoicing at this because obviously, they hate Helen Joyce. I’ll leave you with big Colin’s.
Edit:
Based Helen Joyce
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
8th Circuit Court of Appeals oral argument on Arkansas troon ban.
Full Eighth Circuit holds arguments over Arkansas's minor trans care ban
Full Eighth Circuit holds arguments over Arkansas's minor trans care ban
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
This is hilarious because Tony gets literally every major fact dead ass wrong.
Major part of Don’t Say Gay or Trans overturned in Florida!
First and foremost, nothing was over turned.
"Chief United States District Judge Mark E. Walker, an Obama appointee, wrote that Wood is “substantially likely” to succeed on her First Amendment claims and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law against her, pending her lawsuit. The injunction applies only to Wood and not statewide."
Transgender Florida teacher can use preferred pronouns at work, federal judge rules
Second, the other troon's claim was flat out rejected.
"Plaintiffs Katie Wood, a transgender Hillsborough County teacher, and AV Schwandes, a nonbinary teacher fired last year by Florida Virtual School, sought preliminary injunctions as part of a lawsuit challenging the restrictions."
"Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday that blocked enforcement of the law against Wood, but the injunction does not apply statewide. Walker’s decision also denied a preliminary injunction sought by Schwandes."
Federal judge blocks teacher pronoun restriction in Florida, citing First Amendment
Third, the injunction granted to the first troon is likely to be thrown out. Forcing students or other factuly to play the tranny pronoun game violates the prohibition on compelled speech.
"Start with the basics. The First Amendment protects “the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). Thus, the government “may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees.” Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557, 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995). When the government tries to do so anyway, it violates this “cardinal constitutional command.” Meriwether v. Hartop (6th Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 492, 503
Here, the university refused even to permit Meriwether to comply with its pronoun mandate while expressing his personal convictions in a syllabus disclaimer. That ban is anathema to the principles underlying the First Amendment, as the “proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’ ” Meriwether v. Hartop (6th Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 492, 510
Finally, the university argues that Meriwether simply could have complied with the alternative it offered him: Don't use any pronouns or sex-based terms at all. This offer, the university says, would not violate Meriwether's religious beliefs. But such an offer has two problems. First, it would prohibit Meriwether from speaking in accordance with his belief that sex and gender are conclusively linked. See Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 796, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (198 (explaining that the “difference between compelled speech and compelled silence ... is without constitutional significance”). And second, such a system would be impossible to comply with, especially in a class heavy on discussion and debate. No “Mr.” or “Ms.” No “yes sir” or “no ma'am.” No “he said” or “she said.” And when Meriwether slipped up, which he inevitably would (especially after using these titles for twenty-five years), he could face discipline. Our rights do not hinge on such a precarious balance." Meriwether v. Hartop (6th Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 492, 517
"The effect of this Hobson's Choice is that Meriwether must adhere to the university's orthodoxy (or face punishment). This is coercion, at the very least of the indirect sort. And we know the Free Exercise Clause protects against both direct and indirect coercion. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2022, 198 L.Ed.2d 551 (2017); see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 633, 98 S.Ct. 1322, 55 L.Ed.2d 593 (197 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (The “proposition—that the law does not interfere with free exercise because it does not directly prohibit religious activity, but merely conditions eligibility for office on its abandonment—is ... squarely rejected by precedent.”). Simply put, the alternative the university offered does not save its policy." Meriwether v. Hartop (6th Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 492, 517
Major part of Don’t Say Gay or Trans overturned in Florida!
First and foremost, nothing was over turned.
"Chief United States District Judge Mark E. Walker, an Obama appointee, wrote that Wood is “substantially likely” to succeed on her First Amendment claims and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law against her, pending her lawsuit. The injunction applies only to Wood and not statewide."
Transgender Florida teacher can use preferred pronouns at work, federal judge rules
Second, the other troon's claim was flat out rejected.
"Plaintiffs Katie Wood, a transgender Hillsborough County teacher, and AV Schwandes, a nonbinary teacher fired last year by Florida Virtual School, sought preliminary injunctions as part of a lawsuit challenging the restrictions."
"Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday that blocked enforcement of the law against Wood, but the injunction does not apply statewide. Walker’s decision also denied a preliminary injunction sought by Schwandes."
Federal judge blocks teacher pronoun restriction in Florida, citing First Amendment
Third, the injunction granted to the first troon is likely to be thrown out. Forcing students or other factuly to play the tranny pronoun game violates the prohibition on compelled speech.
"Start with the basics. The First Amendment protects “the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). Thus, the government “may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees.” Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557, 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995). When the government tries to do so anyway, it violates this “cardinal constitutional command.” Meriwether v. Hartop (6th Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 492, 503
Here, the university refused even to permit Meriwether to comply with its pronoun mandate while expressing his personal convictions in a syllabus disclaimer. That ban is anathema to the principles underlying the First Amendment, as the “proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’ ” Meriwether v. Hartop (6th Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 492, 510
Finally, the university argues that Meriwether simply could have complied with the alternative it offered him: Don't use any pronouns or sex-based terms at all. This offer, the university says, would not violate Meriwether's religious beliefs. But such an offer has two problems. First, it would prohibit Meriwether from speaking in accordance with his belief that sex and gender are conclusively linked. See Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 796, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (198
(explaining that the “difference between compelled speech and compelled silence ... is without constitutional significance”). And second, such a system would be impossible to comply with, especially in a class heavy on discussion and debate. No “Mr.” or “Ms.” No “yes sir” or “no ma'am.” No “he said” or “she said.” And when Meriwether slipped up, which he inevitably would (especially after using these titles for twenty-five years), he could face discipline. Our rights do not hinge on such a precarious balance." Meriwether v. Hartop (6th Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 492, 517"The effect of this Hobson's Choice is that Meriwether must adhere to the university's orthodoxy (or face punishment). This is coercion, at the very least of the indirect sort. And we know the Free Exercise Clause protects against both direct and indirect coercion. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2022, 198 L.Ed.2d 551 (2017); see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 633, 98 S.Ct. 1322, 55 L.Ed.2d 593 (197
(Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (The “proposition—that the law does not interfere with free exercise because it does not directly prohibit religious activity, but merely conditions eligibility for office on its abandonment—is ... squarely rejected by precedent.”). Simply put, the alternative the university offered does not save its policy." Meriwether v. Hartop (6th Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 492, 517
Last edited:
Jacques1194
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2023
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
Having read through the various opinions, there is quite a bit of discussion about the troons likelihood of success on the merits was the most important factor to consider. The natural consequence of this discourse is that the majority of the court are telling the troons that their claims do not have merit and troonery is not constitutionally protected, but I don't think Kate Strangio has figured that out yet.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022