Post

https://twitter.com/michaelkoziol/status/1515871920713248771

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

More from @KatKarena

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Sep 16

WHICH RALLY BROUGHT THE NEO NAZIS TO MELBOURNE’S PARLIAMENT ON THE 18 MARCH 2023?

I. The neo-Nazis did not ‘attend’ or participate in the Let Women Speak Rally but were present on the steps of Parliament House for a Protect the Children rally (PC Rally) being held in front of Parliament House at or about the same time as the LWS Rally.

EVIDENCE:
1. Approximately 11:38 am, See: (Platform Melbourne) Between the start of the footage and 1 second into it, and again at the 59 second mark Thomas Anthony Sewell of the National Socialist Network (NSN) is seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'PROTECT OUR CHILDREN STOP THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY SILENCE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION' Banner, that was located on the speaker system of Matthew Raine Trihey of the Australian Unified Movement, (also known as Grass Roots Rally, Freedom Rally, Freedom Fighters)

"Thomas Anthony Sewell is not seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'Let Women Speak' banner."

2. By 11.44 am in LuluHeart’s video the NSN are stretched across Spring Street by the Protect Children Rally with their banner unfurled. See timeline.

3: At approximately 12:18pm after the Victorian Police had removed the line of officers that had been positioned across Spring Street just to the south of Turnbull Alley, the NSN moved from the north into the area on Spring Street where attendees of the AUM Grass Roots Rally were located. They formed a line across Spring Street facing the south, backs to women, facing ANTIFA, roughly in the same location that the Victorian Police had been previously.
See videos at timeline:

Although the way was clear, the (NSN) did not make their way through to the 'Let Women Speak' event."

4. At approximately 12:24 pm AEST on 18 March 2023, one of the organisers of the "A stand to protect the children. A stand against the moral decay of society" AUM Melbourne Protest says the following:

[Pointing to members of the National Socialist Network (NSN) that are standing in a line across Spring Street, facing towards the north and holding the banner "DESTROY PAEDO FREAKS".]
"Yeah, so ok here's the thing. They're here to support us right. They're here to support us these guys right, in the black."facebook.com/watch/?v=19706…
docs.google.com/document/d/1QT…

II. The neo-Nazis did not speak or display their banner or make their Nazi salute in respect of the LWS Rally but spoke and displayed their banner and made their Nazi salute in respect of the Protect the Children Rally.

EVIDENCE:

3. "Thomas Anthony Sewell is seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'PROTECT OUR CHILDREN STOP THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY' Banner, which was located on the speaker system of Matthew Raine Trihey of the AUM."
"Sewell is not seen pointing in the direction of the 'Let Women Speak' banner." see: (1 second and 58 seconds in) 4. In Randell Ceetwo’s live-stream he interviews the NSN 35:12 minutes in: “Hi guys. You wanna tell the public what’s going on? Tell the public what’s going on here guys.[pause] What are we doing?

35 mins/12 secs - NSN Members Nathan Bull and Stefanos “Stefan” Eracleous say simultaneously: “Protecting the children. We are here to protect the children.”

35 mins/ 26 secs - NSN Member Jimone Lyle Roberts states: “We're here to smash the child grooming here in Melbourne.”

35 mins/ 35 secs - NSN Member Graham Connolly states: “You know they have, ya have jobs and stuff like that. But we’re here to protect the children” 5. Later at approximately 12:33 pm Thomas Anthony Sewell, along with other members of the NSN made their way onto the steps of the Victorian Parliament, Spring Street, Melbourne, Australia. At approximately 12:36 pm, Thomas Sewell gave a speech outlining why they were there. The speech focused on their presence to defend against a globalist homosexual agenda, which aligns with the Protect the Children rally messaging."
[51 mins/51 secs]
Also see Timeline.
facebook.com/watch/?v=19706…
facebook.com/10007837422990…
facebook.com/10007837422990…
docs.google.com/document/d/1QT…

III. The Protect the Children Rally was not associated with the Let Women Speak Rally but was promoted and held in Melbourne in association with a PC Rally being held in Sydney on the same day, 18 March 2023.

