Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

This week, Giggle v Tickle has gone to the Federal Court before a full bench to appeal Justice Bromwich’s judgment handed down in August 2024 (read more about the judgment in Tickle v Giggle here). The case will be heard before Judges Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Wendy Abraham.

Sall Grover, CEO and founder of female-only networking app Giggle for Girls (Giggle), was sued for discrimination by Roxanne Tickle on the basis of gender identity when Grover removed Tickle from the platform after viewing Tickle’s profile picture and determining Tickle was a man.

Tickle is biologically male but ‘identifies’ as a woman. Shortly before removing Tickle, Grover’s app had been flooded by trans-rights activists, including Tickle, after publicly supporting McIver’s Ladies Baths to remain ‘female and children only’ rather than open it up to include men who identify as women.

In his judgment, Bromwich made a finding of indirect discrimination rather than direct discrimination because Tickle was rejected based on Tickle’s male appearance rather than knowledge of Tickle’s gender identity. Grover was ordered to pay costs up to $50,000 and aggravated damages of $10,000 for her involuntary laugh in Court after being presented with a caricature of Tickle on a candle labelled “sweaty balls” scent, produced by a Giggle supporter to raise money towards Grover’s defence.

Most concerningly for the rights for women and girls was Bromwich’s finding that “sex is not confined to being a biological concept referring to whether a person at birth had male or female physical traits” (para 55) and that “sex can be changed” (para 56). He determined that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was not engaged, as Tickle’s complaint was about gender identity discrimination, not discrimination in favour of a man or men (para 11).

Australia signed CEDAW in 1983, and the Hawke Government ratified it by passing the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984. However, in 2013 Australia’s first and only female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, introduced amendments which removed the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and introduced ‘gender identity’ as a protected category with lawful discrimination permitted for only two exceptions – s7D ‘special measures’ to improve equality on the basis of sex and s42 for sport when ‘strength, stamina and physique’ is relevant to fair competition.

Giggle Summary of Appeal 

In their submission, Grover’s legal team challenges Bromwich’s findings on multiple grounds. Their two key arguments, however, will be that no unlawful discrimination took place when they removed Tickle from the app, and that it is lawful for Giggle to operate as female-only, as it meets the criteria for ‘special measures’ under s7D(1)(a) of the Sex Discrimination Act.

In their primary argument, Grover’s lawyers will contend that the approval process did not consider ‘gender identity’ when accepting or rejecting users; it assessed individuals on their appearance and anyone who looked like a man was rejected. On the ‘special measures’ argument, Grover’s lawyers will argue that the Giggle app was created exclusively for the benefit of women, working towards equality by providing them with a network of support to deal with issues women deal with including male abuse, trauma, as well as discussing female health related issues such as menopause or gynaecological health in a safe male-free environment.

As a secondary argument, Grover’s lawyers will also argue that if the Giggle app imposed a restriction on men who identify as women (transwomen), it was reasonable and legitimate as the primary purpose of the app was to protect women’s privacy and safety with other support networks and forums being available to Tickle.

Tickle’s Cross-Appeal 

Tickle is also appealing the findings by Justice Bromwich. Tickle’s legal team will argue that Bromwich should have found direct discrimination rather than indirect discrimination occurred when Tickle was removed from the platform for being a male who identifies as a woman, contravening s5B of the Sex Discrimination Act, which deals with discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Under the Sex Discrimination Act ‘gender identity’ means “the gender‑related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender‑related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.” Tickle’s legal team argue that there is no requirement for Grover to be aware of Tickle’s gender identity in order to have discriminated against Tickle. They will also argue that Bromwich should have found Grover’s failure to readmit Tickle after contacting her to be direct discrimination, as well as Giggle’s female-only policy, which excludes men who identify as women.

Tickle’s legal team will also argue that the $10,000 in damages awarded were insufficient, demanding $40,000.

Submissions by Third Parties

The Lesbian Action Group and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have both been granted leave by the Court to intervene in the appeal. Trans-rights lobby group Equality Australia, whose recent addition to the team includes controversial former ACON director, Teddy Cook, have also applied to appear in Court in support of Tickle. Their application won’t be decided until the first day of the appeal on Monday.

In their submission, the Lesbian Action Group argue that under the Sex Discrimination Act, the terms ‘sex’, ‘men’ and ‘women’ should be interpreted to refer to biological sex, not gender identity. They also argue that Giggle qualifies as a lawful ‘special measure’ under s7D of the Sex Discrimination Act because its primary purpose is to advance the interests of women.

In an amicus curiae submission to the Court, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner argues that differential treatment based on someone’s “perceived gendered appearance”, i.e. a man who looks like a man but identifies and is recognised as a woman under law, can amount to direct discrimination. The Commissioner also argues that the accused discriminator doesn’t need to be aware of a person’s gender identity for a claim of direct discrimination to succeed. She also advises that the ‘special measures’ provision to promote equality between men and women does not necessarily permit lawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity under the Sex Discrimination Act, stating that “the achievement of one valid equality objective should not be at the expense of the other”.

Grover’s legal team will oppose Equality Australia’s application to intervene, which they submitted just two weeks before the appeal. They will argue that Equality Australia has no legal standing and brings no new legal arguments to the case. They also note the Court has already rejected similar applications from the Australian Christian Lobby and the Free Speech Union on this basis.

Conclusion 

At the heart of this case is a woman, mother and entrepreneur who is being forced to fight for the recognition of women’s and girls’ sex-based rights under law because our weak governments are captured by gender ideology.

Just last week, Labor and the Greens voted to block debate on a Bill tabled by Senators Alex Antic and Matthew Canavan to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to remove references to gender identity and define man and woman as members of the male and female sex, essentially restoring women’s sex-based rights. Minister for Women, Senator Katy Gallagher, justified the decision to shut down the Bill, claiming that even a first reading would cause harm.

Yes, there is harm being done. It’s being done to women like Grover who are being punished via a costly and gruelling court process for saying no to activist men who demand to be recognised as women, to the girls who are being injured or enduring an unfair playing field as a result of trans-identifying males on their sports teams, and to the vulnerable female inmates being forced to share prison spaces with trans-identifying male rapists. It is leaders like Senator Gallagher who are enabling the harm by turning a blind eye to these issues, and shutting down democratic debate on legislative reforms to fix them.

People cannot change sex, and as Grover says, “the only prerequisite to be a ‘transwoman’ is to be a man”. This landmark case is the most significant fight for women’s and girls’ rights in Australia today.

The case will run in the Federal Court, Sydney, from 4-7 August 2025 and will be live streamed on the Federal Court’s YouTube Channel.

You can support the appeal here.

**Those watching the live stream are bound by the same rules as the people in the courtroom, which means NO photos or filming (including screen recording) and NO posting images or footage to social media. Anyone who breaks these rules can be held in contempt of court.

___

Republished from Women’s Forum Australia. Originally titled “Giggle v Tickle: The Appeal”. Images via screenshot of YouTube/Sky News Australia and Women’s Forum Australia.