Sign in

Several Problems Press

@severalproblems.press
494 followers 32 following 195 posts

Trans-focused analysis and commentary in the era of hate. Posts by @eigenvectrix.myatproto.social unless otherwise noted. 🌏 severalproblems.press

PostsRepliesMedia
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 24/09/2026
PYROPHORE 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 · 24/08/2026
Correction, 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 · 24/08/2026
There 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 · 24/08/2026
Update 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 · 24/08/2026
We 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 · 23/08/2026
Also 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 · 23/08/2026
The 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 · 23/08/2026
Oh 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 · 23/08/2026
Currently 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 · 27/05/2026
A 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.press
Pyrophore: National Party of Australia – Several Problems Press
022
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 22/05/2026
We have also republished the letter on our website, here: severalproblems.press/2026/05/22/l...
severalproblems.press
Letter: Diversity, pragmatism, and ethics – Several Problems Press
030
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 22/05/2026
Our editor-in-chief, Isabelle, today sent a letter to her local Member of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. We republish it here for visibility.
Dear [redacted],

I hope you are well. I had the pleasure earlier today of speaking to one of your office staff, [redacted], who was very polite and helpful.

You may be aware that the Full Court of the Federal Court recently decided a case with the memorable name of Giggle v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 64. The judges in that case unanimously reaffirmed that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) protects transgender women from being discriminated against for being trans.

As reoprted by the STAR OBSERVER, on 19 May, Chris Minns, Premier of New South Wales, responded to that case by suggesting that the law needs to reflect "biological differences between people who are born male and people who were born female". Mr Minns disagreed with Angus Taylor rewriting the Act but suggested in-principle support for doing so regardless. He further stated his support for his existing positions of excluding transgender people from playing sport with members of the same gender, and for placing trans women in men's prisons.Mr Minns' positions are ethically abhorrent and, to the extent that they rely on claims about reality, they have no basis in fact. I am also aware that they are enabled partly by an increasing tendency for centrist and liberal parties worldwide to abandon trans people or actively discriminate against them, justifying doing so on the basis either of pragmatism or of the popular will (invariably not one whose existence is backed by any kind of evidence). Giggle seems to have been a particular flashpoint in that regard.

I am a left-wing swing voter. Sometimes I vote 1 Labor. Sometimes I vote 1 Greens, 2 Labor. I moved here after the most recent state election, but people I've spoken to seem to like you as a state MP. For my part, I started caring about trans rights fairly late in the Palaszczuk Government, but was satisfied with what I saw, particularly the 2020 conversion therapy ban and the 2023 reforms making it easier for trans people to change their legal gender. I have no particular antipathy toward you and very little toward the Party. But I also know that the Minns Government enacted similar birth certificate reforms less than a year ago, and here we are anyway.If I detect even a hint that Queensland Labor is moving in the same direction as Chris Minns, then I will have no choice but to make Labor my enemy. I haven't canvassed at an election for several years, but, if Labor sells out trans people, it will have successfully mobilised me. In the event that Labor adopts a position of political transphobia — tactical or otherwise — I will canvas for the Greens, or, if I'm not satisfied with the Greens option, I will canvass for any other party which chooses to preserve trans people's civil rights. I will also preference Labor below the LNP, and I will encourage everyone else I know to do so as well. I will do so because at that point the only value I will be able to extract from the electoral process is making it more difficult for a party to win by throwing minorities under the bus.

I'm not sending this to make you read a long letter, or out of hatred for you as a human being. I'm sending this because I see every reason to like you, and I would prefer to continue doing so. I hope you take that into consideration, and I hope any action you might take on transgender rights will be ethically sound and well-informed.

Sincerely yours,
Isabelle Moreton
[further personal details redacted]
1122
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 19/05/2026
A 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.press
Pyrophore: Australian Labor Party – Several Problems Press
131
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 18/05/2026
We 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.press
Pyrophore: Australia – Several Problems Press
031
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 17/05/2026
Also, 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 · 17/05/2026
Updated 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.press
Pyrophore: Liberal Party of Australia – Several Problems Press
121
Reposted by Several Problems Press
moby dickgirl @eigenvectrix.northsky.social · 17/05/2026
The 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.com
Nationals MP vows to bring in legislation to remove some protections for transgender people
Nationals 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 · 15/05/2026
We 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 Press
Hierophant Shelley B Woke - Living Saint of Purity🏳️‍⚧️🖤💜🤍 💛 @shelleybwoke.bsky.social · 15/05/2026
Rest in Pride, princess 💔🏳️‍⚧️😔
Rafa @voidpierrot.

17h

In honor of this date, I would like to remember Keron Ravach, the youngest victim of transfemicide in Brazil. January marked 5 years since her death. Keron was a shy but cheerful girl who loved playing with her friends and dreamed of one day becoming a digital influencer
26722
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026
In 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 · 15/05/2026
Further, 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 · 15/05/2026
Rather 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 · 15/05/2026
But 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 · 15/05/2026
The 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 · 15/05/2026
Part 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 · 15/05/2026
Ms 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 · 15/05/2026
Apparently 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 · 15/05/2026
Abraham 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 · 15/05/2026
A 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 · 15/05/2026
The 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 · 15/05/2026
The 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 · 15/05/2026
The 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 · 15/05/2026
The 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 · 15/05/2026
and 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 · 15/05/2026
The 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 · 15/05/2026
Bromwich 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 · 15/05/2026
OK, more detailed commentary follows.
120
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026
It'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 · 15/05/2026
We 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 · 15/05/2026
The 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 · 15/05/2026
Judgment 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.au
Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 64
187
Several Problems Press @severalproblems.press · 15/05/2026
We 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