EVIDENCE:

6:"On Saturday 4 March 2023, Yosra Alyateem placed an advertisement for a protest in Melbourne on her Instagram account. The protest was titled 'A STAND TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN A STAND AGAINST THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY,' and it was held at the Victorian Parliament, Spring Street, Melbourne, on Saturday 18 March 2023."

7:"On 2 March 2023, an advertisement was posted for a 'Protect Our Kids' protest in Sydney, scheduled for 18 March 2023. This was the same day as the Melbourne protest, showing the rallies were coordinated events but separate from the Let Women Speak rally."

8. On 20 March 2023, Sewell stated in a public interview on titled ‘The Vanguard – Anti-Paedo protest with Tom Sewell’ ‘…there was a Liberal Party MP that went to the Let Women Speak Rally which was a rally that was going on simultaneously to ours, and she’s being removed from the Liberal Party right now, because she wanted to let women speak and have their say…’

9. On 28 March 2023, Sewell on his Telegram account of the Let Women Speak rally he said: “We do not care for the opinions of a bunch of childless 40 something wine- aunts, they are an irrelevant side effect of a dying society. We do not care for their complaining; we do not care for the symptom vs band- aid politics of arguing over whether a dick-less freak is a woman or not and which bathroom they can use. Our politics is focused on the cause. Straight to the point. We advocate for the LEGAL arrest, trial and capital punishment of every single person involved in pushing this sickening degeneracy on our children and society as a whole.”Odysee.com

Read 12 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Sep 3

🧵#LAGvsAHRC - The closing arguments of Leigh Howard (LAG Barrister)
LH = Leigh Howard, SF = Stewart Fenwick

LH started with appreciation of SF to continue to offer to people who are members and supporters of LAG accomodation to hear and see the proceedings...

1/
Leigh Howard:
"So, the conclusion of that cross-examination points.

First, is that LAG means no harm to anyone.

Secondly, all LAG wants to do is to exercise the same human rights that we do.

Thirdly, all LAG wants to do is to exercise the same human rights to expression, association, culture, sexual health that others have in the LGBTI community and society more broadly.
The third point is that LAG is not asking for anything else; no assimilation, no resources, nothing.

Fourthly, that there is no harm. There are groups that don't want that to happen. And that includes the Human Rights Commission."

2/ Leigh Howard continues:
"So, my closing, I'll just address in two topics: what's fallen out of the evidence in light of cross-examination, and then secondly, apply that evidence to the legal principles that I've set out in my SOFIC. And the SOFIC's a really good guide to the disposition of the dispute and how to address the dispute.

So, turning to the evidence, the commission's questioning covered three topics.
The first was why is LAG associative?
And why does it need to associate in all public events?

That's answered comprehensively by Ms Anne's annexure, where she annexes the constitution of LAG. And that's answered comprehensively by Ms. And it's not really a matter for debate, given that's the source document. Now, that's at page 21 of Ms. Ann's statement, page 22, and the Constitution states, and I quote, 'Freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, freedom from violence, and freedom in law.' That's their purpose.

And then they articulate a dozen ways to fulfill that, the first being a political advocacy group asserting their biological fact, that sex is binary and immutable, so on and so forth.

So, this is a political lobby organisation, but also, as you see in the middle of the dot points, an organisation wants to promote outlets for lesbians to meet, to have discussion and organise events for political, social, cultural, physical and mental wellbeing of lesbians specifically.

So that's answered. That's the finding.

Read 35 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Aug 22

Tickle vs Giggle - Notes from today
(Open to corrections I can't find the published summary as yet. Will expand on each point, once I've translated my hand writing)

1/ 🧵 Case Overview: Roxanne Tickle sued Giggle for Girls & its CEO for gender identity discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The dispute involved the Giggle app, a platform exclusively for women, which excluded men from joining. #GenderDiscrimination #Legal

2/ Key Issue: The central question was whether Ms. Tickle’s exclusion from the app was unlawful gender identity discrimination or based on her sex, which the respondents argued was male. #LGBTQ #Equality

3/ Court Decision - Direct Discrimination: The court found no direct gender identity discrimination. The exclusion was based on visual criteria that couldn't distinguish between cisgender men & transgender women—not an intention to discriminate based on gender identity.

