Thread by @tribunaltweets2

The Tickle Vs Giggle case is being heard in federal court in Sydney, Australia. Evidence is expected to begin on Tuesday 9 April 2024, 9.30 am Sydney Time.

This is a great video to watch in the lead up for tomorrow's Tickle v Giggle hearing. Full clip:

Quick Background: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tickle-vs-gi…

Abbreviations
J = Justice Robert Bromwich
ALEXANDER RASHIDI LAWYERS:
BN = Bridie Nolan
AC = Anca Costin
KD = Kath Deves
ZH = Zelie Heger
COUNSEL FOR TICKLE:
GC = Georgina Costello
EN = Elodie Nadon
BG = Briana Goding

AHRC (Australian Human Rights Commission)
ZH = Zelie Hegel (Counsel)
GE = Grame Egerton
LR = Lara Renton

BARRY NILSSON LAWYERS
CD = Corrinna Dowling
TM = Tinashe Makamure
KS = Kylie Stone

Tickle vs Giggle case is 4 minutes from the doors opening. J (Justice Bromich) to commence 10.15 am.

The court is still empty..

Please see pinned post for details on counsel and abbreviations

Applicant's counsel has arrived..

Respondent's counsel has arrived...

SG and RT has arrived.

People are being cleared out sitting on the floor or standing...

Federal court now in session

Bromwich states no recording or filming..no transcript - no intimidation or harrassment.

J states that due to the breach of recording is the reason for no live streaming, breach of trust due to screenshot at the time.

J stating due to those that can not be trusted - no live streaming.

J states his judgement - on proceedings, conventions, evidence before - applying as the law exists not as it should be.

BN and J -discussing necessary statutes..issues of privacy.

GC is RT's main counsel - J is discussing issues of privacy around affadavits, witnesses etc. Discussing redacted versions of reports to protect privacy...

J will provide online resources to compensate for lack of live stream, providing redacted versions of statements etc

BN talking about Helen Joyces witness, asking for video link..

Helen Joyce's witness organised for Wednesday 10.15 am for 11 am.

J suggested start the court earlier at 10 am for Joyce

GC - will make open submissions to frame the argument..

GC - 1 RT is a woman - confirming claim, respondents 'deny that fact' 1st respondant Giggle and 2nd respondent is SG. 'Evidence show is woman due birth cert, gender affirmation surgery, has name that is woman feels like a woman..

GC says Sex and Gender not binary - in that can change from one to another due to case law - not biological not chromosonal question but - psych.

GC references AHRC remarks. Refers to AB case in South Australia - 'gender is not merely a biological question - its part psychological part social...

GC references past cases - due to hysterectomies - due to requests for marriage based on changed gender... RT says 'that fact - gender identity is as a woman' and 'percieved identity is a woman' RT's claim is denied - RT is protected due to protected characteristic

GC gender not defined in act.
2. Respondent discriminated due to gender identity - section 5b sets what gender discrimination is - effect subject 7b and 7d - 7d provides a person make take special measures - takes substantial measures to achieve equaltiy..

key provision says GC - section 7d tells what discrimination is - and section 2, to discriminate on grounds of gender identity - 2nd point Giggle discriminations in provision of goods and services - SG is also liable

4. not authorised under section d - says GC. Says respondent cited 7d - but in respondants 7d, sub para a.1a .
GC 'we do not dispute that measures can take actions to have equality tween men and women ; - challenges - that Giggle is a special measure for being a substantial aim

to achieve equality - coz 'RT is a woman'

GC says the sections - do not apply to this special measure. Now discusses 'special measures' - past examples about operation of 7d.

GC application of 7d taken for the purpose of equality - said to be subjective - but court has objectively assess if the actions achieved the special measure - to achieve equality.

Walker and Cormack 2011 - case example - assisting females in election - J Gray upheld the findings - provision of women only class - was a special measure - respondants acted reasonably in that case. But man was not refused (?)

point 4 - respondant contact - not authorised under 7d poing 5 - award should be made for damages under Human rights acts - GC says was warranted as SG said continually that RT was not a woman

5. More sections GI (gender identity) is protected - section issue - 7. birth death acts not in contradiction of SDA (sex discrimination act)

Final issue GC says - says RT be called 'Miss Tickle'

BN replies - social media all dating websites - there is exclusively trans apps - J is considering Giggle app. SG had experienced sexual abuse - in States - as friend. SG's mother suggested an app to provide support for women in that situation..

