Category: Sexual Harassment

Tickle vs. Giggle | The Spectator Australia

A landmark case is about to hit the Federal Court that will either confirm or challenge the ongoing attempt by the Australian government to erase ‘women, ‘female’, and ‘girl’ as sex-based categories.

Tickle vs. Giggle could be the title of a tween pillow fight, but it is the culmination of years of the legal erasure in Australia of the link between Australian women as recognised legally and the vulnerabilities of the female body.

Unfortunately, this is by no means a fair fight. Gender identity is a top-down movement, and the push for sex-based rights is bottom-up. Tickle will seek assistance from affiliates of billion-dollar law firms like Dentons, while Giggle and Grover will look to crown[sic] funding predominately from ordinary women.

Flat White

Tickle vs. Giggle

A landmark case is about to hit the Federal Court that will either confirm or challenge the ongoing attempt by the Australian government to erase ‘women, ‘female’, and ‘girl’ as sex-based categories.

Tickle vs. Giggle could be the title of a tween pillow fight, but it is the culmination of years of the legal erasure in Australia of the link between Australian women as recognised legally and the vulnerabilities of the female body.

Sall Grover is a Gold Coast businesswoman who heads a social media company called Giggle. Giggle is an app for females. The intention of Giggle is to provide a safe digital space for women and girls, where they can find a flatmate, organise socially, date (if they are same-sex attracted), and chat in an environment free of males. You can read Sall’s story for yourself, which involves her recovery from the well-publicised systemic sexual abuse problems in the Californian film industry.

In the early days of the Giggle app, Sall was faced with the decision to make the app for women as a sex or women as a gender. After a sustained campaign of abuse and harassment by people calling themselves ‘transwomen’, Sall decided to make the app exclusively for females, including trans-identifying females or ‘transmen’. On Giggle, it would be the possession of female body, regardless of identity, that puts you in the ‘in’ crowd.

In January 2022, Sall Grover received a complaint from the Australian Human Rights Commission. The complaint was lodged by Roxy Tickle and referenced a tweet exchange between Sall and Roxy in January 2021 in regard to the McIver’s Ladies Baths in Sydney. The complaint also referenced interaction on the Giggle app where Roxy allegedly gained access and was removed on the basis of sex.

Sall Grover received the initial AHRC complaint by Tickle not long after she announced her pregnancy on Twitter. The complaint remains unresolved because Sall refused to attend gender identity re-education and open her app to males.

Tickle has now filed for a hearing in the Federal Court against Giggle and Sall Grover personally.

Unfortunately, this is by no means a fair fight. Gender identity is a top-down movement, and the push for sex-based rights is bottom-up. Tickle will seek assistance from affiliates of billion-dollar law firms like Dentons, while Giggle and Grover will look to crown funding predominately from ordinary women.

‘Trans women’ we are told must be trusted without question by women, mothers, lesbians, and children in exactly that same way as biological women are, not because, as in days of old, that these males are physically or chemically castrated, but just because they have a special female essence or morality. Like it or not, women don’t always trust men who claim to have mystical powers that make them innocuous.

If Tickle wins, it will establish that males have a legal right, not just to the female sex category, but all female spaces, to view the female naked body in those spaces and to expose his male body to women and girls in public female facilities. It will also compel women to submit to the state-mandated definition of a woman, which makes her not just a subset of her own sex class, but an underclass.

Reflecting this in a dystopian tweet in February last year, Tickle insisted that Sall Grover should not refer to herself as ‘female’. Tickle said, ‘You keep on using the word “female” but I think you mean cis female?… with an F on my birth certificate … I am legally female in Australia. All of my cis girlfriends treat me the same as them.’

Grover replied, ‘For me, being treated as female is getting death threats.’

[ed: Since this article was printed Tickle has discontinued the proceedings]

Source: Tickle vs. Giggle | The Spectator Australia

If a lesbian only desires same-sex dates that’s not bigotry, it’s her right | Sonia Sodha | The Guardian

The lesbian in question is Allison Bailey, a black survivor of child sexual abuse who has overcome much adversity to become a criminal barrister. She was told by her chambers, Garden Court, to delete two tweets they said fell short of the bar’s professional standards, one of which described a workshop on “Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling” run in Canada in 2012 as coercive.

