It’s a question that has stumped politicians, academics and even US Supreme Court justices: What is a woman? Well, an Australian federal court judge has decided the issue: anyone who says they are.
That’s the outcome of a case whose very name screams ‘Clown World’: Tickle v Giggle.
The case resulted from a male transsexual, who dubs himself “Roxanne Tickle” (thereby proving that the whole thing isn’t just fetishistic role-playing), who got his lady-panties in a twist when his application to join a women’s-only social app was declined. The rejection was on the basis that “Tickle’s” profile photo was quite obviously a bull-faced man who resembled a retired prize-fighter in bad makeup and a wig. As ageing male autogynephiles are wont to do when rejected by women, “Tickle” ran bawling to the courts.
Justice Robert Bromwich delivered a judgement that is as weird and self-contradictory as Justice Michael Lee’s decision to believe someone whom even he described as a strategic liar, because… well, just because.
In particular, Bromwich apparently relies on the transgenderist argument that ‘gender is a social construct’, while at the same time inter-confusing it with ‘biological sex’.
In a key passage, Bromwich writes that: The term cisgender refers to a person whose gender corresponds to the sex registered for them at birth. That is to be contrasted with a person whose gender does not correspond with their sex as registered at birth, commonly referred to as transgender… I find both terms useful and convenient. But then Bromwich goes on to say that, Roxanne Tickle is a transgender woman, whose female sex is recognised… (emphasis added).
Note how smoothly Bromwich skates from “gender” to “sex”, as if the two are synonymous.
That they are synonymous is, indeed, something that many of us argue. Sex being an immutable biological characteristic, then, it logically follows that it is impossible to change gender. Therefore, “Roxanne Tickle” was born and will always be a man.
Transgender theory, on the other hand, furiously denies the synonymity of gender and sex. ‘Gender’, they argue, ‘is a social construct’.
Some go even further, and claim that ‘biological sex’ simply does not exist. This appears to be the line taken by Bromwich. Sex is entirely mutable, at will. A man doesn’t even need to cut his inconveniently male tackle off: just say so, and he’s as much a woman as your dear old mum.
Essentially, Bromwich answered the burning question of ‘what is a woman?’ by ruling that if someone identifies as a woman, that is enough. It appears that, in his view, even a surgical transition like Tickle’s is not necessary. He awarded Tickle damages of A$10,000 (£5,127) – admittedly far less than the A$200,000 (£102,500) she sought – and costs.
Still, it’s a banner day for male fetishists. The doors to women’s and girls’ change rooms are wide open. It’s the great, wet dream of every teen male horndog.
There’s no question that this case is significant well beyond the parties and even Australia. If the judgment is left to stand unchallenged, it, and Bromwich’s legal reasoning, will be relied on to justify the further intrusion of people identifying as women into woman-only spaces, and activities designated for women only. That now includes online ‘spaces’ like Giggle as well as physical spaces such as women’s change rooms.
And they’ve got the law on their side.
At least for now.
Whether Grover is going to appeal this decision is as yet unclear, but for certainty it needs to be. A high-profile precedent such as this, with ramifications affecting so many aspects of everyday life, the relations between the sexes and the fundamental question of who and what a woman is – or, indeed, what makes a man – cannot be allowed to hinge on the opinion of a single judge.
I am told that an appeal is indeed in the works – and that it was never really expected to get a win at the Federal Court level. The real game will be to mount a constitutional challenge at the High Court.
Sall Grover is bravely putting her reputation and fortune, small as it may be, on the line to challenge the repressive and intolerant ‘transgender’ ideology. In doing so, she has, like J K Rowling, made herself the target of vicious attacks by outraged male fetishists and their repulsive enablers in the ‘progressive’ establishment. Unlike Rowling, though, she doesn’t have the cushion of fame and tremendous wealth.
