正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner was asked whose side she would be on if a woman filed a court case because a man was in the woman’s bathroom. She couldn’t answer the question. While this is shocking to many people hearing all this bullshit for the first time, this is...

salltweets's profile picture

Sall Grover

187,207 subscribers

77,745 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

**Giggle v Tickle updates** • Tickle has applied to cross appeal, wanting the decision upgraded from “indirect discrimination” to “direct discrimination” + more $$$ in damages and $$$ in aggravated damages. • The Australian Human Rights sex discrimination Commissioner has once again applied to intervene. They intervened as amicus curiae in Tickle v Giggle and interpreted the law to favor gender identity over sex/legal sex over biological sex. • The Australian Christian Lobby has applied to intervene on the side of sex based rights. • The case management hearing is scheduled for February 12 at the Federal Court in Sydney. • It is likely that the appeal will be heard in August, 2025. This appeal is to the full Federal Court. That means 3 Federal Court judges not 1. Due to the cross appeal, the hearing is likely to go for 3-4 days rather than the usual 1 in an appeal. • The reason the Giggle appeal is to the full Federal Court and not the High Court is because the Tickle v Giggle decision got both facts about the case & facts about the law wrong. So it remains a Federal Court matter. • After a full Federal Court appeal decision, the side who didn’t get the decision in their favor can apply to go to the High Court. As I have said from the very beginning, I am willing to do that if that is what is necessary. • The Giggle legal team is Stuart Wood AM KC, Bridie Nolan, Anca Costin and Katherine Deves. • The next updates will be after the case management hearing & will address whether the cross appeal & interveners were permitted. • As always, thank you everyone for the endless support. It is invaluable to me. This has been a very long & stressful process for 3 years and it’s not over yet. Ultimately, I am very optimistic. In part because I know I am right - men are not women - but also because it is clear that the global capture of gender ideology is falling. • For more information & donations, please visit 🩷
1:02

**Giggle v Tickle updates** • Tickle has applied to cross appeal, wanting the decision upgraded from “indirect discrimination” to “direct discrimination” + more $$$ in damages and $$$ in aggravated damages. • The Australian Human Rights sex discrimination Commissioner has once again applied to intervene. They intervened as amicus curiae in Tickle v Giggle and interpreted the law to favor gender identity over sex/legal sex over biological sex. • The Australian Christian Lobby has applied to intervene on the side of sex based rights. • The case management hearing is scheduled for February 12 at the Federal Court in Sydney. • It is likely that the appeal will be heard in August, 2025. This appeal is to the full Federal Court. That means 3 Federal Court judges not 1. Due to the cross appeal, the hearing is likely to go for 3-4 days rather than the usual 1 in an appeal. • The reason the Giggle appeal is to the full Federal Court and not the High Court is because the Tickle v Giggle decision got both facts about the case & facts about the law wrong. So it remains a Federal Court matter. • After a full Federal Court appeal decision, the side who didn’t get the decision in their favor can apply to go to the High Court. As I have said from the very beginning, I am willing to do that if that is what is necessary. • The Giggle legal team is Stuart Wood AM KC, Bridie Nolan, Anca Costin and Katherine Deves. • The next updates will be after the case management hearing & will address whether the cross appeal & interveners were permitted. • As always, thank you everyone for the endless support. It is invaluable to me. This has been a very long & stressful process for 3 years and it’s not over yet. Ultimately, I am very optimistic. In part because I know I am right - men are not women - but also because it is clear that the global capture of gender ideology is falling. • For more information & donations, please visit 🩷

Sall Grover

1,642,539 次观看 • 1 年前

Giggle has applied to have Giggle v Tickle heard in the High Court. “We have filed for special leave in the High Court… Because the federal court is saying men can be women in law & making women only spaces effectively unisex, we are going to the High Court to challenge that.”
1:07

Giggle has applied to have Giggle v Tickle heard in the High Court. “We have filed for special leave in the High Court… Because the federal court is saying men can be women in law & making women only spaces effectively unisex, we are going to the High Court to challenge that.”

