Confusion.

Tickle v Giggle; remember that?

I went looking for some reporting to refresh my memory, and up popped the ever-diligent BBC.

A transgender woman from Australia has won a discrimination case against a women-only social media app, after she was denied access on the basis of being male.

The Federal Court found that although Roxanne Tickle had not been directly discriminated against, she was a victim of indirect discrimination – which refers to when a decision disadvantages a person with a particular attribute – and ordered the app to pay her A$10,000 ($6,700; £5,100) plus costs.

But so many decisions “disadvantage” people with “a particular attribute.” We all have some particular attributes, right? So we should all keep a sharp eye out for disadvantages, so that we can sue people and get a few thousand plus costs.

Anyway, I just wanted to revisit this sentence, which I think I probably grumbled about when it was first published.

As someone who identifies as a woman, Tickle claimed she was legally entitled to use services meant for women, and that she was discriminated against based on her gender identity.

And he won.

So why doesn’t that apply more broadly? Why can’t people “identify as” people who are legally entitled to whatever they feel like having? As a CEO with a huge salary, as an Olympic athlete, as a rock star, as the host of a popular tv talk show, as your best friend, as a trainer of flying horses? Why isn’t it a blanket rule that if there’s a criterion for something – entrance, membership, an award, a bonus, a promotion, a profession, first place in a contest – then everyone is legally entitled to claim to meet the criterion, and be rewarded accordingly?

In other words, how does this work? It doesn’t work with everything, in fact it doesn’t work with anything except idennifying as a woman, so why does it work with idennifying as a woman? It’s not normal law, it’s the opposite of normal law, so how did we get here?