Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

A NSW Court of Appeal has upheld a two-year AVO against Kirralie Smith after she posted images questioning men playing in women’s sports. Her posts were deemed “harassment” despite no intent to harm.

A New South Wales court has upheld a two-year apprehended violence order (AVO) against women’s advocate Kirralie Smith for publicly opposing the inclusion of men in women’s sport.

The ruling, handed down on Friday 15 August, rejected Smith’s appeal against an order granted to Stephanie Blanch, who identifies as a woman.

Smith, the Director of Binary Australia, said she has “never named him, met him or asked others to target him” but was herself targeted for her political advocacy.

“I lost the appeal and I am still under a 2 year apprehension of violence order for identifying a male in a female soccer team,” she posted on X shortly after the decision.

“I guess if they can redefine the word ‘woman’, why wouldn’t they redefine the word ‘violence’?” she added.

“This is simply an attempt to stop my advocacy. I won’t stop. Men can not be women. Men do not belong in women’s sport.”

I lost the appeal and I am still under a 2 year apprehension of violence order for identifying a male in a female soccer team.

I have never named him, met him or asked others to target him.

But I guess if they can redefine the word “woman” why wouldn’t they redefine the word… pic.twitter.com/J9wA8dpg2w

— Kirralie Smith (@KirralieS) August 15, 2025

‘Harassment’ Established Without Intent

The Court of Appeal dismissed Smith’s claims of legal error and constitutional breach, finding that her online posts constituted harassment under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), even without intent to harass.

In its judgment, the court cited Kirralie Smith’s references to Blanch as a male, noting: “The [applicant] repeatedly referred to the [respondent] as a male, a man, a bloke and ‘he,’ where the [respondent] does not refer to herself that way… it was belittling and offensive. It denigrates the [respondent’s] right to describe herself as she wishes, not as a stranger wishes to label her.”

The court further described Smith’s actions as “a sustained campaign of belittling, harassment and intimidation.”

Smith argued she merely reposted publicly available images and asked, “why are males in female soccer teams” and “what is the point of having male and female divisions if males can enter them?”

The Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court’s earlier decision to grant the AVO, concluding that Smith’s posts were capable of causing fear and distress to Blanch.

The decision means Smith cannot post identifying content about Blanch for the duration of the two-year order and must pay Blanch’s legal costs.

Notably, in their written judgments, each court that heard the case referred to Blanch using female pronouns. Supporters of Smith argue this language signalled an acceptance of Blanch’s self-identified gender from the outset, raising questions about whether Smith received a fair hearing.

In Australia, a woman has just lost her appeal against a 2-year court order for “violence.”

Her crime?

Posting a photo of a “trans woman” that was already available publicly — and asking:

“Why are males playing in female soccer teams?”

This is the story of Kirralie Smith 🧵 pic.twitter.com/Yir4biQx8Y

— Kurt Mahlburg (@k_mahlburg) August 15, 2025

‘Truth and Evidence Matter’

The case began in January 2023 when Kirralie Smith posted photographs from football club websites showing Blanch playing in the women’s Wingham Warriors team. Smith argued her posts were political advocacy to protect fairness in women’s sport.

“I took a photo from the public domain and reshared it in the public domain,” she explained. “I did NOT name or aim anything towards the male person. I did NOT do the other things I was accused of and was never questioned about in the hearings.”

The local court initially refused Blanch’s AVO application, but Blanch appealed successfully to the District Court. Smith then sought review in the Court of Appeal, which handed down its decision last week. “Tomorrow will tell if truth and evidence matter,” she said before the ruling.

The Court rejected Smith’s constitutional challenge, finding that any burden on political communication was “incidental, content-neutral, and minor.” It stated that the purpose of the Crimes Act is to protect individuals from harassment and intimidation, even in cases involving political advocacy.

In a Sky News report profiling her case, Smith recalled the start of proceedings: “Two police officers turned up at my house to tell me that I had been summoned to appear in court over violent actions… I could not believe… it is considered a potentially illegal action to advocate for women’s spaces.”

“I’ve never met these people, I’ve never vilified them, I’ve never said anything about them other than to say they’re males,” she further explained.

Implications for Free Speech in Australia

The ruling sets a precedent in New South Wales that “misgendering” — describing a person according to their actual sex rather than their self-declared identity — can be considered harassment if repeated and directed at a specific individual, even without naming them.

While the court noted the decision applies only in limited circumstances, it confirmed that no intent to harass is required for a finding of harassment.

This interpretation could have far-reaching consequences for advocacy around sex-based rights, especially for faith-based organisations, women’s rights groups, and advocates of biological reality.

In Australia, criticism of men playing women’s sport may be permissible in general terms, but reproducing publicly available photos of a man who does now risks legal sanction.

Smith’s case also highlights the cumulative effect of Australia’s regulatory environment, which couples anti-discrimination provisions with online content restrictions. Together, these laws create an environment in which once-protected political speech can now attract court orders.

Women’s advocacy group Women’s Forum Australia described Friday’s judgment as “alarming”.

“Defending fairness and safety for women and girls in sport is considered harassment and violence in NSW,” the group warned in a statement on social media.

“This is an alarming judgement for women’s sex-based rights and freedom of speech.”

🚨 @KirralieS has lost her appeal against an apprehension of violence order (AVO) issued against her for identifying a trans-identified male in a women’s soccer team and using publicly available images to ask why males are playing in female sports.

Defending fairness and safety… pic.twitter.com/li766j93ee

— WomensForumAustralia (@WomensForumAust) August 15, 2025

For her part, Smith remains defiant. “Only men get upset and take women like me… to court for saying no to them,” she said.

“Thank you so much for all the messages of support. I will issue a more detailed statement next week.”

___

Image courtesy of Kirralie Smith / X.