Sall Grover

216,931 次观看 • 1 个月前

Anna Cody, Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner, intervened in a federal court case against women only spaces, the accurate definition of woman & biological sex, instead in favor of men who claim to be women. All while school aged girls are not drinking water at school to avoid having to use bathrooms with boys in them, while women are being charged with vilification for accurately calling men men, while women are being injured on sports fields by men who claim to be women, while lesbians are denied their own events, while women have their lives turned upside down & have to raise almost $2million to fight for women only spaces in court, she has sided specifically with men who claim to be women. She has attended “trans rights” speaking events but never “women’s rights” events. I know she has heard the voices of women who rely on women only spaces because we submitted affidavits from these women in the Tickle v Giggle court case. Women who have been abused, women who are in recovery, women whose faith relies on sex segregation, women with trauma, women whose day to day needs require woman only spaces, lesbian women denied lesbian only events. She has ignored it all in favor of men who claim to be women. In the Giggle v Tickle appeal, it’s Giggle saying that the law can serve everyone. Have your trans only spaces, have gay only spaces, have male only spaces, have women + men who claim to be women spaces if you want, just also have female only spaces. The sex discrimination commissioner is actively against this, in favor of whatever men who claim to be women want. When you allow school girls to go without adequate single sex bathrooms, lesbians to be denied to right of single sex association, every woman who needs woman only spaces to go without, you are discriminating against women, and you’re doing it on the basis of sex. Yes, the sex discrimination commissioner is discriminating against women on the basis of sex. So for her to stand on stage and say that she not only listens to women but centers women who have experienced discrimination in her work is a demonstrable lie. I know this because I have the receipts. The sex discrimination commissioner should be forced to resign because she is not accurately doing her job. She is welcome to be a trans rights activist elsewhere but it certainly shouldn’t be in the office of the SEX discrimination commission.
1:31

Anna Cody, Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner, intervened in a federal court case against women only spaces, the accurate definition of woman & biological sex, instead in favor of men who claim to be women. All while school aged girls are not drinking water at school to avoid having to use bathrooms with boys in them, while women are being charged with vilification for accurately calling men men, while women are being injured on sports fields by men who claim to be women, while lesbians are denied their own events, while women have their lives turned upside down & have to raise almost $2million to fight for women only spaces in court, she has sided specifically with men who claim to be women. She has attended “trans rights” speaking events but never “women’s rights” events. I know she has heard the voices of women who rely on women only spaces because we submitted affidavits from these women in the Tickle v Giggle court case. Women who have been abused, women who are in recovery, women whose faith relies on sex segregation, women with trauma, women whose day to day needs require woman only spaces, lesbian women denied lesbian only events. She has ignored it all in favor of men who claim to be women. In the Giggle v Tickle appeal, it’s Giggle saying that the law can serve everyone. Have your trans only spaces, have gay only spaces, have male only spaces, have women + men who claim to be women spaces if you want, just also have female only spaces. The sex discrimination commissioner is actively against this, in favor of whatever men who claim to be women want. When you allow school girls to go without adequate single sex bathrooms, lesbians to be denied to right of single sex association, every woman who needs woman only spaces to go without, you are discriminating against women, and you’re doing it on the basis of sex. Yes, the sex discrimination commissioner is discriminating against women on the basis of sex. So for her to stand on stage and say that she not only listens to women but centers women who have experienced discrimination in her work is a demonstrable lie. I know this because I have the receipts. The sex discrimination commissioner should be forced to resign because she is not accurately doing her job. She is welcome to be a trans rights activist elsewhere but it certainly shouldn’t be in the office of the SEX discrimination commission.

