The ruling in Tickle v. Giggle was entirely predictable, and no less outrageous or infuriating, because it was predictable. Anyone paying attention could see where this was headed. Still, watching it land, watching the law formally sever itself from material reality, is something else. My heart goes out to Sall Grover, and to those who understood this was never just about an app.
Giggle, launched in 2020, was a female-only space. Not controversial. Not extremist. A simple premise: women, adult human females, had a platform/space to gather among themselves. This basic boundary is now treated as unlawful.
If gender is constructed, and identity is self-defined, then sex itself becomes negotiable.
And once sex is negotiable, women cease to exist as a coherent class.
Now, this is not just theoretical anymore. It is law.
The failure, both strategic and intellectual, came when this premise went largely unchallenged. Instead of holding the line on reality, the fight was reframed as one of safety: women versus predatory men in female spaces. A real concern, but a losing argument. It ceded the foundation while arguing over symptoms.
The result is the grotesque spectacle we have now: a manufactured conflict between “women’s rights” and “trans rights,” as if they are both naturally occurring categories bumping up against each other, rather than the inevitable outcome of redefining sex out of existence.
Meanwhile, the deeper drivers of this shift remain conveniently obscured.
Australia, where the case of Tickle Vs Giggle was decided, is not just any jurisdiction. It is a global leader in assisted reproductive technology. A significant percentage of its children are conceived through IVF. The same society that is technologically disassembling reproduction is legally disassembling sex. Some Australian schools are teaching 7–10-year-olds about reproductive technologies, such as IVF and donor conception, typically within secondary school health curriculum. These topics are increasingly included to reflect diverse family structures (Hello, LGBTQI+ Inc.) and modern fertility challenges (same sex attraction and sterilizing the next generation for identity purposes creates a lot of fertility challenges), often under the banner of comprehensive sexuality and relationships education, removed from any market analysis.
You can call that coincidence if you like. I don’t, and the vast amount of capital that has gone into promoting dissociation from sexed reality as progressive, supports me.
What Tickle v. Giggle reveals is not compassion, not progress, not the expansion of rights, but the collapse of a category and the opening of markets from that splintering.
Women are now being told, in effect, that they are not a biological class with shared boundaries, but an identity open to anyone who claims it. That their spaces are not theirs to define. That their objections are discriminatory. That reality itself is negotiable.
This is why this case matters. Not because of Giggle. Not because of Tickle. But because it exposes the mechanism: redefine the category, institutionalize the redefinition, and then attack anyone who refuses to comply. It is a political and market assault on the foundation of reality itself, not just women’s rights.
Source: Tickle Vs Giggle Is No Laughing Matter – by Jennifer Bilek