Following the Giggle v Tickle appeal, in the Federal Court last month, and the recent legal issues that Kirralie Smith has been facing for recognising adult human males, it is clear that to avoid social scorn and financial ruin, Australian women are now expected to gain, what was referred to in federal court by government-paid lawyers, as ‘perfect knowledge’.

In the hearing for the appeal of Sall Grover and her company, Giggle for Girls, we heard from the counsel for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (SDC), that when a woman confronts a man, presumably buck naked in a change room with all the glory of Adam on show, that woman does not have the ‘perfect knowledge’ required to determine if that adult human male is in fact a man.

In the situation counsel described, the adult human male would be devoid of the trappings of gender expression which adult human females are expected to take into consideration when determining if an adult human male is a man.

Accepting gender identity as a protected characteristic in law destroys the basic human rights of women as a sex. Gender identity, as a concept, denies that humans have an innate sex. It is because humans have an innate sex that women need sex protection in law to access full citizenship.

The most egregious of legislation emerging from gender identity is the Queensland Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act (2023), which redefines sex as gender identity that apparently can exist in ‘name, dress, speech, and behaviour’. This is the exact piece of legislation the SDC relied on in her support for Tickle in the Giggle v Tickle appeal. The comments about dress defining sex in the Giggle appeal have brought widespread mockery from the Australian right-leaning media, including finally some attention from The Australian.

The new definition of sex in Australia, on which the Sex Discrimination Act now rests, takes women’s rights from their bodies and gives them to their clothes, or more precisely, the clothes that are assigned to women by cultural stereotypes.

Sex is now literally constructed of stereotypes in Australian law.

Let’s take the hypothetical woman in a change room facility that the counsel for the SDA brought up. We’ll call her Eve. Eve will be in contravention of human rights law if she reacts to an adult human male, let’s call him Adam, in the normal way any woman may act when confronted with a naked man in a designated single sex space.

That is, if Eve cries out, asks for Adam to leave or be removed, or simply calls Adam a man based solely on the obvious characteristics of a male body (including an erect penis). Eve must wait to see what clothes Adam will wear, what his name is, how his voice sounds, and what pronouns he prefers, before Eve has the ‘perfect knowledge’ required in Australian law to determine the sex of Adam.

If Eve acts in the way most women would act, she can be put through the living hell that Sall Grover and Kirralie Smith are facing, just for seeing Adam as he plainly is. If Eve mentions that, as a rape survivor, such an interaction with a naked man would trigger health-threatening trauma, she would be called hysterical and sexually repressed. These are names I myself have been called, as a survivor, mentioning sexual trauma and hyper-vigilance. I want to remind Australia’s top regime feminists that the application of shame to sexual boundaries is rape culture.

Kirralie Smith, a woman, clearly without perfect knowledge, has been politically opposing men participating in women’s sports with her organisation ‘Binary’ for some time. Polls in Australia and overseas have consistently indicated that Binary’s position against men in women’s sport has majority popular support, even if the organisation promotes other views that are less broadly popular.

Kirralie has shone a light on a ‘women’s’ football team, also mentioned by other media commentators, that is so prolific with adult human males. The team is undefeated in its league, women are boycotting games with the team for their own safety, and legitimate claims of injury of women by adult human males have been made.

Certain players in the team, who have been identified by Kirralie as adult human males, have mounted action against Kirralie, including an upheld apprehensive violence order and now a successful defamation action that may cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus costs.

The ruling against Kirralie includes the nonsense idea that there is such a thing as ‘living as a woman’, a proposition, again, that can’t be supported without legitimising stereotypes to replace material human sex categories.

The Grover and Smith court actions prove that gender identity in law makes it illegal for a woman to publicly correctly sex a man in Australia, past the most superficial performance of feminine stereotypes.

The SDC has made it crystal clear, (and the Australian courts have consistently supported this) that Australian women have no legal right to identify an adult human male based on the obvious physical characteristics of that person’s appearance, without reference to the fictitious concept of ‘gender identity’.

Gender identity is, at best, a nonsense, and at worst, an authoritarian religious belief that women are now compelled to include in their knowledge bank when identifying an adult human male in public life. Adult human males make up between 97 and 99 per cent of sex offenders, and adult and juvenile human females are the majority of victims.

The adult human female is the most efficient entity, biological or mechanical, on Earth, at determining an adult human male. Within a fraction of a second of meeting a person, a woman has unconsciously identified the sex and basic risk profile of a person. If that woman is in a place where she is alone or vulnerable, and if that woman carries sexual trauma, that risk profile will be performed with a level of hypervigilance.

Without the legal ability to identify an adult human male outside the ridiculous government reference points of v-neck shirts and shoulder-length hair, women are stripped of something deeper than a right of conscience, speech, or religion; our instinctive protective responses have become unlawful. Consequently, the public safety, dignity, and full citizenship of women and girls has been dramatically impacted by legislation in which women are not considered ‘stakeholders’.

It has been made clear by the Grover and Smith cases that it is the public and political expression and assembly of women, to the exclusion of trans identified males, that is unlawful. Females can think as a sex, females can be oppressed as a sex, females can whisper in private that they are a sex, but females can’t publicly organise as a sex or publicly identify a man past performative stereotypes.

This means that not only can women not make a single sex business model, as Sall Grover sought to do, but single sex political assembly is also illegal, and any public speech identifying a male person, past gender identity fiction, can subject a woman to loss of employment, the removal of her assets and open public scorn.

To reiterate, feminism, which is the political organisation of women for the rights of females, has been made illegal in Australia by the body that administers the Sex Discrimination Act. If you think this is an accident or an inevitable result of feminism, you are an idiot. We are witnessing deliberate state oppression of women and government-driven systemic rape culture.

Regime feminism is to feminism what the Chinese three-self church is to Christianity. It is a government counterfeit, designed to erase the troublesome original.

I will continue to refuse the perfect knowledge of regime feminism and continue to publicly identify Adam as male. Wherever we can, we must engage in dissident feminist action and defy the draconian state mandate of denying our sex. As the suffragettes did, so must we; they can’t put us all in prison.

Edie Wyatt has a BA Hons from the Institute of Cultural Policy Studies and writes on culture, politics and feminism. She tweets at @msediewyatt and blogs on substack