Sall Grover

90,143 次观看 • 10 个月前

Thank you to Sex Matters for asking Julia Gillard if sex matters. See, it’s Gillard’s amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that removed the definition of “woman” & added “gender identity”, muddling the whole thing & allowing men who claim to be women to interpret the act to their advantage. The amendments took effect in 2013 but it’s not like the act has been working for the past 11 years. With the help of the Australian Human Rights Commission, many people & businesses have been intimidated into accepting men as women. I say “intimidated” because it is intimidating to receive an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint on the basis of alleged “gender identity discrimination” (under the Sex Discrimination Act… yes, none of it makes any sense) and have to either do everything the AHRC says or fight a lengthy & expensive Federal Court battle. The AHRC wanted me to pay the man who made the complaint against me $20,000, attend “sex & gender education”, allow him onto a female only platform & allow all men who claim to be women onto a female only platform. I said no. Not just because I want the platform to remain female only but because I am a woman & I reserve the right to say NO to men when they trespass my boundaries. So I said NO to the AHRC. What resulted has been an almost 3 year long battle. It started when I was 15 weeks pregnant. My daughter will be turning 3 when the appeal to the first Federal Court decision is heard in appeal to the Full Federal Court (3 judges). She will be 4 years old if/when it goes to the High Court. But I want her to grow up in a country where she has rights, including the right to say NO to a man in a dress. What mother would ever stop fighting for her daughter? In the Tickle v Giggle decision, the judge said that “indirect discrimination” occurred “on the basis of gender identity”. It didn’t. He was blocked from the app on the basis of sex - and his sex is male. A simple DNA test would prove that. My eyes clearly saw it. The judge, with the help of the AHRC’s absurd interpretation of the law & reality, said that “sex is changeable”. It isn’t. Sex is immutable. However, Gillard’s amendments along with state-based changes to birth certificate legislation that allows men to edit their BC to the opposite of their biological sex has created the concept of “legal sex”. Legal sex is gender identity aka gender ideology. It obliterates women’s rights to say NO to men if that man declares himself to be a woman. And that leads to verdicts of “indirect discrimination on the basis of gender identity”, despite not knowing or caring that he has a gender identity. Sex matters. This law has to change, and it will, in part because of Giggle v Tickle & everyone who supports the case, but also because of the hard work of every woman who is speaking up and saying NO to this absurd situation. We’re saying what Julia Gillard should have said in 2013. While she (evidently) can’t answer the question, I know that sex matters to Julia Gillard. I know this because she basked in being Australia’s first woman Prime Minister and has dined out on the fact for almost 10 years. Without the reality of sex, her achievement becomes obsolete. With what she did with her achievement, her legacy has become devastating. I have a lot of respect for people who admit they got something wrong. It happens. We’re all only human (and humans don’t change sex). I hope Julia Gillard takes the opportunity to admit it some time. In the meantime, women around Australia (and the world) will continue to do the work to ensure that we can say NO to men who claim to be women. Sex matters. Gender identity does not.
2:35