Cotton ceiling is a reference to lesbians’ knickers. It is a riff on the glass ceiling and posits that just as the professional advancement of women is hindered by sexism, the sexual acceptance of trans women is impeded by the “transphobia” of lesbians attracted only to females.

But shaming an oppressed sexual minority into dropping their boundaries, or risk being tarnished a bigot within the LGBT community, is inherently coercive. You don’t have to look far online to see women who maintain they are female-only attracted abused as transphobes, genital fetishists and worse. Women report being banned from dating apps for transphobia after stating in their profile they are looking for a biologically female partner.

This is an important reason why gender ideology – the belief that gender identity, whether someone identifies as a man or a woman, should replace biological sex in society when it comes to sports, single-sex spaces and data collection – has divided people who are gay, lesbian and bisexual. Taken to its logical conclusion, it redefines same-sex attraction as same-gender-identity attraction. But this is fiercely resisted by those who say this simply does not accord with the lived experience of their own sexuality.

Another flashpoint is the fear that in the service of this ideology, adult trans identities are being foisted on to gay, gender non-conforming children who are experiencing gender dysphoria, through hormonal and surgical interventions that have long-term health consequences. Many gay people say they temporarily experienced gender dysphoria during puberty and an independent review into the care of children with gender dysphoria has outlined how it sometimes naturally resolves itself and that gender identity can be fluid until someone’s early to mid-20s.

So many analyses of the gender ideology debate characterise it as a conflict of rights between women and trans people. But there are plenty of trans people who shun gender ideology and some women who embrace it. It is really a conflict of rights between people who want gender identity to replace biological sex in society and people, particularly women, who believe sex is relevant. In the case of lesbians and same-sex attraction, it is vital to re-establish the principle that it is never bigoted for a woman to be clear that she is exclusively attracted to other females.

Source: If a lesbian only desires same-sex dates that’s not bigotry, it’s her right | Sonia Sodha | The Guardian

Sexism in the “Bathroom Debates”

This Article addresses the issue of sex‐separation in public intimate
spaces, e.g., public bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, shower
rooms, etc. ሺcollectively called “bathrooms”ሻ. It challenges widely‐
circulated claims that sex‐separation in bathrooms was a historical
development of the late nineteenth century and that the primary reasons
for it were sexism, patriarchy, Victorian modesty, and class elitism.
Instead, it argues that sex‐separation in bathrooms dates back to ancient
times, and, in the United States, preceded the nation’s founding. It argues
as well that a key purpose of sex‐separation in bathrooms was to protect
women and girls from sexual harassment and sexual assault in the
workplace and other venues.

In the bathroom debates, the question of how bathrooms
first became sex‐separated has become a central one. Two theories have been widelydisseminated in the press as fact. One is associated with Professor Sheila
 Cavanagh, who argues that the very first instance of sex‐separated public
toilets occurred at a ball held in a Parisian restaurant in 1739. She argues
that the Parisian upper‐classes initiated this separation “to indicate class
standing and genteel respectability.”

Professor Terry S. Kogan has offered a second theory that purports to
explain how sex‐separation became such a widely‐embraced norm. He claims that the practice arose in the late nineteenth century.  Kogan maintains that when the Industrial Revolution brought large numbers of women out of the home and into factory workspaces, authorities believed that a practice of men and women using the same toilets would be indecent. Authorities also worried, Kogan argues, that the spectacle violated their ideal that men and women by nature occupied “separatespheres.” Kogan argues that a Massachusetts labor law statute, passed in 1887, was the first U.S. law mandating sex‐separation.

In conclusion, I reject the tales of the alternative bathroom histories as
too narrow. I suggest that their worst error is not merely factual, but
rather an approach that ignores and even contorts the histories and
experiences of other vulnerable groups, in this case, women and the poor,
even as they seek rights for transgender persons. Women have fought for
centuries to recover and preserve these histories. These stories are key
pillars supporting their current claims to protections against
discrimination.

The Article concludes that the alternative bathroom histories fail. As
they propose an explanation of sex‐separation that advances the interests
of some sexual minorities, they offer a narrative that oppresses women
and the female‐bodied. They ignore the stories of women’s lives and, in
particular, their struggles with sexual assault and sexual harassment. They
similarly ignore the struggles of the poor for safe intimate spaces. Women
and others must push back on approaches that contort women’s history,
for they are rooted in sexism and patriarchy, even when they may be
intended to advance the freedom of other groups.

