The Dread Slender Gnome on Nostr: He's not making things up *there*, to be exact. He had already appealed to case law, ...

He's not making things up *there*, to be exact. He had already appealed to case law, which has treated the concept of "sex" as being this or that thing, depending on which way the wind blows, and concluded that in law, the concept of "sex" is not a matter of biology. Ergo, it must be based on social and psychological matters, in addition to or even indstead of physiology. If that's your premise, then it follows that whatever Grover's ban of tickle was based on, it could not have been based on biological sex. And since Grover banned him on the basis of a photograph, therefore she must've banned him based on his appearance.

It is, as I said, internally consistent. It's just that the basic premise is nutty. And the nutty premise can exist because courts and legislation have been so inconsistent in their use and definitions of what the word "sex" means in law.