Appeal Announcement – Protecting Women’s Rights and Single-Sex Spaces
Announcing our appeal against the recent ruling of Justice Bromwich in the Federal Court of Australia in Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960 (read the summary here), which we contend misinterprets the fundamental rights of women and girls and undermines the legal protections for single-sex spaces that are essential for their safety, dignity, and freedom of association. This case presents a critical legal question: how should the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) be interpreted to uphold sex-based rights while addressing gender identity claims?
Our appeal challenges the declaratory judgment that found our actions constituted “unlawful indirect discrimination” on the basis of gender identity. We assert that the ruling contains serious legal errors, including:
- A misinterpretation of the legal definition of “sex” under the Sex Discrimination Act, which extends beyond biological reality in a way that risks diluting the legal protections specifically designed for women and girls. The ruling’s interpretation of “sex” is inconsistent with both domestic and international law, including Australia’s obligations under CEDAW.
- A failure to recognise the Giggle App as a lawful “special measure” under the Sex Discrimination Act, designed to achieve substantive equality for women by providing a female-only space. The Act explicitly permits sex-based measures where they are necessary to promote women’s safety, equality, and dignity, yet the ruling does not adequately engage with this principle.
- A disregard for critical evidence and expert testimony, limiting our ability to fully present the broad social and legal consequences of this ruling. By failing to consider key material, the decision risks setting a precedent that could erode the ability of women to lawfully maintain spaces and organisations based on sex.
As we move forward with our appeal, we emphasise that women standing up for sex-based rights, including the right to single-sex spaces, are acting in defence of fairness, honesty, and legal clarity. This is not an act of exclusion or bigotry—it is a necessary assertion of women’s rights in law and policy. Discussions surrounding gender identity must not come at the expense of the safety, dignity, and autonomy of women and lesbians, nor should they impose an ideological framework that compels the redefinition of sex-based protections.
Background to the Case – Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2)
This case concerns a legal challenge brought by Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman, against Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and its CEO, Sally Grover. Tickle is of the male sex but is recognised in Queensland under its Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration legislation as a “female.” The dispute centres around whether Giggle for Girls’ policy of limiting access to its female-only social networking app amounted to unlawful gender identity discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act.
Creation of the Giggle App and Its Purpose
Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd was founded by Sally Grover as an online women-only space designed to provide a safe networking platform for female users. The app marketed itself as a social space exclusively for women, with functionality for networking, friendship, support groups, and professional collaboration.
The key feature of the app’s verification process was an artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition system that determined whether a user was female or male based on their selfie. The AI was set at a sensitivity level that erred on the side of inclusion to avoid mistakenly excluding female users. However, final approval was conducted manually by Giggle staff, including Grover, who reviewed images that had passed the AI filter.
Tickle’s Access and Removal from the App
In February 2021, Tickle downloaded the Giggle App and completed the registration process, including submitting a selfie for AI verification. The AI software approved Tickle’s access, and Tickle used the app for several months without issue.
However, in September or early October 2021, Tickle’s account appeared to have been restricted. Tickle attempted to contact Giggle via its in-app support form but received no response. Tickle then emailed Grover directly, to which Grover initially replied, asking for a phone number to look into the issue. However, no further response was provided.
Justice Bromwich found that Tickle’s removal from the app was most likely the result of a manual review of Tickle’s uploaded profile picture by Grover. This review led to the conclusion that Tickle was a male and was therefore removed from the platform in accordance with Giggle’s policy of excluding men.
Importantly, the court did not find sufficient evidence to establish that Giggle removed Tickle because of Tickle’s gender identity as a transwoman. Instead, Tickle’s exclusion was due to an appearance-based assessment that failed to distinguish between “transgender women” and “cisgender men.”
The evidence did not establish that Grover or Giggle staff were aware of Tickle’s transgender identity at the time of the removal, as there was nothing on Tickle’s profile to indicate gender identity.
Key Findings by Justice Bromwich:
- Tickle’s claim for direct discrimination failed because there was no evidence Giggle had knowledge of Tickle’s gender identity when removed.
- Tickle’s claim for indirect discrimination succeeded because Giggle’s policy of assessing users’ photos based on appearance disproportionately impacted transgender women, who may not conform to conventional expectations of female appearance.
- Giggle’s argument that its policy constituted a “special measure” under the SDA was rejected. While the SDA allows for sex-based protections, the court found that this provision did not shield Giggle from claims of gender identity discrimination.
The court ordered Giggle to pay Tickle $10,000 in damages but denied the request for an apology or reinstatement on the platform. Giggle was also ordered to pay Tickle’s costs, though the portion related to constitutional and statutory construction arguments was capped at $50,000.
Implications
This case has significant implications for the legal recognition of sex-based rights in Australia and internationally, particularly concerning:
- The definition of “sex.”
- The rights of everyone to single-sex spaces.
- The interaction between gender identity protections and sex-based protections in law and policy.
Why This Case Matters
This appeal is about much more than a single social media platform. It is about whether women and same-sex attracted people can lawfully define their own spaces, protections, and advocacy on the basis of sex, rather than gender identity. It is about ensuring that Australia’s anti-discrimination laws align with international human rights frameworks designed to protect women’s rights.
