Founder and chief executive of Giggle for Girls, Sall Grover, is fighting
Roxanne Tickle’s claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of
her gender identity after being denied access to premium features of the
app, because “they are male”, Ms Grover said.
The case – brought by Ms Tickle – was discontinued in July last year.
But she applied in late December to the Federal Court for an extension of
time after receiving “limited” funding to cover “any adverse costs order …
and now wishes to pursue her claim”
After a hearing last week, orders published by Justice Robert Bromwich
outlined in a court document say Ms Grover must file her defence to Ms
Tickle’s statement of claim, respond to the request for an extension of time
and outline “any” constitutional issues she wants to raise by April 6.
Should the case proceed, Ms Grover said she hoped it would resolve the conflict between gender identity and sex.
“My goal is not to strip anyone of their rights. My goal is to make
everybody’s rights clear,” she said.
“If we can get clarity on this hopefully it will stop the fighting between
women and trans activists.
Principal solicitor at the Feminist Legal Clinic, and Ms Grover’s former
lawyer, Anna Kerr, said discrimination on the grounds of gender identity
was protected in state and federal legislation, but it was “poorly and
inconsistently defined”.
“In general terms, state laws that recognise males as legally female
undermine the protections of women’s sex-based rights under the Federal
Sex Discrimination Act,” she said.
Section 7B and 7D of the (act) make provisions for services that are
designed exclusively for the female sex, and which are reasonable to keep
women safe and free from male harassment or to advance their substantive
equality.
“However, these provisions are rendered effectively inoperable by state
legislation that allows for change of sex on birth certificates, increasingly on
the basis of self-declaration only.”
A further hearing in Ms Tickle’s case will be held on April 28 for the
“hearing of the interlocutory disputes”, as well as disputes about
constitutional arguments