Read 24 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Jun 25

I looked at that document All Gender Sanitary Facilities Consulation several weeks ago.
Heres notes on background, current status and proposed ammendments for your submission

Current Provisions and Issues
Background (Page 2)
NCC 2022, clause F4P1 Personal hygiene facilities:
Suitable sanitary facilities for personal hygiene must be provided in a convenient location within or associated with a building, to the degree necessary, appropriate to:The function or use of the building
The number and gender of the occupants
The disability or other particular needs of the occupants

Issues with Current Provisions:
Current Deemed to Satisfy provisions designate toilets as female, male, or unisex accessible. All-gender facilities could only be provided in addition to the existing minimums, incurring additional project costs.

Proposed Amendments

Change in Terminology (Page 2)Update terminology from ‘sex’ to ‘gender’ and ‘unisex’ to ‘accessible’ to modernize and standardize the language used in the NCC.

F4D3 Calculation of Number of Occupants and Facilities (Page 3)Unless the premises are used predominantly by one gender, sanitary facilities must be provided on the basis of a proportionate distribution of occupants.
In calculating the number of sanitary facilities, an accessible facility required for people with a disability may be counted once for each gender.

F4D4 Facilities in Class 3 to 9 Buildings (Page 3-4)Separate sanitary facilities for all genders must be provided except in specific permitted situations.

Specific Situations:
If not more than 10 people are employed, an accessible facility may be provided instead of separate facilities for each gender.

If the majority of employees are of one gender, not more than 2 employees of the other gender may share toilet facilities if the facilities are separated by walls, partitions, and doors for privacy.

F4D4(12) All-Gender Sanitary Facilities (Page 5)
All-gender sanitary facilities may be provided to meet the requirements where:
The building is only required to be provided with two individual closet pans, two separate all-gender sanitary facilities may be provided.

The building is required to be provided with three closet pans or urinals, these may be replaced with one male closet pan, one female closet pan, and one all-gender sanitary facility.
The building is required to provide four or more closet pans or urinals, up to 50% of all required fixtures may be converted to all-gender. The conversion to all-gender sanitary facilities must be taken equally from the provision of male or female sanitary facilities.

Rationale and Benefits

Rationale for Proposed Changes to Section F (Page 5-6)Improving inclusivity:
Gendered bathrooms are exclusionary and discomforting for gender-diverse individuals.
Additional benefits: Improved access for people with medical conditions, parents with young children, and high volume bathroom use situations.

Red tape reduction: Introduces a new Deemed to Satisfy pathway, reducing time and cost associated with developing and assessing a performance solution.

Voluntary and cost-effective: A voluntary solution that maintains the current project cost profile.

Privacy and safety: Provides a private and safe space for individuals uncomfortable or unsafe in gender-segregated facilities.
Maintaining accessibility: Reduces reliance on unisex accessible facilities, maintaining intended access levels for people with disabilities.

Gender diversity awareness and acceptance: Helps broaden community understanding and acceptance of diverse gender identities.

Rationale for Change in Terminology from ‘Sex’ to ‘Gender’ (Page 6)

Improving inclusivity: The term ‘gender’ is more encompassing and recognizes a spectrum of identities beyond binary male and female.

Gender diversity acceptance: Use of ‘gender’ respects diverse gender identities.
Contemporary language: The term ‘gender’ increasingly recognizes individuals according to their self-defined identity.

These sections of the document outline the proposed changes, the rationale behind these changes, and the intended benefits, focusing on inclusivity, privacy, safety, and the efficient provision of sanitary facilities.

