Following the Giggle V Tickle appeal, in the Federal Court last month, and the recent legal issues that Kirralie Smith has been facing, for recognising adult human males, it is clear that to avoid social scorn and financial ruin, Australian women are now expected to gain, what was referred to in federal court, as “perfect knowledge.”
In the hearing for the appeal of Sall Grover and her company, Giggle for Girls, we heard from the counsel for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (SDC), that when a woman confronts a man, presumably buck naked, in a change room, with all the glory of Adam on show, that, in this scenario, a woman does not have “perfect knowledge” with which to determine if that adult human male is in fact a man.
In the situation counsel described, the adult human male would be devoid of the stereotypes empowered by gender identity protections. Gender identity is now sovereign in law over “sex at birth”, or what uneducated people call “sex”.
Therefore, when confronted with a naked adult human male, a perfectly educated Australian woman is to assume she has insufficient knowledge to identify that person as a man.
If you are an Australian woman, you could lose your job and house through lack of perfect knowledge, so please take note, because ignorance is no defence in law
The Queensland Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act (2023) (BDMRA) was heavily relied on by SDC in her support for Tickle in the Giggle V Tickle appeal. The BDMRA permits registered sex to be changed with a gender identity claim.
The BDMRA now has proven application beyond falsified birth certificates, because the legal definition of gender identity it contains is of a sovereign human characteristic that exists in “name, dress, speech and behaviour”. Without the paperwork or the surgery, stereotypes are now legally enforceable, and sex is a laughable idea that only bogans and cookers believe in.
It was pointed out by the SDC, in Giggle V Tickle, that in the picture submitted to Grover’s company by Tickle, for entry to the Giggle app, Tickle was wearing a V-Neck shirt and had feminine hair, and that these were obvious indicators of a feminine gender identity. The shirt worn by Tickly looked to be a standard unisex V-Neck and in the photo it is obvious that Tickle’s hair is receding in a typical male pattern.
The court comments about the V-Neck, drew much mockery from the Australian right-leaning media, including The Australian, but not a peep was heard from them when the Queensland legislation was tabled three years ago, when the implications were being highlighted by Australian feminists.
When the BDMRA was tabled, the Queensland Government said that women were not stakeholders in the legislation. Shannon Fentiman went even further, saying that women opposing the legislation were motivated by transphobia.
The new definition of sex in Australia, on which the Sex Discrimination Act now rests, takes women’s rights from their bodies and gives the protection, right to politically organise, and sex facility access rights of women, to the performance of cultural stereotypes regardless of sex.
We can take the hypothetical woman in a change facility, that the counsel for the SDA brought up, let’s call her Eve. Eve will be in contravention of human rights law, if she reacts to an adult human male, let’s call him Adam, in the normal way any woman may act when confronted with a naked man in (the example used by the Commissioner) a designated single sex change facility.
A normal reaction for Eve would be to cry out in fear, ask for Adam to leave or be removed, protect herself (from violence, rape, impregnation, or a fetishistic flasher) or worst of all, call Adam a man. These reactions may be based on the obvious characteristics of Adam’s body, including an erect penis.
Under Australian law, Eve must wait to see what clothes Adam will wear, what his name is, how his voice sounds, and what pronouns he prefers, before she has the “perfect knowledge” needed to see if the sex of Adam has been changed with stereotypes, and if she can act to protect her female body from his male body.
Under government-mandated perfect knowledge, the performance of legally recognised stereotypes removes male pattern violence from men, because “trans women are women”. Eve, therefore, does not need to cry out or protect herself from Adam if he performs the stereotypes, because the stereotypes literally make Adam a woman. This is a lucky break for Eve, because such reactions to Adam, may cost her her house or job when he sues her for discrimination.
When human rights law is copied and pasted into the criminal law, which has started in Queensland, Adam can call the police, and Eve will be guilty of criminal violence for her normal protective responses to the sex of Adam.
Gender identity in Australian law has already created precedent where “misgendering” is punished by police and the courts as a type of violence that women enact against the Adams who perform the legally recognised stereotypes.
Kirralie Smith, a woman without perfect knowledge, has been politically opposing men participating in women’s sports with her organisation “Binary” for some time. Polls in Australia and overseas have consistently indicated that Binary’s position against men in women’s sport has majority popular support, even if the organisation promotes other views that are less broadly popular.
Kirralie, like other media commentators, has identified people of male sex playing in a women’s football team. The team has come to prominence precisely because it is so prolific with adult human males. The team is undefeated in its league, women are reportedly boycotting games for their own safety, and claims have surfaced of the injury of women by adult human males during play.
Certain players in the team, who have been identified by Kirralie as adult human males, have launched successful legal action against Kirralie, including an upheld apprehensive violence order and now a successful defamation action that may cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus costs.
The ruling against Kirralie includes the nonsense idea that there is such a thing as “living as a woman”, a proposition, again, that can’t be supported without legitimising stereotypes to replace material human sex categories.
In the Grover and Smith court actions, it is crystal clear that Australian women have no legal right to identify an adult human male, based on appearance, even if that man is naked and the woman is vulnerable, if that man can demonstrate he performs the special protected stereotypes that society has given to women. Women must employ the perfect knowledge of the government in all public life and for lesbians, even in dating spaces.
Adult human males make up between 97 and 99 per cent of violent sex offenders, and adult and juvenile human females are the majority of victims. Consequently, the adult human female is the most efficient entity, biological or mechanical, on earth, at determining an adult human male. Within a fraction of a second of meeting a person, a woman has unconsciously identified the sex and basic risk profile of a person. If that woman is in a place where she is alone or vulnerable, and if that woman carries sexual trauma, that risk profile will be performed with a level of hypervigilance.
The laughing and scoffing that is engaged in by regime feminists, of women and girls who refuse the perfect knowledge, is not just stiflingly arrogant; the application of shame to sexual boundaries is rape culture.
Without the legal ability to identify an adult human male outside of stereotypes, women are stripped of something deeper than a right of conscience, speech or religion; our instinctive protective responses have become unlawful. Consequently, the public safety, dignity, and full citizenship of women and girls has been dramatically impacted by legislation in which we were not considered stakeholders.
Not only are women prohibited from developing a single sex business model, as Sall Grover sought to do, but single sex political assembly is now illegal. Any public speech identifying a male person, past superficial stereotypes, can subject a woman to loss of employment, the removal of her assets, and open public scorn.
To reiterate, feminism, which is the political organisation of women for the rights of females, has been made illegal in Australia by the body that administers the Sex Discrimination Act. If you think this is an accident or an inevitable result of feminism, you are an idiot. We are witnessing deliberate state oppression of women and government-driven systemic rape culture.
Regime feminism is to feminism what the Chinese three-self church is to Christianity. It is a government counterfeit, designed to erase the troublesome original.
I will continue to refuse the perfect knowledge of regime feminism and continue to publicly identify Adam as male. Wherever we can, we must engage in dissident feminist action and defy the draconian state mandate of denying our sex. As the suffragettes did, so must we; they can’t put us all in prison.
Thanks for this article! As a US citizen, I’m eager to learn how embedded the gender cult is in the laws and policies of countries around the world. Australia seems to be particularly deep in this cult.
Thank you Edie for an excellent article.