Thank you to Sex Matters for asking Julia Gillard if sex matters. See, it’s Gillard’s amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that removed the definition of “woman” & added “gender identity”, muddling the whole thing & allowing men who claim to be women to interpret the act to their advantage. The amendments took effect in 2013 but it’s not like the act has been working for the past 11 years. With the help of the Australian Human Rights Commission, many people & businesses have been intimidated into accepting men as women. I say “intimidated” because it is intimidating to receive an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint on the basis of alleged “gender identity discrimination” (under the Sex Discrimination Act… yes, none of it makes any sense) and have to either do everything the AHRC says or fight a lengthy & expensive Federal Court battle. The AHRC wanted me to pay the man who made the complaint against me $20,000, attend “sex & gender education”, allow him onto a female only platform & allow all men who claim to be women onto a female only platform. I said no. Not just because I want the platform to remain female only but because I am a woman & I reserve the right to say NO to men when they trespass my boundaries. So I said NO to the AHRC. What resulted has been an almost 3 year long battle. It started when I was 15 weeks pregnant. My daughter will be turning 3 when the appeal to the first Federal Court decision is heard in appeal to the Full Federal Court (3 judges). She will be 4 years old if/when it goes to the High Court. But I want her to grow up in a country where she has rights, including the right to say NO to a man in a dress. What mother would ever stop fighting for her daughter? In the Tickle v Giggle decision, the judge said that “indirect discrimination” occurred “on the basis of gender identity”. It didn’t. He was blocked from the app on the basis of sex - and his sex is male. A simple DNA test would prove that. My eyes clearly saw it. The judge, with the help of the AHRC’s absurd interpretation of the law & reality, said that “sex is changeable”. It isn’t. Sex is immutable. However, Gillard’s amendments along with state-based changes to birth certificate legislation that allows men to edit their BC to the opposite of their biological sex has created the concept of “legal sex”. Legal sex is gender identity aka gender ideology. It obliterates women’s rights to say NO to men if that man declares himself to be a woman. And that leads to verdicts of “indirect discrimination on the basis of gender identity”, despite not knowing or caring that he has a gender identity. Sex matters. This law has to change, and it will, in part because of Giggle v Tickle & everyone who supports the case, but also because of the hard work of every woman who is speaking up and saying NO to this absurd situation. We’re saying what Julia Gillard should have said in 2013. While she (evidently) can’t answer the question, I know that sex matters to Julia Gillard. I know this because she basked in being Australia’s first woman Prime Minister and has dined out on the fact for almost 10 years. Without the reality of sex, her achievement becomes obsolete. With what she did with her achievement, her legacy has become devastating. I have a lot of respect for people who admit they got something wrong. It happens. We’re all only human (and humans don’t change sex). I hope Julia Gillard takes the opportunity to admit it some time. In the meantime, women around Australia (and the world) will continue to do the work to ensure that we can say NO to men who claim to be women. Sex matters. Gender identity does not.

Sall Grover

33,164 次观看 • 1 年前

“In the Tickle v Giggle case, which is now under appeal in the federal court, women have basically been expunged from the sex discrimination act. There is no longer an inherent right for women to have women only spaces… we are seeing the denigration of the rights of women.”
1:03

“In the Tickle v Giggle case, which is now under appeal in the federal court, women have basically been expunged from the sex discrimination act. There is no longer an inherent right for women to have women only spaces… we are seeing the denigration of the rights of women.”

Sall Grover

42,007 次观看 • 8 个月前

.Barack Obama greets the WNBA All-Star practice: All of you are extraordinary. People paying attention to your excellence has been something, for basketball fans generally, a sight to see. It's been making me happy and all of you have been not just operating with some excellence on the court, but I know many of you are involved in some wonderful ventures off the court
2:08

.Barack Obama greets the WNBA All-Star practice: All of you are extraordinary. People paying attention to your excellence has been something, for basketball fans generally, a sight to see. It's been making me happy and all of you have been not just operating with some excellence on the court, but I know many of you are involved in some wonderful ventures off the court

Headquarters

54,324 次观看 • 16 天前

“Impartial journalism means making decisions to cover stories impartially. The federal court case Tickle v Giggle which found that Sall Grover did not have the right to exclude a biological man who identified as a transwoman from a woman’s only app received considerable coverage by the ABC. However the federal court appeal into the chilling impact of the sex discrimination act which, as it’s currently interpreted no longer gives women the right to female only spaces, has received no attention from the ABC…” Whoops.
2:34

“Impartial journalism means making decisions to cover stories impartially. The federal court case Tickle v Giggle which found that Sall Grover did not have the right to exclude a biological man who identified as a transwoman from a woman’s only app received considerable coverage by the ABC. However the federal court appeal into the chilling impact of the sex discrimination act which, as it’s currently interpreted no longer gives women the right to female only spaces, has received no attention from the ABC…” Whoops.