Source: Sexism in the “Bathroom Debates”: – SSRN-id3311184.pdf

Joint Statement on Sexual Harassment Reporting Platform – Go Live 6 April 2022

From: John McKenzie NSW Legal Services Commissioner; Joanne van der Plaat, President, Law Society of NSW Michael McHugh SC, President NSW Bar Association

Source: OLSC-Sexual-Harassment-Reporting-Platform-final.pdf

Julia Banks: Liberals show lack of character with attacks on independents

Even in his early days as prime minister, Morrison had many moments that were characterised as ‘Trumpian’ and ended up in the international press for all the wrong reasons.

One was when he said: “We want to see women rise. But we don’t want to see women rise only on the basis of others (i.e. men) doing worse.”

He actually said that. And worse still, it wasn’t off the cuff or a case of the words coming out wrong. It was in his written, prepared speech for International Women’s Day in 2019. At a time when his government’s women problem was under the glare of public scrutiny.

Over the past three years, Morrison has failed to act on this problem, on climate change (think Glasgow) and on integrity (recall the broken promise for a federal anti-corruption commission) to name a few issues. And this has given rise to independent campaigns across the country in what are regarded as safe Liberal seats.

As certain candidates emerged as real threats, the Liberals responded to them in the same way they did to me. Although the incumbent MPs in these seats face perfectly fair and democratic challenges, their attacks use demeaning language and devolve into senseless and nasty personal hit-jobs through the patriarchal prism of entitlement and sexism.

And they go after those who represent the greatest threat to the party and its power: Zoe Daniel in Goldstein, Allegra Spender in Wentworth, and Monique Ryan in Kooyong. An esteemed former foreign correspondent, a successful businesswoman, and a paediatric neurologist respectively.

Articulate professional women who have worked hard their entire adult lives in substantial careers, where their success would have been impossible without high intellect, good judgement, sound values and strong ethics.

Women who have raised families and lived and cared for their local community and for their country.

And yet the Liberals have shamelessly called these women “puppets” and “fake independents”, and their campaigns everything from “a front for the Labor Party and the Greens” to “a fraud” and “immoral”.

All of this is not only insulting and disgusting – it can be harmful and incite further abuse. Not just of these women and their families but of their staff, volunteers and the tens of thousands of people who are supporting them.

These are women with whom, as a former Liberal, I share the same values and beliefs – in truth, integrity, inclusion, climate change action and a future-focused economy. Values and beliefs that have taken a backseat in Morrison’s party to such an extent that they may as well take the word ‘liberal’ out of their party name completely, just as MPs have taken it off their campaign material.

The Liberals do not ‘own’ these seats and these women are not “anti-liberal”. They are “pro Australia”, and our country is lucky that women of their calibre are running for office.

Source: Julia Banks: Liberals show lack of character with attacks on independents

The Oscars take one step forward and two steps back

Hollywood not only continues to objectify women, but is pushing a misogynist agenda, disguised as progressive politics.

This year, the Academy Awards offered a few pleasant surprises, including the Oscar for Best Director going to New Zealander Jane Campion for The Power of the Dog. Only two other women have won this prestigious honour in 94 years of Oscar ceremonies: Chloé Zhao for Nomadland, last year, and Kathryn Bigelow, in 2009, for The Hurt Locker.

Another welcome surprise was the Best Picture Oscar winner, CODA, directed by a woman: American writer/director Sian Heder.

Other aspects of Oscar night were less unusual, beginning with the hypersexualized women’s fashions. Many of the actresses — not to mention co-hosts, performers, and female guests — who were photographed and interviewed on the red carpet (or attending the popular Vanity Fair Oscars after party) demonstrated that the double standard regarding men and women’s fashions remains alive and well.

Despite the actress-led #MeToo movement and “Time’s Up” endeavour, Hollywood women have declined to push back against objectifying industry norms, lest it challenge their own bottom line.

Most men did not dress much differently than they did in early days of Oscar ceremonies. It is women’s dress codes that seem to have changed most substantially, regressing from fashions that allowed the audience to focus on the award rather than on body parts.

Maintaining the theme of woke misogyny, Oscar attendees took the opportunity to virtue signal their adherence to a queer ideology that seems intent on erasing women.

