I hope Sall is able to flee to somewhere safe and continue running her app without paying a dime to the porn addict. She shouldn’t have to but I’d be damned if I paid a nasty troon a red cent for the crime of telling him no.
At least this can be used to campaign and point towards as a bizarre injustice. I don't think they ever realize how unpopular this is with the general public.
There’s been one running from the start. Last I checked she’d raised over $500k. She’ll need that much again for the High Court, which was always where this case was going to really be heard because the Sex Discrimination Act has to be changed, and will require a judgement from the highest court in Australia.
I hope Sall is able to flee to somewhere safe and continue running her app without paying a dime to the porn addict. She shouldn’t have to but I’d be damned if I paid a nasty troon a red cent for the crime of telling him no.
The app was taken down as soon as Roxy went to the Human Rights Commission. Roxy hasn’t received a cent of the original judgement, and won’t until this issue goes through the High Court.
EDIT: It's also as I suspected that this would not have been possible without the 2013 changes to Australia's Sex Discrimination Act (1984). And those changes were made by the Australian Labor Party under our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. Two of the three judges on the Federal Court who wrote this decision are women. The feminists on the board are going to hate what I'm about to say now, but what's a misogynist? Any man who hates women as much as women hate each other.
It is a direct result. Prior to the 2013 changes, Sex was defined in the law as being grounded in biological sex. These changes removed the definition. While adding Gender Identity and Intersex as protected categories from discrimination.
This lack of a definition has lead to sex being understood under the law as fluid and non-biological based. I haven't read the Judgement but from various commentary from those that have. They suggest the judges made it known this isn't how they view what sex means, but it's just how it is interpreted under the current law.
So don't be too hard on the Judges, it's their job to interpret the law, not make it. This isn't activist judges or anything. It's just enforcing for the SDA works after it was fucked up by the Gillard regime.
Like so much trans shit, the second it tries to step over the line and pretend it isn't just trans. Trans women are women, instead of trans women and women are different categories of "women." It breaks everything because it's not a reality-based view. Suddenly a lesbian is a biggot if she doesn't want to date a biological male. Biological women are no longer a protected category and so forth.
While I understand it is all about the letter of the law, and this judgement was to be expected, they doubled his damages. Why? He has pro bono legal representation while Grover is paying hundreds of thousands to be represented. The damages to Tickle are self inflicted by his own activism, and were caused by his initial claim. All Sal did was appeal the initial judgement at great expense. He’s not missing out on an app because he’s a man, rather he forced that app to become unavailable to everyone.
Because 'Justice' Perry probably has a trannie child and is an activist for troon rights. I read somewhere that women did this to themselves and tend to agree - ladies, you opened the door wide open when that first troon knocked and said 'Enter, and what is mine is now yours'. No vetting, no questions, no boundaries up. And this is the result of years of women ushering troons in and telling them that they are one of us and we accept them, balls and all.
There’s been one running from the start. Last I checked she’d raised over $500k. She’ll need that much again for the High Court, which was always where this case was going to really be heard because the Sex Discrimination Act has to be changed, and will require a judgement from the highest court in Australia.
High Court can't change the SDA, that needs parliament, which needs ON or Libs in power.
HCA COULD interpret that the discrimination against Tranny Trickle's gender identity was a valid action to protect the rights of women (as permitted by s7D), but they won't in my opinion because that requires them to depart from clear intention of gov in policy and other laws to recognise trannies as legally women. That is the issue with Sal's argument - she's arguing that excluding a tranny is justifiable discrimination to protect the rights of (actual) women, in a legal framework that doesn't make that distinction.
The HCA will typically see this as a matter for parliament. Money would be far better spent on raising public awareness and getting the actual law changed.
It is a direct result. Prior to the 2013 changes, Sex was defined in the law as being grounded in biological sex. These changes removed the definition. While adding Gender Identity and Intersex as protected categories from discrimination.
This lack of a definition has lead to sex being understood under the law as fluid and non-biological based. I haven't read the Judgement but from various commentary from those that have. They suggest the judges made it known this isn't how they view what sex means, but it's just how it is interpreted under the current law.