Key feature - safe place - for employment , abuse etc. Vision for app to create a refuge from males - for serious reasons, less, without aggression, stalking , male pattern violence etc.

Place to get advice - in a female only env. positive impact for women. BN is describing the details of services of what can be done on the APP - extensive examples given

BN notes created a Lesbian dating platform - as bumble, tinder not accomadating (?)

BN is describing the verification process to get on board to screen out males..

BN explains the need for 'selfie' - AI etc and describes the onboarding process - creating profiles etc. If user rejected based on AI determined male - then can't access. Software has 94% accuracy - not 100 so that not reject female..

RT's femaleness is the only relevant discriminatory - their appearance - by reason of their biological sex. The app was designed to accept females with transgender identity - designed so women not excluded.

Meaning "biological human female" as woman. BN - says app was approved by Apple, google etc. A small selection uses - the app came under attack.

SG got a lot of abuse due to app, first learnt of term of TERF - on that day got 5000 applications - 8 feb 202o after first attack of app. Always intention that humans would correct the software - monitor onboarding.

Watched thousands of men attempting to onboard, they mainly failed. While SG was in labour - an online activist called for an attack on the app - subsequent acts resulted august 2022 (?) taken down

In february 2022 - got many calls from RT complaining being removed. SG cited RT's photo. Colin Wright a biologist...

BN - enquires if J has read Wright's report that there are only 2 sexes - 2 sexes create primary and secondary characters - connected to..the binary. Reasonable for SG to recognise RT is male.

BN - SG knew nothing about RT prior to complaints on social media/twitter. SG due to nature of Twitter -didn't pay attention to RT - as had many male complaints. As one of many SG blocked RT twitter handle. RT complained about being blocked..

SG doesn't recollect - as not personal - blocked many . BN describing the nature of twitter and twitter engagements.

RT removed oct 21 - RT recording on twitter after date (?) that entering the app was on giggle that this was for RT "affirming' -

BN - made 18 emails and calls to SG - and yet at time said lost interest in the giggle app

BN - a person doesn't discriminate against another (7d) (mumble) - Giggle is an online refuge - describing why Giggle relates to a special measure for equality. BN notes that the constant attacks - confirms the male pattern of violence and need for App

BN discusses what Joyce will share on the need for app. BN notes that the online world is different to a court room, J states no point for Open Justice to be online (?) ..

BN discusses need for protecting women from male pattern violence IRL and online

BN mentions another witness - Muslime (lost name) Janet Fraser , Holly Lawford-SMith examples of women abused. GC objects these examples - in regard to the time - J is reluctant to shut BN's witness report down...

J - states those witnesses describes the need of that app for those witnesses online experiences - BN emphasises their importance - J asks GC to be conservative in rejecting affadavit reports - for purpose of court

J says - the point of these witnesses to prove the need for special measure enquires - asks if can the point be made on a few rather than listed all - or are there different categories of those witnesses. J is letting BN continue but says 'not particularly good advocacy'..

..to the list of the evidence rather than framing the arguments - J doesnt want to be excused of censoring BN

BN is justifying the witnesses referencing other sections of act (?) J confirms that is a convention argument BN says 'correct'

BN - expands on the context of a constitutional challenge - BN talks about the 'ordinary meaning' based on state statutes - ordinary means biological sex and legal sex - these state statutes that GI informs their legal sex.

legal sex makes a person capable of being a man AND a woman

BN - man or woman until one is observed - what is observed of RT is male - sex is discriminatory - talks recognition - of male vs female. Sex is recognised various conventions - and sex clearly recognised by CEDAW...

When GI comes in conflict with sex - CEDAW states Sex must prevail - BN gives sections that support that argument.

J - states Protections is next on schedule. GC is talking - is listing objections against BN's affadavits. BG will discuss that.

BG - J and BN discussing relevant affadavits to discuss.

@threadreaderapp unroll