Australian courts are grappling with the definition of “woman” in the ongoing Giggle v Tickle case. 

This case is an appeal against an earlier decision which found that sex is “not binary” and is “changeable” for the purposes of discrimination law.

Our friends across the Tasman are also grappling with this vexing issue.

New Zealand’s populist party New Zealand First, led by political firebrand Winston Peters, has introduced a bill into parliament to define women and men by their biology.

The move comes shortly after Britain's highest court ruled only biological women meet the definition of a woman under equality laws.

That decision means men cannot identify as women under equality legislation in the UK, and women are defined by their biological sex for the purposes of those laws.

Mr Peters, who is also Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition government, said in a statement that laws should reflect biological reality and provide legal certainty.

"The need for legislation like this shows how far the deluded left has taken us as a society. But we are fighting back," Mr Peters said.

The bill, which polling suggests is supported by most New Zealanders, is unlikely to become law, because it is not Government policy and would need to be selected at random from a ballot before gaining support in the New Zealand Parliament.

Shortly after the bill was introduced, the New Zealand Government responded to a 23,352-signature petition from campaign group Family First New Zealand calling for “woman” to be clearly defined.

Family First criticised the response as “weak” and “confused”

“The sad irony is that the Minister for Women in her response refused to define what a woman is,” Family First CEO Bob McCoskrie said.  

“Alongside this, she is also clearly indicating the irrelevancy of her role because she will not actually stand up for the recognition and protection of women.”

The bill and petition asked that “woman” be defined as “an adult human female” in all laws, public policies and regulations.

“There is a clear need to define what a woman is (and a man) so as ensure the necessary protections for specific women’s issues and spaces, such as schools; sports; prisons or other detention facilities; domestic violence centers; rape crisis centers; changing rooms; toilets; and other areas where biology, safety, or privacy are implicated that result in separate accommodations,” Family First said in a statement. 

The push by Family First and NZ First reflects the growing need to legally define what a woman is in Australia, to ensure clarity in the law and certainty for the community.

This need is demonstrated by the Tickle v Giggle case, where a social media group designed as a safe space for women to network with other women lost its case against a transgender-identifying activist.

The Federal Court of Australia ruled that a man who identifies as a woman faced unlawful discrimination when he was denied access to the female-only networking app Giggle. 

The court determined that the man, who calls himself Roxanne Tickle, experienced “indirect discrimination” and ordered Giggle to pay $10,000 in compensation, along with legal costs.

The moves in New Zealand and the United Kingdom reflect growing dissatisfaction with governments and legislators accommodating transgender ideology.

Australia still needs to catch up. Hopefully cases like Giggle v Tickle will help create a legal precedent that will change law and culture in this country.