By now most of you know that the long-running case involving Sall Grover against a guy who thinks he is a woman took a sad turn in the Federal Court yesterday as her appeal was rejected. In fact it got worse: the judge declared that she was guilty of direct discrimination against him, not just indirect discrimination. So Grover was ordered to pay $20,000 in damages (twice the original amount), plus costs of up to $100,000.
And of real interest is the fact that it was Australia’s first female Prime Minister who paved the way for this when her Labor government stripped away sex-based legal protections for biological females in Australia by changing the Sex Discrimination Act back in 2013.
Sall Grover said this in part about the decision: “I am absolutely devastated. Men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women in Australia. It is women who are being discriminated against, not the men who claim to be us. But in a sense, nothing has changed: we will all wake up tomorrow & men will still not be women.”
She also this: “The message being sent to women & girls is ‘don’t speak up. Don’t fight back. Don’t challenge us. You will be punished’.” Thankfully, however, she said that she is certainly not giving up, and she will now appeal to the High Court.
Outrage
So many have already spoken out about this gross injustice and this ugly state-sponsored assault on women. Family First’s Lyle Shelton for example was right to say this:
Sall Grover took a big hit today for the girls and women of Australia. She’s a champion. But it is our politicians who created this ridiculous situation and Liberal and Nationals did NOTHING in 9 years of Government to fix it. And of course the Governor General’s charity, the radical political lobby Equality Australia, was on hand to say how great today’s verdict was (unless you are a girl who doesn’t want to encounter a bloke in your bathroom).
Pro-life champion Dr Joanna Howe posted this: “As a mum of a teen girl who wants to go to the Olympics, the decision in Tickle v Giggle disgusts me. We need our country back.” And Pauline Hanson said the Giggle v Tickle ruling “flies in the face of biological reality and strips rights from women.”
Rachael Wong of Women’s Forum Australia wrote this:
I’m honestly still in shock. And I’m angry. Angry that men who claim to be women are not only women in law, but have more rights than the actual women the law was designed to protect. Angry that women and girls have been told, once again, that our spaces, boundaries and safety matter less than men’s feelings. Angry that this insanity is being championed at the highest levels by ideologically captured governments and institutions. Angry that Sall Grover has been left to carry this burden for the past 4.5 years when our politicians could have fixed our laws in an instant. No more cheap talk about women’s rights and safety. Parliament must fix the Sex Discrimination Act NOW.
Even well-known women from overseas have spoken about this case. Tennis star Martina Navratilova said this about the outcome: “Patriarchy is alive and well in Australia. And women have no safe place to go as their own except their home, hopefully. Beyond disappointing. This won’t last because it is wrong on so many levels. But for now, here we are.”
And J. K. Rowling in the UK said this: “Western society is currently divided between people who know this is a man and are prepared to say so and those who know this is a man but lie out of obedience to an ideology. There is no third option. Literally nobody on earth thinks ‘Roxanne Tickle’ is actually a woman.”
Legal challenge to the SDA
There are now various calls being made to deal with the changes that Gillard and Co made to the Sex Discrimination Act which was enacted back in 1984, but changed by Gillard in 2013. The Shadow Minister for Women Melissa McIntosh, Liberal MP from NSW, said this: “Following today’s Federal Court ruling which is a blow to women’s rights, it is time for a review of the Sex Discrimination Act. Our laws need to work for Australian women, not against them.”
Liberal Senator for Victoria Sarah Henderson put it this way:
The shock decision by the Full Federal Court in Giggle v Tickle means women no longer have the right to gather in their own spaces without the presence of biological men. For the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls, as well as men and boys, single-sex spaces must be protected. Biological sex matters. The Sex Discrimination Act as it’s been interpreted means gender ideology trumps biological reality. That’s profoundly wrong and unjust, and the law must be changed. A future Coalition government under Angus Taylor’s leadership will do just that. Sall Grover is a champion for women and women’s rights. She is a champion for common sense.
And as South Australia Liberal Senator Leah Blyth posted: “The outcome of the Giggle v Tickle appeal today, means the law must change. Thank you to @salltweets for standing up for women’s sex based rights in Australia despite enormous personal and professional sacrifice. I am devastated for you. This debate is far from over.”
