Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 24/09/2026PYROPHORE will never be used to compile dossiers on trans people who aren't themselves actively members of the anti-trans movement. That is our promise to you. 030
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 24/08/2026Correction, rather than Stella O'Malley it's actually Carole Hooven who was already on the FBS statement. Sorry, we're more sleep deprived than usual 010
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 24/08/2026There are other new names where we think they might be relevant but don't know any detail about a specific personal connection to anti-trans activism: David G Cowan (UQ), Guy Mayraz (USYD), Jack Singal, Moti Gorin 110
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 24/08/2026Update for today: the list of people who have signed the statement circulated by John Armstrong in support of Nathan Cofnas now also includes Jerry Coyne (already on FBS statement), Carole Hooven, Stella O'Malley (already on FBS), Patrick Parkinson, and Jaco van Zyl 2103
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 24/08/2026We knew he was involved somehow because Glinner wanted to tour down here in Australia/NZ (or did tour; we forget) and the tour was FSU-backed so Young was involved. Beyond that we don't know a great deal. Thank you for the information! 040
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 23/08/2026Also a few that ring a bell but we admittedly aren't terribly familiar with their work, they just keep turning up: Jerry Coyne, Partha Dasgupta, Toby Young 131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 23/08/2026The ones we've spotted across the FOR BETTER SCIENCE and John Armstrong statements are J Michael Bailey, Tomas Bogardus, Michael Biggs, Alex Byrne, Jerry Coyne, Carole Hooven, Helen Joyce, Holly Lawford-Smith, Colin Wright 182
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 23/08/2026Oh hey we're green in Shinigami Eyes now. Sick. We know it's just a whisper network with bloom filters but it's nice that someone thought of us. 020
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 23/08/2026Currently updating various active and draft PYROPHORE pages to indicate which well-known transphobes have signed the two statements being circulated in support of racial supremacist pseudoacademic Nathan Cofnas. Yes, it's a substantial number. Birds of a feather, we guess! 050
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 27/05/2026A new PYROPHORE entry has been added for the 🟥 National Party of Australia, the country's furthest-right major party, which is currently dangling the prospect of sacrificing trans people as red meat for the base. severalproblems.press/pyrophore/na...severalproblems.pressPyrophore: National Party of Australia – Several Problems Press 022
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 22/05/2026We have also republished the letter on our website, here: severalproblems.press/2026/05/22/l...severalproblems.pressLetter: Diversity, pragmatism, and ethics – Several Problems Press 030
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 22/05/2026Our editor-in-chief, Isabelle, today sent a letter to her local Member of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. We republish it here for visibility. 1122
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 19/05/2026A new PYROPHORE entry has been added for 🟧 the Australian Labor Party, Australia's governing major centrist party, which was once able to put its name to major pro-trans discrimination law reform, but has clearly received new orders. severalproblems.press/pyrophore/au...severalproblems.pressPyrophore: Australian Labor Party – Several Problems Press 131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 18/05/2026We have corrected a rather odd omission and added a new PYROPHORE entry for the Commonwealth of Australia, a sovereign state in the southern Pacific Ocean. (Conflict of interest disclosure: the entire one permanent member of SP Press is an Australian national.) severalproblems.press/pyrophore/au...severalproblems.pressPyrophore: Australia – Several Problems Press 031
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 17/05/2026Also, updated the "Liberal Party of Australia" on the PYROPHORE index page so that it leads to the Liberal Party page rather than looping back to the PYROPHORE index page. Lmfao. 010
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 17/05/2026Updated the PYROPHORE entry for the 🟧 Liberal Party of Australia to reflect Leader Angus Taylor's announcement that the Liberals will amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) in a way that will functionally strip protections from trans people. severalproblems.press/pyrophore/li...severalproblems.pressPyrophore: Liberal Party of Australia – Several Problems Press 121
Reposted by Several Problems Pressmoby dickgirl @eigenvectrix.northsky.social · 17/05/2026The law beat Sall Grover and Giggle, so Australia's primary conservative party has announced it is simply going to change the law. www.outinperth.com/nationals-mp...outinperth.comNationals MP vows to bring in legislation to remove some protections for transgender peopleNationals MP Alison Penfold has vowed to bring in legislation that will remove some of the protections for people who are transgender. 1319
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026We are compiling an explanatory case timeline for Tickle v Giggle and its appeal. We'll post a link when it's done. 020
Reposted by Several Problems PressHierophant Shelley B Woke - Living Saint of Purity🏳️⚧️🖤💜🤍 💛 @shelleybwoke.bsky.social · 15/05/2026Rest in Pride, princess 💔🏳️⚧️😔 26722
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026In conclusion, the Full Court seems to have given Ms Grover very little, if anything, of what she wanted, and found generally favourably for Ms Tickle. As outside observer @oldmatecans.bsky.social noted, in respect of Ms Grover this does feel a lot like a judicial "Keep honking, I'm reloading". 091
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026Further, at [322]: "Ms Grover's public commentary ... includes aspects that are gratuitous to the proceedings ... [and] used language which porrayed Ms Tickle as a predatory male, seemingly to justify [Ms Grover's] position". 161
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026Rather impressively the Full Court then goes on to recognise, still at [316], that this was functionally a transmisogynistic attack on Ms Grover's part: "part of the statements made by Ms Grover which at least impliedly portrayed Ms Tickle as a predatory male". 161
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026But the Full Court "note[s] that the terms of the email exchanges are polite on their face" and that an assertion by Ms Grover that they were otherwise "was based on the fact that the person she was communicating was (in her eyes) a man". 141
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026The Court recognises at [316] that this is, not to put too fine a point on it, obvious bullshit given that Ms Grover's phone number was in her email signature and that she must have been aware of that. 1101