Sall Grover

38,110 次观看 • 8 个月前

Anna Cody, Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner, claims her comments about not understanding the term “biological man”, among others, were taken out of context. Here are the clips in their entirety. You be the judge as to whether she sounds better in 10minutes rather than a sound bite. Additionally, attached is a paragraph from the SDC’s submission into Giggle v Tickle arguing that giving pregnancy protections to “transwoman” makes the Act coherent. Keep in mind, this argument is being made in order to take away women’s protections to woman only spaces. If you think this makes sense… good luck to you, I suppose. (The full submissions are publicly available on the federal court website & I recommend everyone read them for themselves.)
7:35

Anna Cody, Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner, claims her comments about not understanding the term “biological man”, among others, were taken out of context. Here are the clips in their entirety. You be the judge as to whether she sounds better in 10minutes rather than a sound bite. Additionally, attached is a paragraph from the SDC’s submission into Giggle v Tickle arguing that giving pregnancy protections to “transwoman” makes the Act coherent. Keep in mind, this argument is being made in order to take away women’s protections to woman only spaces. If you think this makes sense… good luck to you, I suppose. (The full submissions are publicly available on the federal court website & I recommend everyone read them for themselves.)

Sall Grover

19,488 次观看 • 9 个月前

I will support every politician working towards fixing Australia’s sex discrimination act to ensure that sex-based rights are clear & protected. Alison Penfold’s bill is the first bill put to parliament in 2026. Soon, Pauline Hanson will submit hers (she already tried in 2024). To be honest, I support both of them. I’m not a politician, so I can. I’m just a woman who wants this issue fixed. Frankly, I don’t care if a unicorn does it, so long as it is fixed. Not just for me, but for all women in Australia & for every girl who is waiting for the adults to do something. But the problem is not the bills. The issue is the Albanese government is dismissing women’s rights as a culture war. It is important to note, this dismissal is only said to women who want sex based rights. It’s never said to the men who claim to be us. Which means, even if it was just a culture war, the government has chosen a side. Whoops. In the mean time, stay tuned for a Giggle v Tickle High Court update 🩷
1:55

I will support every politician working towards fixing Australia’s sex discrimination act to ensure that sex-based rights are clear & protected. Alison Penfold’s bill is the first bill put to parliament in 2026. Soon, Pauline Hanson will submit hers (she already tried in 2024). To be honest, I support both of them. I’m not a politician, so I can. I’m just a woman who wants this issue fixed. Frankly, I don’t care if a unicorn does it, so long as it is fixed. Not just for me, but for all women in Australia & for every girl who is waiting for the adults to do something. But the problem is not the bills. The issue is the Albanese government is dismissing women’s rights as a culture war. It is important to note, this dismissal is only said to women who want sex based rights. It’s never said to the men who claim to be us. Which means, even if it was just a culture war, the government has chosen a side. Whoops. In the mean time, stay tuned for a Giggle v Tickle High Court update 🩷

Sall Grover

32,680 次观看 • 2 个月前

Charles Kanjama on whether the DP can run for office or not: The court was not clear on it; it could have been clear by making a declaration that the outcome of the impeachment will not have any consequence. My interpretation is that because the court has found that there has been a violation of the right to a fair hearing, of necessity, the fruits of the impeachment cannot all be sustained. The finality in terms of bringing in a new DP has been sustained, but the other fruits of impeachment, which is to stop the DP from running again, cannot be sustained. The outcome is fairly confusing #CitizenMondayReport
2:12

Charles Kanjama on whether the DP can run for office or not: The court was not clear on it; it could have been clear by making a declaration that the outcome of the impeachment will not have any consequence. My interpretation is that because the court has found that there has been a violation of the right to a fair hearing, of necessity, the fruits of the impeachment cannot all be sustained. The finality in terms of bringing in a new DP has been sustained, but the other fruits of impeachment, which is to stop the DP from running again, cannot be sustained. The outcome is fairly confusing #CitizenMondayReport

