A social media app designed as a safe space for women to network, communicate, and make friends with other women has lost its case against a transgender activist.

The Federal Court of Australia recently ruled in the case of Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960, finding that Roxanne Tickle, a male who identifies as a woman, faced unlawful discrimination when he was denied access to the female-only networking app Giggle. The court determined that Tickle experienced “indirect discrimination” and ordered Giggle to pay $10,000 in compensation, along with legal costs.

The Giggle app was developed by Sall Grover to be a social media site for women: “a means for women to communicate with one another in what was described as a digital women-only safe space.”

Tickle argued that, as someone legally recognised as female, he should have access to spaces reserved for women. After being removed from the app, he sued Giggle and Ms Grover for unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (the “SDA”).

In her defence, Ms Grover argued that women have the right to single-sex spaces, both online and offline, to protect their privacy and safety.

Justice Bromwich rejected this defence, concluding that the SDA’s provisions did not protect the app’s exclusionary policy as a “special measure.”

He made the following findings as part of the judgment:

“The substance of the respondents’ defence is that discrimination did occur, but not prohibited discrimination. They claim that Ms Tickle was discriminated against on the basis of her sex, which they consider to be male, not her gender identity. They consider sex to mean the sex of a person at birth, and that this is unchangeable.

Those arguments failed, because the view propounded by the respondents conflicted with a long history of cases decided by courts going back over 30 years. Those cases establish that, on its ordinary meaning, sex is changeable”.

The decision has drawn considerable attention and criticism for its finding that sex under the SDA is changeable and not necessarily binary.

Associate Professor Neil Foster has written an analysis of the decision, arguing that the exclusion was reasonable and justified under the SDA’s provisions for special measures and indirect discrimination:

“In any event, with respect, his Honour’s comments that “sex, as it is deployed in the SDA, … is changeable and not necessarily binary” (at [59]) are not well supported by the authority he cites. He refers to three cases which, it is claimed, demonstrate a “30 year history” of sex being changeable. Yet in 2 of the 3 decisions cited this was not a necessary part of the court’s decision, and in the other one the views expressed have not been supported by the High Court.”

He has expressed concerns about the broader implications of the ruling:

“I think this decision is incorrect as a matter of law, and the implications of this decision are bad for society as a whole, and women in particular. I hope it will be overturned on appeal”.

At the time of the hearing, Ms Grover said:

“For decades, women’s movements have fought for the right to have female spaces in society. Yet today, the clock is being wound back.   

“I designed my app to give women their own space to network. It is a legal fiction that Tickle is a woman. His birth certificate has been altered from male to female, but he is a biological man, and always will be. A woman’s-only app isn’t about discrimination. It’s about freedom of speech, belief and association.   

“We are taking a stand for the safety of all women’s only spaces, but also for basic reality and truth, which the law should reflect.”

ADF International supported Ms Grover’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”.

The Tickle case is one of several Australian legal cases currently challenging women's protections and gender ideology.

HRLA client Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”) is involved in a related case after his tweet questioning gender ideology was censored. HRLA is representing Mr Elston and ADF International is supporting his case.

Following the ruling in Tickle v Giggle, Mr Elston said:

“The judgment in Tickle v. Giggle turns back the clock on women’s rights and exposes the deep ideological distortions that have permeated our societies and our legal systems. It is a fiction that Tickle is a woman. While his birth certificate may have been altered, no man can ever become a woman.

“Preventing a male from joining a woman’s only app has nothing to do with discrimination. It’s about staying true to biological reality and women’s rights to their own spaces, both online and in real life. I hope further legal steps can be taken to correct this grave injustice and I stand with Sall Grover and the Giggle team.”

Child psychiatrist and HRLA client Jillian Spencer is similarly pushing back against forced gender ideology. Increasingly, people who try to speak up against gender ideology are being silenced through legal actions.

HRLA works on behalf of all Australians to ensure that freedom of speech, religion, and conscience is protected.