@deves_katherine @KirralieS @anonotanon @angijones @feministbirther @LouiseElliotM @TheMilkBarTV @Bernard_Lane @celinevmachine_ @MoiraDeemingMP @JohnRuddick2

https://twitter.com/MollyBe44568117/status/1723487210782261754/photo/1

Here are notes on the WHY we need single sex toilets (unfinnished blog post I'll use for the submission):

The existence and preservation of single-sex toilets address significant concerns related to safety, privacy, and comfort for women, men, the disabled, the elderly, and children. Adding gender-neutral facilities alongside existing bathroom provisions is a positive step towards diversity and inclusion. This approach advances the interests of men and women who identify as something else without compromising everyone else’s needs.

Safety Concerns
One of the primary arguments for maintaining single-sex toilets revolves around safety. These facilities often provide a secure space where individuals can feel safe from potential harassment or assault. This concern is particularly acute for women and girls who feel vulnerable in mixed-sex environments. Although not all fears are realized, the perception of safety significantly affects comfort and ease of use.

Studies from 2017-2018 in the UK report 134 incidents of sexual assault, voyeurism, and harassment in swimming pool changing rooms, with 120 occurring in gender-neutral facilities and only 14 in single-sex facilities (Gilligan 2018; Hosie 2018).

Mixed-sex facilities may exacerbate sexual harassment problems at work. In Australia, 39% of women have experienced workplace sexual harassment (Judd 2021). Single-sex spaces often provide a respite for women from their harassers. Making these spaces gender neutral can lead to women avoiding bathroom use, potentially causing health issues like kidney infections.

Discussions with Welsh school children revealed that girls were avoiding drinking water to reduce bathroom use due to period shaming from boys (Petter 2019).

Single-sex bathrooms serve as one of the few safe spaces where women can escape violent partners or inappropriate advances and seek help (AIHW 2018).

Privacy Needs
Privacy is another cornerstone in the debate over single-sex toilets. These facilities provide a level of privacy that is both expected and appreciated by users. In cultures and communities where modesty and separation of the sexes are valued, these toilets are essential. Moreover, managing medical or health-related needs such as menstruation, miscarriages, and incontinence is more discreet and comfortable in single-sex facilities.

One in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, often requiring immediate and private care, which single-sex bathrooms can provide.
Menstrual accidents, such as leaks or the need to clean menstrual cups, are more comfortably managed in the privacy away from men, especially in workplaces where women may face sexism or harassment.

Menopause can bring about symptoms that women prefer to manage privately, away from men.

Comfort and Accessibility
Comfort in using toilet facilities also extends to parents with children, the elderly, and those with disabilities. Parents often find it easier to assist their young children in a single-sex toilet that aligns with their gender, especially when helping opposite-sex children. The elderly and people with disabilities benefit from tailored facilities that can be more effectively provided in single-sex setups.

Cultural and Social Considerations
As a multicultural society, Australia supports single-sex toilets through long-standing social norms and values deeply ingrained in many communities. The abrupt removal or reduction of these facilities can cause significant distress and discomfort. A UK poll from 2017 found that 65% of respondents—mostly women—said they would not use a unisex toilet, and men often feel uncomfortable in such facilities because they worry about making women uneasy (McClintock 2015).

A Balanced Approach
While the conversation about toilet facilities must also include the rights and needs of transgender and non-binary individuals, finding a balance that respects and accommodates everyone's comfort is crucial. Solutions such as providing gender-neutral toilets alongside single-sex ones could be a way to address the diverse needs of all individuals in a respectful and inclusive manner. As long as the ratio reflects the population size.

In conclusion, the importance of single-sex toilets extends beyond mere convenience. They encompass crucial aspects of safety, privacy, and comfort that are vital for us all in our daily lives. As society continues to discuss and navigate this issue, it is important to consider all perspectives and strive for solutions that maximize comfort and safety for everyone.

