Australia’s ‘What Is a Woman?’ Case: Tickle v Giggle | Reality’s Last Stand| Rachael Wong

A judge of the Federal Court of Australia is currently deliberating on Australia’s “what is a woman?” case: Tickle v Giggle. This is a pivotal moment for women’s rights in Australia as it will determine whether gender identity trumps biological sex under Australian sex discrimination law.

The case centers on a complaint made by a trans-identified male (i.e. a man who identifies as a woman, also known as a “transwoman”), Roxanne Tickle, against the women-only social networking app, Giggle for Girls. Tickle alleges that his exclusion from the app, which was created exclusively for women by its founder and CEO, Sall Grover, constitutes gender identity discrimination under Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA).

The case was heard in Sydney, Australia, from April 9 to 11, 2024, and the parties are currently awaiting the judge’s decision as of the publication date of this article.

On the first day of the three-day hearing, the presiding judicial officer, Bromwich J, stated that he would be interpreting and applying the law as it exists instead of what it should be.

This may ultimately require having to accept the arguments put forward by Tickle and the Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner that gender identity trumps biological sex. This would mean that biological males identifying as women could not be denied access to female-only spaces. While absurd and irrational on its face, this decision would nevertheless align with the current version of the SDA.

It is likely that any judgment in favor of Tickle will be appealed to Australia’s High Court. This appeal would likely be based on a Constitutional argument that the Australian government overstepped its authority with the 2013 amendments to the SDA by exceeding the scope of CEDAW.

However, the simplest solution for the Australian government to address the current legislative uncertainty would be to repeal the 2013 amendments to the SDA and restore sex-based rights for women in Australia. Removing gender identity as a basis for discrimination in the SDA is not an act of “transphobia,” nor is it intended to harm or erase transgender individuals, as many activists assert. Rather, it is about about reinstating vital sex-based protections for women, acknowledging the immutable biological differences between males and females, and the inequalities stemming from those differences.

Source: Australia’s ‘What Is a Woman?’ Case: Tickle v Giggle