Citizen TV Kenya

35,563 次观看 • 2 个月前

This is an interview on ABC News with Australia’s governor general Sam Mostyn about being a woman in such a role. *ahem* Sam Mostyn is the first listed patron of Equality Australia, the leading “LGBTQI+” organization that, just last week, intervened in the Giggle v Tickle federal court appeal *against* women & lesbians. Yes, you read that correctly. Against WOMEN and LESBIANS. Equality Australia, in both their written & oral submissions into the case, are arguing for the erasure of sex in law, in favor of gender identity, with a particular focus on the erasure of sexual orientation. Their application to intervene in the case was specifically against Lesbian Action Group who had already been granted intervener status on the side of women, lesbians & reality. You can read their submission on the federal court website. It’s all there in black & white and, dare I say, it’s more incoherent than you’re currently imagining. Being a woman is obviously a reality for Sam Mostyn, she’s explaining it herself, and many of us actually do empathize with what a woman goes through when she gets into a position that is historically not held by a woman or she is simply criticized in any capacity because she is a woman. It’s part of the reason why we fight for women’s rights and protections. But Sam Mostyn is connected to an organization that is in direct opposition to the reality of what a woman is. She is supporting an organization that is actively involved in removing women’s rights. Whoops.
0:41

This is an interview on ABC News with Australia’s governor general Sam Mostyn about being a woman in such a role. *ahem* Sam Mostyn is the first listed patron of Equality Australia, the leading “LGBTQI+” organization that, just last week, intervened in the Giggle v Tickle federal court appeal *against* women & lesbians. Yes, you read that correctly. Against WOMEN and LESBIANS. Equality Australia, in both their written & oral submissions into the case, are arguing for the erasure of sex in law, in favor of gender identity, with a particular focus on the erasure of sexual orientation. Their application to intervene in the case was specifically against Lesbian Action Group who had already been granted intervener status on the side of women, lesbians & reality. You can read their submission on the federal court website. It’s all there in black & white and, dare I say, it’s more incoherent than you’re currently imagining. Being a woman is obviously a reality for Sam Mostyn, she’s explaining it herself, and many of us actually do empathize with what a woman goes through when she gets into a position that is historically not held by a woman or she is simply criticized in any capacity because she is a woman. It’s part of the reason why we fight for women’s rights and protections. But Sam Mostyn is connected to an organization that is in direct opposition to the reality of what a woman is. She is supporting an organization that is actively involved in removing women’s rights. Whoops.

Sall Grover

52,355 次观看 • 1 年前

this man has been sounding the alarm on the Dutertes for 10 years and I can’t wait for him to be vindicated on the impeachment court
2:05

this man has been sounding the alarm on the Dutertes for 10 years and I can’t wait for him to be vindicated on the impeachment court

marv

34,304 次观看 • 1 个月前

So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.
6:16

So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.

CTrefugees

135,314 次观看 • 3 个月前

“The dirty little thing that they’re covering up about all this is they’re opening up the door to [men] who now have a Willy Wonka golden ticket to pretend they’re a woman, be around women, dominate women’s spaces, dominate women’s sport & dominate all kinds of things that women are involved in… taking over women’s groups” - Joe Rogan When I was navigating the Australian Human Rights Commission Complaint I received for alleged “gender identity discrimination” because I had refused a man - who it turns out claims to be a woman - entry to a woman only space I created I was told by the AHRC that to settle the complaint (and therefore not escalate it to federal court) I would have to allow all men who claim to be women into the platform, apologize, pay this particular man (who claims to be a woman) $20,000, attend ‘sex & gender’ education classes (which could only be re-education) and - most sinister of all, I think - moderate all content on the platform so that men who claim to be women were not offended by anything actual women were saying. Basically, not only did these men want to be in the women’s space, they wanted to control it. That is chilling. I said, “No”. GFY. 4 years later, we’re awaiting a decision from the Full Federal court. No man is a woman.
0:28

“The dirty little thing that they’re covering up about all this is they’re opening up the door to [men] who now have a Willy Wonka golden ticket to pretend they’re a woman, be around women, dominate women’s spaces, dominate women’s sport & dominate all kinds of things that women are involved in… taking over women’s groups” - Joe Rogan When I was navigating the Australian Human Rights Commission Complaint I received for alleged “gender identity discrimination” because I had refused a man - who it turns out claims to be a woman - entry to a woman only space I created I was told by the AHRC that to settle the complaint (and therefore not escalate it to federal court) I would have to allow all men who claim to be women into the platform, apologize, pay this particular man (who claims to be a woman) $20,000, attend ‘sex & gender’ education classes (which could only be re-education) and - most sinister of all, I think - moderate all content on the platform so that men who claim to be women were not offended by anything actual women were saying. Basically, not only did these men want to be in the women’s space, they wanted to control it. That is chilling. I said, “No”. GFY. 4 years later, we’re awaiting a decision from the Full Federal court. No man is a woman.