References
· Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. ‘Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018’,
· 28th February 2018. Gilligan, Andrew. ‘Unisex changing rooms put women in danger’, The Times,
· 2nd September 2018. Hosie, Rachel. ‘Unisex Changing Rooms Put Women at Danger of Sexual Assault, Data Reveals’,
· The Independent, 2nd September 2018. Judd, Bridget. ‘Sexual harassment affects workplaces across Australia. So, what can we do better?’
· ABC News, 1st March 2021.McClintock, Elizabeth. ‘Why Some Welcome Unisex Bathrooms, and Some Steer Clear’,
· Psychology Today, 17th September 2015. Petter, Olivia. ‘Unisex toilets put schoolgirls at risk of sexual harassment, claims women’s rights group’,
· The Independent, 19th February 2019. 1Adapted from Lawford-Smith, Holly. ‘Should companies install gender neutral bathrooms?’, archived at
· Adapted from Fair Play For Women, ‘Miscarriages in pub toilets. Is gender-neutral ready?’,
· 5th December 2017. Online at
· Schoolgirls sexually assaulted in gender-neutral toilets
· The Telegraph - 29 June 2023, ByHayley Dixon and Louisa Clarence-Smith, The teenage boy's alleged attacks occurred just as the Department of Education readies its transgender guidance
· …Suzanne Moore, 6 May 2024, “Gender neutral” has meant, in reality, fewer facilities for women and more for men. But that’s part of the current stupidity that calls restricting women’s access to safe, private spaces progress. In reality, there is nothing neutral about shutting down women-only spaces.”
· Unheard, "Gender-neutral toilets deserve to go" Victoria Smith, 7 May 2024
· The Gazette - "Quebec bans new co-ed toilets and dressing rooms in public schools" "It's a question of well-being, intimacy and respect for privacy," Bernard Drainville, May 1, 2024 ?
· The Telegraph –“ Girls developed urinary infections because school had gender-neutral toilets, says Badenoch” Genevieve Holl-Allen, May 2024
· Courier mail, Iwan Jones and Tayla Couacaud, April 19, 2024 "Department of Education confirms unisex toilets installed at Brisbane State High School", Allegations of students urinating on toilet seats and sanitary bins have emerged after it was confirmed that a prestigious Brisbane high school has gender-neutral toilets on campus.
· hollylawford-smith.org/should-compani…
fairplayforwomen.com/miscarriages-p…
telegraph.co.uk/columnists/202…
unherd.com/newsroom/gende…
montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/qu…

https://twitter.com/MollyBe44568117/status/1723487210782261754/photo/1

NOTE - the notes are in their languaging - adjust accordingly in your replies.

Read 6 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Apr 12

Preface of summary of the last day of Tickle Vs Giggle
Before presenting the detailed summary, which requires cross-referencing tweets and consulting notes to ensure accuracy, I will first provide essential background and key concepts highlighted in the tweets:

1. The key points of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984
The Act protects people from unfair treatment on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy and breastfeeding. It also protects workers with family responsibilities and makes sexual harassment against the law.

2. See Act:

3. Objects (of the Act)
The objects of this Act are:

(a) to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and to provisions of other relevant international instruments; and

(b) to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy or breastfeeding in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs; and

(ba) to eliminate, so far as possible, discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities in the area of work; and

(c) to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination involving sexual harassment, and discrimination involving harassment on the ground of sex, in the workplace, in educational institutions and in other areas of public activity; and

(d) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women; and

(e) to achieve, so far as practicable, equality of opportunity between men and women.

4. The key sections referred to on the day:

5 Sex discrimination
5A Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation
5B Discrimination on the ground of gender identity
5C Discrimination on the ground of intersex status

7 Discrimination on the ground of pregnancy or potential pregnancy
7AA Discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding
7A Discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities
7B Indirect discrimination: reasonableness test
7C Burden of proof
7D Special measures intended to achieve equality

9 Application of Act

5. The Giggle App

6. About this App:
"Made for Women by Women. Connect on Giggle about the latest Issues, politics, gossip, news and more. Promote your business and or yourself, find accomodation and roommates, connect privately to discuss your most intimate thoughts - all with mutual consent - and without unwanted interruptions and misogynistic abuse."