National’s leader Senator Matt Canavan tweeted:
Last year I moved a Bill in the Senate with Senator Alex Antic that would re-establish the definition of man and woman in the Sex Discrimination Act. My Nationals colleague, Alison Penfold, will introduce a similar Bill to the House soon. Yesterday the Federal Court made a decision that proved that these changes are needed. The court’s decision effectively prevents women and girls from having their own single sex spaces. The Nationals will fix this by supporting laws that define two biological genders, male and female, in the Sex Discrimination Act. This won’t take rights away from anyone but it will ensure that women and girls (and men and boys) can protect spaces that they wish to reserve for them. We will ensure that there is protection for services, activities and spaces exclusively for women. There are two biological genders, male and female, and that is a real thing. It is just common sense for our laws to recognise that.
And Kirralie Smith of Binary posted these words: “Thank you Alison Penfold for your commitment to truth, reality and women! Alison is my MP and has been a tremendous support. Please get on to your local MP and demand they vote in favour of this bill.”
Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kindby Saad, Gad (Author)
Saad does discuss the trans madness in various places in his new volume. In one place he mentions a testimony he gave as an expert witness to a Canadian Senate hearing back in 2017. Part of what he said back then is worth sharing here:
Ongoing governmental efforts are pushing for a gender-neutral society to cater to an extraordinarily small number of non-binary or non-gendered people who feel marginalized at having to provide their biological sex as part of their profiles. This is the tyranny of the minority. Ninety-nine per cent of the population should acquiesce to having a default feature of their personhood erased because a few individuals might be inconvenienced by it.
The slippery slope of totalitarian lunacy awaits us. Some are now proposing that racial categories constitute “biological essentialism’” and instead we should respect racial self-identities. This is known as transracialism, as per Rachel Dolezal who was born white but who self-identifies as black. How long before the government tables legislation to combat bigotry against the transracial? What about fat phobia? There are many more Canadians who are overweight than transgendered, and the collective abuse that they experience is sizeable. Should the government legislate such hate? The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
As someone who escaped religious persecution in Lebanon and whose parents were kidnapped in Beirut, I fully support the protection of all individuals from institutional discrimination. That said, I am weary of the ethos of victimhood that has parasitized our culture. The operative motto is not, “I think therefore I am,” but “I am a victim therefore I am.” I refer to this condition as Collective Munchausen, namely the pathological quest for sympathy and empathy by proclaiming victim status using identity politics and intersectionality. People have the right to live as equal citizens under the law. They do not have the right to demand that their identities be coddled and celebrated lest they might otherwise get offended. (pp. 107-108)
What is happening to Sall is happening to so many other women. We all should be horrified at these diabolical attacks on women and their rights. But we can take heart that so many are speaking out against this. And if you are a praying person, please keep involved in regular intercession, as this is really a spiritual battle.
Indeed, given that absolutely no one until five minutes ago (figuratively speaking) ever believed that a man could become a woman or vice versa, the only real way we can account for all the folks who now believe this is to put it down to one likely reality: Satanic deception of the highest order. Those who are involved in this or promoting it may need “sympathy” and “understanding”, but they also might need some exorcisms.
As to the huge legal costs that Sall is facing, there is a way that you can support her and her vital work: Please check out this website and please donate: http://gigglecrowdfund.com
Important update
Federal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor just posted this:
Yesterday the Full Federal Court confirmed that Australian law does not properly protect single sex spaces for women and girls. Most Australians would find that hard to believe. A coalition government I lead will fix this. We will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure that women and girls (and men and boys) have protections based on biological sex.
We will define biological sex in the Act. Male or female. The sex you are born. And we will protect single-sex spaces across Australian life.
This is not radical. It is common sense.
Let me be clear about what this is not. This is not about targeting transgender Australians. Every protection they currently have remains. We are not removing a single protection from anyone. But we are recognising something that should never have been in doubt: biological sex is real, it matters, and women and girls deserve spaces where it is respected.
This will be a first-term priority.
The Prime Minister now has a simple question to answer. Does he believe women and girls deserve protections based on biological sex?
