Alice Crowe

There seems to be some confusion amongst some people, so I will explain it as clearly as I can: Australia’s sex discrimination act was created for women, on the basis of our sex. When it was enacted in 1984 (ominous year, in hindsight) employment was a big part of it. There was a part of the act, section 7D, that allowed “special measures” where things exclusively for women weren’t even classed as discrimination, basically when it was being a woman is what actually mattered in the situation. Specific employment/opportunity provisions and… woman-only spaces fell/fall into this category. In 2013, the Gillard amendments introduced “gender identity” while taking the definitions of woman & man out of the act. Sex was never defined, but in a normal world it didn’t have to be. It could only have meant one thing (a mistake, again in hindsight). By the time the trans absurdity hit fever pitch, Australian institutions were captured. This included those meant to be the custodians of the SDA. Suddenly, all they cared about was “gender identity” aka transgender ideology. When the Tickle v Giggle case came along, it started with an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint. To settle it, aka not have it advance to federal court, I was expected to just agree with transgender ideology. I don’t. I wish I could say I completely understood the magnitude at the time, but it’s almost impossible to. You think you do, but you don’t really until it hits you like a bus. But what I did know, instinctively, was that if I folded, I couldn’t live with it, nor would it help because all it signaled was that “we” would just accept it if threatened. I found myself in a position to challenge the absurdity, and I did, because I knew not doing it would have been worse no matter what. Obviously, everyone knows now, the courts ruled against me in every way they could. From what a woman is, to 7D, to damages. I lost - and have lost - everything. But what does it mean to everyone else in reality? It means the sex discrimination commissioner told the court that the ordinary meaning of woman includes men who claim to be women, and the court accepted that. Men who claim to be women are women in Australia, via the only legislation they have to validate it. It means that for every aspect of the SDA, per the SDC’s demand, woman includes men who claim to be women. From employment to women only spaces to pregnancy protections, because of section 7D. Did we warn about this in our court submissions and arguments? Yes. That was actually our entire case. You can read it. It’s all publicly available. The high court said that we would have no possibility of success. We were arguing that women is adult human female and this matters in, tada, section 7D. That was it. The high court said “hell no way”. The high court is captured too. As it stands, due to legal precedent, a special measure for women based on sex does not provide a defense to gender identity discrimination. That means that all special measures for women fall to gender identity, which will only be used by men who claim to be women, and includes - tada - employment, and women only spaces. It means that men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women, while simultaneously taking away our rights. I don’t know how many more times I could say the “Tickle v Giggle” case is about more than “just” one app, I’ve been saying it for almost 5 years, but I will continue to do it until everyone understands. They wiped women’s rights off the map. It’s a f—ing mess. It doesn’t work. It’s incoherent. It’s ideological. It writes women out of law. It’s corruption. It’s totalitarian. It’s bullsh-t. It’s the test of any government: are you ok with legislating a lie?