- Biological male “Roxanne Tickle” sued “Giggle for Girls” app, and founder Sall Grover, for female-only membership policy
- Appeal began today (4-7 August) in pivotal case for rights of women to female-only spaces, with implications for the safety of women’s sports, crisis shelters, changing rooms and more
SYDNEY (1 August 2024) – The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has begun to hear the appeal in what has been described as the “ultimate ‘what is a woman?’ case” in a 4-day hearing from 4-7 August.
Last summer, the Court ruled in Roxanne Tickle v. Giggle for Girls (“Tickle v. Giggle”) that “Roxanne Tickle,” a biological male who identifies as a woman, experienced unlawful discrimination when prevented from joining female-only networking app “Giggle.”
The court found that Tickle experienced “indirect discrimination,” ordering Giggle for Girls to pay $10,000 AUD in compensation and to cover Tickle’s legal costs.
I am optimistic. I know we are right & I know that reality always wins - eventually. Reality is inescapable.
Tickle sued the female-only app on the basis that, being “legally permitted to identify as female” and having had his birth certificate amended, he should be permitted into spaces reserved for biological women. Giggle for Girls argued that women have a right to single-sex spaces, both online and offline.
The Court rejected Giggle’s defence that Tickle was not unlawfully discriminated against, but instead disqualified from joining the networking app due to his male sex.
In the judgment, the court stated “…sex is not confined to being a biological concept referring to whether a person at birth had male or female physical traits, nor confined to being a binary concept, limited to the male or female sex…”
ADF International has supported Giggle’s defence on the basis that Australian law must uphold the truth of biological reality and in line with the protections for women enshrined in international human rights law.
Commenting on the decision, Giggle CEO, Sall Grover, said:
“To use Giggle, users had to be female, and female in the ordinary use of the word which is biological,” Grover explained, adding, “I am optimistic. I know we are right & I know that reality always wins – eventually. Reality is inescapable. The law has to reflect reality. In reality, no man is a woman so therefore no man should legally be a woman.”
Katherine Deves of Pryor Tzannes & Wallis, legal representatives for the Respondent, said: “The stakes are high in this case. Women’s international human rights will be lost if “woman” now includes any male who identifies as such. This decision matters not just in Australia but also to the watching world.”
Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which provided support for the case, said:
“By ruling that a biological male was discriminated against for being excluded from a women’s app, the court delivered a flawed judgment that undermines protections for women. Sex is not a feeling – it is a biological fact, and it cannot be changed. This appeal is a defining moment: the Court must choose between ideology and reality.”
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured (left to right): Sall Grover; Katherine Deves; Robert Clarke.