This has happened to men as well. Men’s only spaces have been slowly eroded over the last 50 yrs thanks to feminists like Gillard and our quasi totalitarian gov/judiciary.
This is a problem of state control first and foremost which has colonised almost every aspect of our lives and every nook and cranny in our civic life. No one in authority should have the right to tell anyone or any institution who they can and cant hire or associate.
Correct Damien.
So we can finally drop the pretence that the Left in general, and the ALP in particular are pro-woman?
Sounds right to me Ben.
Thankfully President Trump has fought the fight and the next Olympics in America, will not see biological men competing as women.
Yes Ken, some countries are heading in the right direction on this.
In my father’s day not knowing whether you were Arthur or Martha was considered the height of delusion, which of course it is. Unfortunately we, in Australia, now apparently have laws based on delusion which courts, in complete disregard for common law, want to enforce in the strictest possible sense apparently based on passports rather than biology. I understand that the UK has already passed law stating that sex relates to biology, which it obviously does but Australia is so far out on left field in this that we are pretty much off the planet.
Australia used to be regarded as the “lucky country” and I am of the firm belief that this was because of our “fair go” attitude – God loves justice but these women are not given justice. Justice must, pretty much by definition, be based on truth. Without truth there is no justice.
Quite so Michael.
Just read Kipling’s The Gods of the Copybook Headings again and so fitting for this day.
Thanks Damien.
Males, females and chromosome differences
* God created two genders, man and woman. * God created man with XY chromosomes in each of his 37.2 trillion cells. * God created woman with XX chromosomes in each of her 37.2 trillion cells. * Man says, no, there are 58+ genders.
Males, females and pelvis differences
The male and female pelvis have distinct differences, primarily driven by reproductive and biomechanical requirements. Here are the main differences:
*Female Pelvis:*
1. Wider and shallower 2. Larger pelvic outlet (10-12 cm) 3. Wider pelvic inlet (13-14 cm) 4. More rounded pelvic brim 5. Larger subpubic angle (90-100°) 6. Smaller sacrum and coccyx 7. More flexible joints
*Male Pelvis:*
1. Narrower and deeper 2. Smaller pelvic outlet (8-10 cm) 3. Narrower pelvic inlet (10-11 cm) 4. More angular pelvic brim 5. Smaller subpubic angle (50-60°) 6. Larger sacrum and coccyx 7. Less flexible joints
These differences support:
1. Childbirth (female pelvis) 2. Weight distribution and balance (male pelvis) 3. Reproductive organ accommodation (female: uterus, male: prostate)
Understanding these differences is essential in fields like:
For Trans athletes. Rather than artificially fiddling with testosterone and testing, suggest change the 37.2 trillion (XY to XX) chromosomes, then test.
Thanks John.
Martina Navratilova called it patriarchy. Yet female PM, Julia Gillard, rewrote the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013. In 2026, female judges Melissa Perry and Wendy Abraham, with female Sex Discrimination Commissioner Dr Anna Cody advising the court, ruled against female founder Sall Grover with a $120,000 fine — in favour of a biological male. Every person who wrote, advised, and delivered the law against Sall Grover was a woman.
Correct Tim.
Under the Australian Human Rights Commission-administered Sex Discrimination Act, the Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of:
Sex
and
Gender identity
What a minute. Both can not protected, when they are. mutually exclusive.
We remember in late 2017 an Australia-wide, voluntary survey was conducted which asked respondents: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?“. The survey offered two one-word responses: “Yes” or “No“. The survey outcome was a, “Yes” result.
However, the government did not release its draft bill (formulated in early 2017) legalising same-sex marriage prior to the survey, which led to uncertainty over what form legislation would take in the event of a “Yes” verdict.
The wording of an exposure draft of a same-sex marriage bill from early 2017, released by George Brandis – from the Attorney-General’s office, after the survey, proposed to amend the definition of “marriage” and replace the terms “man” and “woman” with the gender neutral phrase “two people”. The proposed wording “two people” differed from the wording of the survey question, which referred explicitly to “same-sex couples”.
Which raises the obvious question (particularly from the Bi community), “What is so special about, two(2) people” ?
This has happened to men as well. Men’s only spaces have been slowly eroded over the last 50 yrs thanks to feminists like Gillard and our quasi totalitarian gov/judiciary.