So don't be too hard on the Judges, it's their job to interpret the law, not make it. This isn't activist judges or anything. It's just enforcing for the SDA works after it was fucked up by the Gillard regime.
Like so much trans shit, the second it tries to step over the line and pretend it isn't just trans. Trans women are women, instead of trans women and women are different categories of "women." It breaks everything because it's not a reality-based view. Suddenly a lesbian is a biggot if she doesn't want to date a biological male. Biological women are no longer a protected category and so forth.
High Court can't change the SDA, that needs parliament, which needs ON or Libs in power.
HCA COULD interpret that the discrimination against Tranny Trickle's gender identity was a valid action to protect the rights of women (as permitted by s7D), but they won't in my opinion because that requires them to depart from clear intention of gov in policy and other laws to recognise trannies as legally women. That is the issue with Sal's argument - she's arguing that excluding a tranny is justifiable discrimination to protect the rights of (actual) women, in a legal framework that doesn't make that distinction.
The HCA will typically see this as a matter for parliament. Money would be far better spent on raising public awareness and getting the actual law changed.
I agree that the problem is the 2013 SDA amendments, and it's why an appeal to the High Court is also likely to fail (even though I think Giggle's argument that the power for the Commonwealth to even have a Sex Discrimination Act only came about because of it being a signatory to CEDAW in the 1980s, where 'girls and women' did not mean 'trans-identified males'.)
There are some-a handful of Liberal-National politicians making the right noises, but they had years in power and changed nothing. For other reasons, I want One Nation to be able to command enough power to take amendments seriously.
The ALP and Greens are beyond hope and beyond redemption on this matter.
EDIT: I will also say the full Federal Court ruling has a silver lining. My Facebook timeline is more active about the trans madness than ever, with references to this specific ruling.
If it leads to an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act, which was the source of the problem in the first place (specifically, the 2013 amendments), then that is a better outcome than the Court somehow ruling differently but leaving the odious SDA intact.
But the revisions to the SDA need to be radical, and Australia's politicians need to be shamed into it. It would need to include the complete reversal of all the 2013 amendments, and an additional provision banning the states from recording, or changing on a birth certificate, a sex for a person other than their biological sex.
The court merely ruled that the lower court errored on one of the preliminary injunction factors.
1. There has not been any ruling on the merits.
2, The hospital has not been ordered to do anything at all.
3. There have not been any actual findings of discrimination or protected staus.
4. These two legally illiterate cretins are merely wish casting.
This actually sounds like pretty big news. Why is this not more widely reported-upon? Why don't I see more trannies kvetching? How big a deal is this, really?
This actually sounds like pretty big news. Why is this not more widely reported-upon? Why don't I see more trannies kvetching? How big a deal is this, really?
Most likely because normies are rather behind on "transgender" issues. They think "Trans rights" was the equivalent of gay people getting the right to marry. Then they suddenly saw their daughters lose their sports to "trans women" and said fuck this shit.
The same will happen with "Gender Affirming Care." Normies don't realize that means your thirteen year old daughter is being groomed into taking testosterone and getting a double mastectomy. Once the SRS Horrors thread here spills over to the general public, people will be mortified.
So to the average person, a texas detrans clinic is where these kids go to get talk therapy and go back to being normal. They don't realize that there is no coming back, and these children have been irreversibly damaged with genital mutalation by a gender fad.
So to the average person, a texas detrans clinic is where these kids go to get talk therapy and go back to being normal. They don't realize that there is no coming back, and these children have been irreversibly damaged with genital mutalation by a gender fad.
So to the average person, a texas detrans clinic is where these kids go to get talk therapy and go back to being normal. They don't realize that there is no coming back, and these children have been irreversibly damaged with genital mutalation by a gender fad.
Which as highly optimistic as this sounds may actually lead to a crimes against humanity trial, and we'll have to see the LGBTQ+ have to defend why they thought sterilizing children that didn't fit neatly into a stereotype was a good idea. The detrans clinics can be the avenue to gather evidence against this treatment.