Sall Grover

27,176 次观看 • 4 个月前

“This would be your unique opportunity as the French first man to prove your case about Candace to the public. In the court of public opinion, this would be your time to slam dunk.” This is regarded because the French first couple are currently suing Candace in a court of law, which I think is outrageous but it’s the reality. Why would they speak publicly when they’re suing her, and the case is going through, and her motion to dismiss has been denied?
3:29

“This would be your unique opportunity as the French first man to prove your case about Candace to the public. In the court of public opinion, this would be your time to slam dunk.” This is regarded because the French first couple are currently suing Candace in a court of law, which I think is outrageous but it’s the reality. Why would they speak publicly when they’re suing her, and the case is going through, and her motion to dismiss has been denied?

Natalie Jean Beisner

23,238 次观看 • 8 个月前

“I have applied to the High Court after the Full Federal Court dismissed the Giggle v Tickle appeal. I am seeking a clear declaration that single-sex spaces for women are lawful and that “woman” remains a biological category in Australian law.” Me on last nights @SkyNewsAust 👇
3:36

“I have applied to the High Court after the Full Federal Court dismissed the Giggle v Tickle appeal. I am seeking a clear declaration that single-sex spaces for women are lawful and that “woman” remains a biological category in Australian law.” Me on last nights @SkyNewsAust 👇

Sall Grover

101,334 次观看 • 1 个月前

Texas Senator Ted Cruz: “You are the only Supreme Court nominee in history who has been unable to answer the question, What is a woman?” This is the person making the most important decisions for our country.
2:21

Texas Senator Ted Cruz: “You are the only Supreme Court nominee in history who has been unable to answer the question, What is a woman?” This is the person making the most important decisions for our country.

Ian Jaeger

69,514 次观看 • 4 个月前

“This court case is called Giggle v Tickle… he got on the app [for women], she kicked him off because it’s a bloke in a dress & he sued & won…” Joe Rogan the whole story is crazier if you ever want to hear it in full… I even got charged $10,000 for laughing at a meme 🤷‍♀️
1:26

“This court case is called Giggle v Tickle… he got on the app [for women], she kicked him off because it’s a bloke in a dress & he sued & won…” Joe Rogan the whole story is crazier if you ever want to hear it in full… I even got charged $10,000 for laughing at a meme 🤷‍♀️

Sall Grover

142,566 次观看 • 6 个月前

For 3 and half years in her marriage and already having kids for her husband, she has been ch€ating with this guy who spends a lot on her, and also has keys to his crib She told the side man she wants to pack in with her kids that she doesn’t love the husband. Side man objected 😂 and she claimed the side man has been using her all these while 😂😂😂 The side man said she got it all wrong , they’re grown ups doing what grown ups do . She asked him if he welcomes other girls and spend on them as much as he spends on her, he said yes , she got so jealous 😂😂 . Delusional of her to even think the side man will settle for a lady like her 😭
6:33

Sensitive content

For 3 and half years in her marriage and already having kids for her husband, she has been ch€ating with this guy who spends a lot on her, and also has keys to his crib She told the side man she wants to pack in with her kids that she doesn’t love the husband. Side man objected 😂 and she claimed the side man has been using her all these while 😂😂😂 The side man said she got it all wrong , they’re grown ups doing what grown ups do . She asked him if he welcomes other girls and spend on them as much as he spends on her, he said yes , she got so jealous 😂😂 . Delusional of her to even think the side man will settle for a lady like her 😭

𝕄🅾️𝔹𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕛𝕚 🅰️𝕓𝕕𝕦𝕝

481,822 次观看 • 1 个月前