The actress formerly known as Ellen Page, who recently had an elective double mastectomy and changed her name to Elliot, was a presenter for the Best Original Screenplay award . . . Page, sporting a tuxedo, was likely the most covered woman there. It seems it becomes acceptable for women not to self-objectify only if they claim to be male.

The most memorable moment of the evening was of course Will Smith’s narcissistic efforts to white knight himself, slapping Chris Rock onstage in defense of his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. Rock’s joke about Pinkett Smith’s bald head, due to her alopecia, was tepid, and the fact Smith’s embarrassing outburst went unchallenged seems to say a lot about how the Oscar’s “woke” veneer has in fact moved us back decades.

Source: The Oscars take one step forward and two steps back

Dyson Heydon victims secure settlement – Lawyers Weekly

The victims of sexual harassment by former High Court justice Dyson Heydon have secured a six-figure compensation payout from the federal government.

Attorney-General Michaelia Cash has confirmed that Rachel Patterson Collins, Chelsea Tabart and Alex Eggerking were awarded a secret compensation payout reported to exceed more than a million dollars. In making the announcement, Ms Cash said the government had listened to and apologised to all three women.

Source: Dyson Heydon victims secure settlement – Lawyers Weekly

Female mine workers report sexual assault, harassment to independent Rio Tinto review – ABC News

An independent review finds sexism and bullying is systemic across Rio Tinto’s worksites, with more than 20 women reporting actual or attempted rape or sexual assault in the last five years.

Source: Female mine workers report sexual assault, harassment to independent Rio Tinto review – ABC News

Ambulance Victoria paramedics allege rape, bullying and sexual assault at work

A human rights inquiry found 348 people were still experiencing unlawful conduct when surveyed and “this raises serious concerns about the harm that is being experienced by the organisation’s employees and first responders”.

Twelve Ambulance Victoria employees have reported rape or attempted rape or sexual assault at work, and two men have been referred to Victoria Police by the organisation for the alleged sexual assault of colleagues.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission found more than half of employees (52.4 per cent) said they had been bullied, nearly half (47 per cent) said they had experienced discrimination and 33 reported pressure for sex or requests for sex acts at work.

While many stressed that most male paramedics supported gender equality, a “boys’ club” culture entrenched in some long-standing pockets of management had enabled unlawful behaviour, which several people said had caused them to have suicidal thoughts or plan how to take their lives.

Source: Ambulance Victoria paramedics allege rape, bullying and sexual assault at work

A ban on victims selling their silence will have unintended consequences

Opinion: A ban on victims selling their silence will have unintended consequences.

In most disputes about bullying or sexual harassment there is a common desire to seek resolution with minimal disruption to the careers and damage to the reputation of all stakeholders – employers and employees included. Most do not want media scrutiny. Most want confidentiality and privacy, which can be achieved with an NDA, which is often a two-way agreement.

Banning silence will not achieve these ends and would, in fact, stifle prompt and (comparatively) painless resolution of complaints and, importantly, fast access to compensation.Sexual harassment and bullying cases are not big dollar value claims, but employers are frequently prepared to be generous early for an economically efficient outcome. This is understandable given the cost to an employer for an investigation can be between $20,000 to $50,000, and defending formal proceedings much higher.

If respondents to claims are unable to buy silence from complainants, then there is more of an incentive to try to defend the matter and their reputation during formal litigation, involving vigorous attempts to discredit the complainant.Further, respondents are going to fear the implication that a settlement is an admission of wrongdoing. Given that there would be no chance of using an NDA to avoid adverse messaging, and paying a settlement early in the process may be seen as indicative of guilt, why would an employer strike any early bargain?

The expense in funding sexual harassment matters to the point of judgment is considerable. If the complainant fails to make out their case, then they are exposed to a costs order, which often leads to debts in excess of a $100,000.If there is no prospect of a substantial negotiated settlement, many complainants will not have the necessary appetite for risk or the resources to fund themselves while waiting for court-ordered compensation.

This will have the unintended result of fewer people complaining about misconduct in the workplace.And while there is merit to the contention that NDAs can hide habitual misconduct, our view is that this is a responsibility that sits squarely on the shoulders of boards and management who – in these times – would be foolish to protect employees who are repeatedly the subject of complaint.

Source: A ban on victims selling their silence will have unintended consequences