7. Image of Giggle App interface:

8. Terms & Definitions in the Act

sexual orientation means a person’s sexual orientation towards:

(a) persons of the same sex; or
(b) persons of a different sex; or
(c) persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex.

gender identity means the gender‑related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender‑related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.

sex - there is no definiton. There is a distinction made between sex, gender identity and sexual orientation i.e. you can be harrassed on the basis of sex or gender identity or sexual orientation. Sex is mentioned 331 times but since 2013 there no longer is a definition or interpretation.

applicant - Tickle
respondant 1 and 2 - Giggle and Sall Grover respectively

9. CEDAW
On 18 December 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It entered into force as an international treaty on 3 September 1981 after the twentieth country had ratified it. Australia ratified the convention in 1983. By the tenth anniversary of the Convention in 1989, almost one hundred nations have agreed to be bound by its provisions.

(To be noted, neither gender, gender identity, transgender or intersex is in CEDAW)

10. Submission from AHRC

11. Public Interest Cases (Online Files)
legislation.gov.au/C2004A02868/la…
thedailypretty.com/blogs/blog/int…
app.screencast.com/9r3LuI7aG5V8T?…
un.org/womenwatch/daw…
fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/…
fedcourt.gov.au/services/acces…

(Note, I should have added 'joint book', to the preface, seems to be a collection of papers/acts/cases etc that are compiled that the barristers and judges are referring to continually)

Part 1: Day 3 April 11

On the previous day, a significant question was raised by Justice Bromwich on how far the development or interpretation of a treaty's meaning could go before it becomes problematic, especially when such developments grant more power to the Commonwealth under the external affairs power. (CEDAW is an example of such a treaty).

Zelie Heger responded to the Judge's question by making four points:

1. Heger emphasised that the concept of "external affairs" within the constitution was not fixed at the time of federation. The notion was expected to evolve over time as demonstrated by various cases such as "Tasmanian Trams" and "Victoria in the Commonwealth, the Industrial Relations Act case".

2. The second point made by the Heger is about the legislative discretion when implementing treaties. Legislation must be "reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing the treaty," which provides the legislature with a margin of discretion.

3. Thirdly, the Heger discussed the authoritative role of the CEDAW Committee, established by the convention, in issuing recommendations and handling individual communications. This, she argues, provides authoritative guidance for interpreting treaty obligations. She cites the example of the use of an Optional Protocol and that the High Court recognises that.

4. Lastly, Heger references the "always speaking" statute from section 9 of the Sex Discrimination Act, explaining that the interpretation of international obligations should be based on their understanding at the time of the relevant conduct, citing the decision in "Owens v Owens" and others.

(PART 1 TO BE CONTINUED)

* (If you're curious in what this means and you're not a lawyer, I found this informative: )

-thanks to the note sharers.web.archive.org/web/2024041106…
studocu.com/en-au/document…

https://twitter.com/stephbastiaan/status/1778227303069483108

Part 1 continued…
Next was Georgina Costello, arguing on behalf of the applicant Ms. Tickle,
Costello makes several key points against the respondents, Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and Sall Grover, centring around allegations of discrimination based on gender identity.

1. Costello argued that the actions of the respondents violated the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA), which seeks to eliminate discrimination based on gender identity. Roxie Tickle, who identifies as a woman, was being denied access to services provided by the respondents due to his gender identity.

2. Costello states that the respondents claim that their actions were "special measures" intended to achieve equality. Costello refutes this, arguing that the discriminatory actions do not qualify as special measures under the legal definition, emphasizing that denying Ms. Tickle access to the app based on his gender identity cannot be justified as a measure to promote substantive equality.
She a number of times reiterated and expanded on why Tickle was a women i.e. due to gender surgery, hormones, birth certificate, s/he identified as one, shopped for women’s clothing, attempts to remove facial hair, using women’s change rooms, presented himself as one socially and in the workplace.

3. Costello argued that the respondents (Giggle & Grover) engaged in both direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination is cited in the refusal to respond to Ms. Tickle's requests for access to the app and the denial of service. Indirect discrimination is suggested through the application of a policy that, while seemingly neutral, disproportionately impacts individuals like Ms. Tickle who identify as women. Costello discusses how the app's policy of excluding "men" inadvertently impacts men who identify as women, failing to distinguish between cisgender men and transgender women.