This is a problem of state control first and foremost which has colonised almost every aspect of our lives and every nook and cranny in our civic life. No one in authority should have the right to tell anyone or any institution who they can and cant hire or associate.
Correct Damien.
So we can finally drop the pretence that the Left in general, and the ALP in particular are pro-woman?
Sounds right to me Ben.
Thankfully President Trump has fought the fight and the next Olympics in America, will not see biological men competing as women.
Yes Ken, some countries are heading in the right direction on this.
In my father’s day not knowing whether you were Arthur or Martha was considered the height of delusion, which of course it is. Unfortunately we, in Australia, now apparently have laws based on delusion which courts, in complete disregard for common law, want to enforce in the strictest possible sense apparently based on passports rather than biology. I understand that the UK has already passed law stating that sex relates to biology, which it obviously does but Australia is so far out on left field in this that we are pretty much off the planet.
Australia used to be regarded as the “lucky country” and I am of the firm belief that this was because of our “fair go” attitude – God loves justice but these women are not given justice. Justice must, pretty much by definition, be based on truth. Without truth there is no justice.
Quite so Michael.
Just read Kipling’s The Gods of the Copybook Headings again and so fitting for this day.
Thanks Damien.
Males, females and chromosome differences
* God created two genders, man and woman. * God created man with XY chromosomes in each of his 37.2 trillion cells. * God created woman with XX chromosomes in each of her 37.2 trillion cells. * Man says, no, there are 58+ genders.
Males, females and pelvis differences
The male and female pelvis have distinct differences, primarily driven by reproductive and biomechanical requirements. Here are the main differences:
*Female Pelvis:*
1. Wider and shallower 2. Larger pelvic outlet (10-12 cm) 3. Wider pelvic inlet (13-14 cm) 4. More rounded pelvic brim 5. Larger subpubic angle (90-100°) 6. Smaller sacrum and coccyx 7. More flexible joints
*Male Pelvis:*
1. Narrower and deeper 2. Smaller pelvic outlet (8-10 cm) 3. Narrower pelvic inlet (10-11 cm) 4. More angular pelvic brim 5. Smaller subpubic angle (50-60°) 6. Larger sacrum and coccyx 7. Less flexible joints
These differences support:
1. Childbirth (female pelvis) 2. Weight distribution and balance (male pelvis) 3. Reproductive organ accommodation (female: uterus, male: prostate)
Understanding these differences is essential in fields like:
1. Obstetrics and gynaecology 2. Orthopedics 3. Anthropology 4. Forensic science
Remember we are told to, “trust the science”.
For Trans athletes. Rather than artificially fiddling with testosterone and testing, suggest change the 37.2 trillion (XY to XX) chromosomes, then test.
Thanks John.
Martina Navratilova called it patriarchy. Yet female PM, Julia Gillard, rewrote the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013. In 2026, female judges Melissa Perry and Wendy Abraham, with female Sex Discrimination Commissioner Dr Anna Cody advising the court, ruled against female founder Sall Grover with a $120,000 fine — in favour of a biological male. Every person who wrote, advised, and delivered the law against Sall Grover was a woman.
Correct Tim.
Under the Australian Human Rights Commission-administered Sex Discrimination Act, the Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of:
Sex
and
Gender identity
What a minute. Both can not protected, when they are. mutually exclusive.
We remember in late 2017 an Australia-wide, voluntary survey was conducted which asked respondents: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?“. The survey offered two one-word responses: “Yes” or “No“. The survey outcome was a, “Yes” result.
However, the government did not release its draft bill (formulated in early 2017) legalising same-sex marriage prior to the survey, which led to uncertainty over what form legislation would take in the event of a “Yes” verdict.
The wording of an exposure draft of a same-sex marriage bill from early 2017, released by George Brandis – from the Attorney-General’s office, after the survey, proposed to amend the definition of “marriage” and replace the terms “man” and “woman” with the gender neutral phrase “two people”. The proposed wording “two people” differed from the wording of the survey question, which referred explicitly to “same-sex couples”.
Which raises the obvious question (particularly from the Bi community), “What is so special about, two(2) people” ?