It is anticipated that Grover will appeal the decision, with the Giggle crowdfunding website saying it is collecting donations to prepare for a potential high court challenge.
Giggle’s crowdfunding team says the case is especially important because it is the first of its kind internationally and could set a precedent for woman-only spaces online.
The court’s latest ruling came after the Giggle CEO launched an appeal against a 2024 court decision that found Tickle was a victim of indirect discrimination.
Tickle launched a counter-appeal, seeking a finding of direct discrimination. The lower court had previously rejected that claim on the grounds that it had not been established that Grover was aware of Tickle’s gender identity when he was blocked.
Transgender Discrimination Claims
The case was the first to test discrimination claims based on gender identity since the category was added to the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) in 2013.
Tickle was initially accepted onto the female-only platform following an artificial intelligence examination of his profile photo, but subsequently removed after a manual review.
The court was told that Tickle has lived as a woman since 2017, has had gender affirmation surgery, possesses a birth certificate edited to state that his gender is female and “feels in her mind that psychologically she is a woman”.
In 2024, Justice Robert Bromwich ruled this amounted to indirect gender identity discrimination due to “the imposed condition of needing to appear to be a cisgendered female”, which had the effect of “disadvantaging transgender women who did not meet that condition”.
Today’s judgment, handed down by the full complement of federal judges, largely upheld the first ruling, finding Tickle was directly discriminated against twice.
First, when he was excluded from accessing the Giggle app on the basis of his gender-related appearance, and second, when his readmission to the app was refused.
Justice Melissa Perry said the Full Court had concluded that “Giggle and Ms Grover both excluded Ms Tickle from the Giggle App, and refused to readmit her, on the basis of her gender-related appearance by reference to her selfie”.
That exclusion “amounted to direct discrimination by reference to a characteristic that pertains to people of Ms Tickle’s gender identity, being transgender women”.
“Ms Tickle has been successful in her cross-appeal. Under the Act, gender identity is defined as meaning gender-related identity and gender-related characteristics including appearance.”
A Clash Over Rights and Recognition
However, Stephanie Bastiaan, head of Women’s Forum Australia, said it was important to note that the court was only applying the SDA as written. The ruling stated that “the desirability or otherwise of that law is not a matter open to this court to consider”.
Writing on X, Bastiaan said the left-wing Labor Party’s 2013 amendments “stripp[ed] the meaning out of ‘man’ and ‘woman’” and added gender identity as a protected “attribute to be pitted against biological sex”.
“Today's outcome is proof of what those amendments have done: women are left with no meaningful rights or recognition under the Sex Discrimination Act - a bitter irony, given that protecting women was the very purpose of the Act.”
Bastiaan said the law left the judges “no other conclusion” to make and called for the 2013 amendment to be repealed.
The court’s decision immediately received strong criticism from politicians and commentators, with the leader of anti-establishment One Nation Party Senator Pauline Hanson saying she was “disgusted”.
The ruling “flies in the face of biological reality, and strips rights from women”, she said on X.
Melissa McIntosh, an MP for the centre-right Liberal party, said it is “a blow to women’s rights” and called for a review of the SDA.
By contrast, Tickle and transgender activists hailed the ruling. Speaking outside the court, Tickle said he hoped the outcome “assists trans and gender diverse people and their loved ones to heal”.
Meanwhile, the legal director of Equality Australia, Heather Corkhill, said the ruling was “a clear and significant win for equality and fairness”.
“Today’s decision is an important win for everyone protected under the Act, including women and LGBTIQ+ people”, she said.
Setting International Precedent
According to the Giggle crowdfunding team, the case has international significance, as it is the first “to rigorously test gender identity protections against sex-based rights in this context”.
“[I]t will set an important precedent for how similar cases are argued and decided in other jurisdictions”, the team says.
Grover’s legal team argued in the 2024 case that by ratifying the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Australia had obliged its government to protect women’s rights, including the right to female-only spaces.
They further contended that expanding the legal definition of “women” to include men contradicts this key international treaty.
CEDAW, which is meant to be directed at ending discrimination against women and girls, has repeatedly pushed for so-called transgender rights.
Some 189 countries are signatories to the treaty, with the United States being a notable exception.