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026Part of the account of facts underlying the case was that, after being banned from the Giggle App, Ms Tickle and Ms Grover exchanged emails (initially cordial) and Ms Tickle called Ms Grover and left voicemail. Ms Grover contended repeatedly that she did not know how Ms Tickle got her phone number. 141
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026"did not render her repeated misgendering of Ms Tickle a bona fide part of the conduct of her case. Some of her conduct was gratuitous, disrespectful, and unnecessary to the conduct of her case. It did not advance her defence." 181
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026"to refer to Ms Tickle using male pronouns. Ms Grover is entitled to her beliefs, but the belief of Ms Grover was not relevant to the determination of the issue of statutory construction. Further, Ms Grover's belief, accepting it was genuinely held, 141
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026[314]: "... That Ms Grover was contending Ms Tickle was not a woman within the meaning of the SDA did not require her to repeatedly misgender Ms Tickle during the primary hearing. It was unnecessary for the bona fide conduct of her defence. Conducting her defence did not require Ms Grover 170
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026[312] "... the basis on which aggravated damages were not awarded for this conduct was that the actions were bona fide: that they were based on a genuine belief. We do not accept that as a sufficient basis ..." (🗣️🗣️🗣️) 152
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026[310]: "... a significant part of Ms Tickle's submissions was directed to the failure of the primary judge to find aggravated damages in respect to the conduct of Ms Grover when she misgendered Ms Tickle in Court." 161
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026Ms Tickle contended that owing to the laughing incident and to other aspects of Ms Grover's conduct during the proceedings, a larger award of aggravated damages should be made. The Full Court seemed to be largely in agreement with that reasoning. 151
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026[306] describes an incident termed "the laughing incident," taking place during the original proceedings, "during Ms Grover's cross-examination," concerning her reaction "when confronted with an extremely tasteless candle incorporating a demeaning caricature of Ms Tickle". 121
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026[292]: "... Nothing in the structure of the SDA suggests that it was intended to create a hierarchy of protected characteristics, or to license discrimination on one of the prohibited grounds on the footing that assistance is being given to the victims of another form of discrimination." 151
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026Apparently at some point the appellants, Giggle and Ms Grover, tried the strategy of alleging that a thing can be a "special measure to achieve equality" (i.e., affirmative action) if it favours one protected group, even if it disadvantages another. The Full Court disagreed. 131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026Abraham and Kennett JJ [288]: "unlike the primary judge [i.e., the trial judge, Bromwich J], we see all of the evidence in this case as pointing away from indirect discrimination and towards direct discrimination." 141
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026[276]: "to the extent that the term 'woman' appears in the SDA or the concept of womanhood is important to its operation, it is not to be understood by reference to any narrow or rigid conception of femaleness." 131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026A piece of case law that we, not being lawyers, didn't previously know about: the judgment cites Secretary, Department of Social Security v "SRA" (1993) 43 FCR 299 as establishing that a person's "sex" is not, "as a matter of ordinary usage," immutable. 131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) sought leave to appear as amicus curiae. The Free Speech Union (FSU) sought leave either to intervene or to appear as amicus curiae. Interestingly, both applications were ultimately opposed by *both* parties (see [176] and [179] respectively). 151
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026The Full Court therefore noted at [135] that "to hold that a person who denied the existence of the gender identity could thereby evade a contravention of the SDA" would not reduce discrimination and would in fact "permit conduct which was liable to perpetuate" it. 131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026The Full Court also agreed with Ms Tickle that "to require knowledge or awareness of gender identity would ... enable a person to evade" anti-discrimination law "simply by asserting that they had no knowledge of the protected attribute". 141
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026The Full Court therefore found at [132] that "importing into the test for discrimination ... a requirement that a discriminator actually know the aggrieved person's identity would ... thwart or undermine the statutory object of eliminating discrimination". 131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026and that "the forced disclosure of gender identity against a person's will is itself a form of discrimination and part of the mischief which the 2013 Amendment Act was intended to remedy," and that actual knowledge might be very difficult for an aggrieved person to prove. 131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026The Full Court agreed with the cross-appellant, Ms Tickle, that "a person's gender identity may not be broadcast to the public at large, nor should an aggrieved person be required to disclose their gender identity so as to be protected against direct discrimination," 121
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026Bromwich J appeared to have found that knowledge by a discriminator that the person they were discriminating against was transgender was a necessary element of establishing direct discrimination. The Full Court took issue with that. 121
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026It's great how the concurrence basically just restates the reasons for judgment (as you would expect a concurrence to do) but with way more "by the way, the appellant is full of shit". 150
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026We decided to read the whole thing before going into detail rather than trying to work through it piece by piece, hence the delay in adding more material to this thread. 140
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026The list of cases cited includes For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Interested to find out the context for that one. 150
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026Judgment has been published on the Federal Court's website. We're going to read it and post any tidbits we think are relevant. 🧵judgments.fedcourt.gov.auGiggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 64 187
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026We are closing the surprisingly brief live thread but may sporadically continue to post in it for any matters relevant to the hearing specifically. We don't, however, expect there will be any. 090