4. The evidence she brought forth included:

· Testimonies and email exchanges showing that Ms. Tickle's requests for access were repeatedly ignored.
· Statements from Sall Grover in various interviews and online communications indicating she didn’t believe men could change sex. Including Grover’s answers given at the cross examination, that all actions Tickle took did not make him a woman. Which Costello asserted that they do.

· Financial and operational details about Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (first respondent) to establish that it is a trading corporation, thus falling under certain jurisdictional criteria of the Sex Discrimination Act. (i.e. bank balances etc.)

5. Costello provided legal precedents and sections of the Sex Discrimination Act to argue the validity of claims she made against Giggle & Grover.

Overall, Ms. Costello's argument focused on demonstrating that the respondents' actions are legally indefensible under the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act, as they constituted both direct and indirect discrimination against Ms. Tickle based on her/his gender identity. What she presented as evidence was aimed to show a pattern of discriminatory behaviour and a failure of the respondents to apply their policies in a manner consistent with the legal protections against gender identity discrimination.

(At this point, I offer a personal comment as in summarising this, I feel I am giving a false impression that there was a clear structure in her arguments. I did not find it so, there was a lot of repetition, righteous and indignant tone, that I found laboured her point. There was however a number of interruptions from Justice Bromwich, as he had several issues or points of clarification during Ms. Costello's argument and the assumptions, she made from the evidence she presented, that was helpful. Stephanie I felt captured more of this in her tweeting: )

*Justice Bromwich sought greater clarity on what specific acts constituted discrimination under section 22 via section 5B of the Sex Discrimination Act. He questioned whether the mere act of not responding to Ms. Tickle’s requests or the combination of not responding and not reinstating her to the app were the key discriminatory actions.

*There was a discussion about the distinction between sending and receiving communications, particularly in-app messages. Bromwich emphasized the need for clear evidence that the communications were not only sent but also received, as this is crucial to establishing that discrimination occurred in the manner alleged.

*Bromwich questioned how Costello characterised the discrimination (direct vs. indirect) and how these claims were supported by evidence. He pointed out potential confusion in the pleadings between direct and indirect discrimination and sought clarification on which was the primary claim and which was an alternative.

*There was a concern about whether the discrimination was pleaded in the alternative (direct and indirect) properly, as required by law. Justice Bromwich noted that the pleadings might not have clearly differentiated between these types of discrimination and mixed the language of direct and indirect discrimination.

*Justice Bromwich was interested in the argument about the respondents' claim that their actions were "special measures" intended to achieve equality. He needed persuading that actions taken to achieve equality in one area (sex) could be an acceptable defence for alleged discrimination in another area (gender identity), especially under sections 7D and 7B of the Sex Discrimination Act.

*Finally, Justice Bromwich pointed out that even if there was a policy to remove men from the app, it needed to be clear whether this policy was applied in a way that unfairly included transgender women, which would constitute indirect discrimination due to failure to distinguish between cisgender men and men who identified as women.

I felt throughout the discussion, Bromwich consistently pushed for more precise definitions and justifications of how the evidence supported the legal claims being made.

part 1 to be continued

https://twitter.com/stephbastiaan/status/1778227303069483108

Read 9 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Mar 24

1/ 🧵 In light of the recent "Women Will Speak" event, what's amiss is the controversy surrounding the unintended involvement of an individual with Nazi affiliations. After the event the major issue is a lack of an apology from the organizers. An apology is not just necessary but vital. #WomenWillSpeak

2/ I acknowledge the challenging circumstances under which you run an event. They're facing loud counter-protesters, they made a snap decision to use a powerful speaker offered by someone, unaware of his dangerous ideologies. (I'll ignore the fact that it is the job of organisers to plan for that contigency, given the posters put up inviting the noise makers) #EventSafety

3/ While the intention to amplify women's voices was in absolutely in good faith, the oversight in vetting this individual's background led to a significant misstep. There were HUGE red flags - his black attire, the website link, the fact his group had the Nazis IN their protest space last year, a google of his name has him running events for Thomas Sowell, leader of the Nazis last year. #DueDiligence

Read 11 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @KatKarena

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!