A historic victory
Paula Gerber, a professor of law at Monash University in Melbourne, rejoices that “Roxanne Tickle” won his case.
Roxanne Tickle’s win in the Federal Court is a historic victory for transgender women
The fact that it’s historic disaster for women doesn’t seem to trouble her at all.
It’s been a case closely watched by the transgender community and legal minds alike. Today in the Federal Court of Australia, a judge ruled in favour of trans woman Roxanne Tickle in her anti-discrimination case against a social media app.
I just have to say, minds that have a taste for precision in language know better than to say a community and legal minds are watching something. Minds can’t watch things; that’s the job of the eyes. A community can’t watch things; that’s the job of people. The garbled metaphor isn’t exactly wrong, but it’s a mess. It’s kind of a portentous mess, because sloppiness with concepts and categories is the entire underpinning of trans ideology. Men can’t become women, but if enough people talk enough slop fast enough for long enough, it seems everyone gives in.
Much of proceedings have on around what constitutes a woman under Australian law, and whether someone’s sex can be changed.
Erm. Words missing. The law professor seems…agitated? Distracted? Confused?
But the decision’s ramifications extend far beyond the key players in the case. It’s a landmark decision in favour of protecting the human rights of transgender people nationwide.
Please explain how it’s a human right for a man to force women to accept him in a group for women. I don’t mean just say it over and over, I mean explain it. If women can’t ever get away from men, how can women even have basic safety?
The decision provides much-needed clarity regarding the meaning of “sex”, a word not defined in the Sex Discrimination Act. Importantly, Justice Bromwich stated that “in its contemporary ordinary meaning, sex is changeable”.
Importantly, maybe, but truthfully, no.
He also noted the concept of sex has broadened over the past 30 years, especially as people can change the sex listed on their birth certificates.
Let’s do that with everything, shall we? Let’s broaden the concept of “person” to include reptiles. Let’s broaden the concept of “law” to include astrophysics. Let’s broaden the concept of “judge” to include teenagers roleplaying.
The court unequivocally rejected the argument that sex is immutable – that the sex that was presumed and assigned to a person at birth is the sex someone will always be. Justice Bromwich stated:
“The sex of a person may take into account a range of factors, including biological and physical characteristics, legal recognition, and how they present themselves and are recognised socially.”
In other words “a man is a woman if he says so, bitch.” Thanks, Justice Bromwich. Your respect for women is astonishing.
The judgment in this case provides much-needed clarity regarding the legal recognition of trans women as women.
In other words it demolishes women’s rights.
I’m still amazed by how many are willing to sign up in support of the new Lysenkoism, oh-so-confident that its current favour and influence will continue for at least as long as the rest of their lives. How can so many people (women particularly) be so easily conned by vapid word games that have no basis in truth? Are they so easily bought, so easily convinced of the power of their language to carve and bend physiological reality? Karl Rove set his sights too low; he settled for playing in the squalid little sandbox of global geopolitics; this lot is (like Lysenko) out to rewrite biology.
I still have to wonder: what’s in it for them? What reward can genderists offer them in exchange for their credibility and reputation, apart from the privilege of not being attacked (which is always provisional and revocable without warning)? Was Paula Gerber forced to write this, or was it completely voluntary? Is vocal support, however poorly reasoned, always more highly rewarded than silence? Is fleeting social cred really that valuable? Are they that blind to the absolute reality-denial upon which this judgement rests? Are their hubris meters all broken?
Browbeating now backed by the power of the state. Pernicious nonsense that is nonetheless doomed to failure because of the stubborn resistance of material reality, but dangerous while it still has the upper hand. But belief in the security and permanence of that power is as sure as an investment in real estate on in icecube in a tropical sea. It can’t last.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on A historic […]
For one thing, we were promised that that wouldn’t happen. We were told that the little bureaucratic fib of changing a handful of birth certificate markers wouldn’t disrupt society’s “concept of sex.”
But for another, sex is not a mere “concept” in the first place. Male and female — man and woman — are natural kinds, as they say in philosophy. Man and woman correspond to groupings “that reflect the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings,” per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I can certainly understand that people don’t want society to limit people’s freedoms based on the natural kind of their bodies — society should not impose limits on people’s life choices based on their sex.
But it’s a mistake to service that ideal by attempting to force everyone to unsee the immutable natural kind of each other’s sex.
There is a problem in society, an imbalance on the scales of liberty: women have less of it than men. Rather than working to increase women’s liberty, society is being told it’s easier to make the scales look balanced by merely shuffling some men over to the women’s side. Not only does that not address the imbalance, it camouflages it — actually, far worse: it severely exacerbates the inequality. Women can’t even describe themselves as a salient class anymore.
The judge said:
No it absolutely may not, thanks to that very judge. The sex of a person (or rather, anyone’s attempt to classify the sex of a person) may no longer take into account anything except for the paperwork they’ve filed with the government. It makes no difference if someone’s “biological and physical characteristics” are male or “how they present themselves” is male-typical or “how they are recognized socially” is as a man (however you’d even measure that). None of that matters if he’s filed the paperwork to say otherwise.
No one can address the imbalance between the sexes on the scales of liberty if men get to decide which sex is which.
If the masters could self-declare as their own subjects whenever the law inquired with the subjects how they were being treated, we’d never know, would we.
That judge has ruled that he only cares to hear from the masters who declare that they speak for the subjects.
“but if enough people talk enough slop fast enough for long enough,”
The Dope-ler shift. ;^)
If a lot of dumb ideas come at you very fast they sound brighter.