This case is the first of its kind and is of significant public interest, both in Australia and internationally. It will:
- Clarify the interaction between sex-based rights and gender identity claims under the Sex Discrimination Act, providing a legal framework for future disputes.
- Determine whether gender identity claims can override sex-based protections, particularly in the digital age where online spaces have become crucial for female social, economic, and political participation.
- Shape how Australia implements CEDAW, a treaty designed to eliminate gender stereotypes and ensure sex-based protections, and whether the law will uphold those objectives or, instead, entrench stereotypes about womanhood based on gender identity ideology.
A Case with Global Implications
The appeal will have far-reaching consequences, not just in Australia but in legal systems worldwide. As the first case to rigorously test gender identity protections against sex-based rights in this context, it will set an important precedent for how similar cases are argued and decided in other jurisdictions.
At its core, this case asks whether the principles of CEDAW and the Sex Discrimination Act should be interpreted to protect women as a sex class or whether they should be redefined to accommodate gender identity at the expense of sex-based protections. The outcome will be a touchstone for whether the law continues to safeguard women’s rights or whether those protections will be eroded in favour of a subjective, identity-based approach to sex and gender.
The decision in this appeal will influence not only Australian law and policy but also international human rights discourse on sex discrimination and gender identity conflicts. It will provide a critical reference point for policymakers, advocacy groups, and legal experts engaged in the global debate over sex-based rights and gender identity ideology.
We call on all those who support fairness, the protection of women’s and lesbian rights, and the preservation of sex-based legal protections to stand with us as we continue this crucial legal battle. This case is about ensuring that legal definitions remain clear, that protections for women remain meaningful, and that sex remains a legally recognised category in law and policy.
The Importance of Female-Only Spaces
The importance of single-sex spaces is universally recognised. The fact that they exist acknowledges the biological sex differences between men and women, women’s inherent physical vulnerability relative to men, and the necessity of protecting women’s rights, safety, and privacy. Allowing men to self-identify as women and access female-only spaces, services, and activities has led to serious consequences worldwide, including in Australia.
The impact of this is already being seen across multiple sectors:
- Women’s sport – Female athletes are being forced to compete against biologically male competitors, losing fair competition opportunities, scholarships, and career prospects.
- Women’s refuges and shelters – Women fleeing male violence have been required to share spaces with men who self-identify as women.
- Prisons and detention facilities – Male offenders, including convicted rapists, have been transferred to women’s prisons, placing female inmates at risk.
- Public facilities – Girls are expected to share bathrooms, changing rooms, and dormitories with male peers in schools and other institutions.
- Freedom of speech and association – Women who challenge these policies or defend the reality of biological sex face harassment, loss of employment, and legal consequences.
Women and girls have a right to feel safe and to be safe in services, facilities, and activities that are specifically for them.
- Girls should be able to use school bathrooms without sharing them with male peers.
- Women in prison should not be forced to share facilities with male offenders, including sex offenders.
- Victims of male violence should be able to access crisis shelters without having to share those spaces with men who identify as women.
- Female athletes should be able to compete in fair and safe conditions, without being required to compete against men.
- Organisations should have the legal right to exclude males from female-only spaces without facing legal action.
Women fought hard for sex-based rights and protections, and these must not be displaced by men self-declaring a gender identity that allows them access to spaces and services that were previously protected for women on the basis of sex.
The Constitutional Overreach and Misuse of International Law in Tickle v Giggle
The Tickle v Giggle case has raised profound concerns about constitutional overreach, the manipulation of international human rights law, and the erosion of sex-based legal protections. The Federal Court’s ruling fundamentally altered the meaning of “sex” in Australian law, redefining it as a mutable characteristic rather than a biological reality, and in doing so, dramatically expanded the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act beyond its original intent.
This ruling has far-reaching consequences, not only for the ability of women to maintain female-only spaces, but also for how the Commonwealth uses broad constitutional powers to impose gender ideology through legislative interpretation. The case relied on two key constitutional powers to uphold gender identity protections under the Sex Discrimination Act—the external affairs power and the corporations power. Both were stretched beyond their traditional limits to justify this legal outcome, raising significant concerns about federal overreach.
1. The External Affairs Power: Redefining “Sex” via Treaty Obligations
A central issue in this case was whether the Commonwealth had the constitutional power to legislate on gender identity discrimination under the external affairs power (Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution). The Federal Court ruled that section 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which prohibits gender identity discrimination in the provision of goods and services, was valid under Australia’s international treaty obligations—specifically, Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Notably, gender identity is not explicitly mentioned in Article 26. However, the court accepted that the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) had, in more recent years, interpreted the phrase “other status” in Article 26 to include gender identity. The ruling therefore found that Australia was obligated to legislate against gender identity discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act, despite the fact that gender identity was not contemplated when the ICCPR was drafted in 1966, nor when Australia ratified it.
This ruling is highly problematic, as it:
- Allows international treaty bodies, rather than elected representatives, to dictate Australian law. The UNHRC’s interpretations are not legally binding, yet they were treated as determinative in expanding Commonwealth legislative power.
- Misuses the external affairs power to legislate on an issue that was not explicitly included in Australia’s treaty obligations. When the ICCPR was signed, gender identity was not considered a protected characteristic—yet the court imported evolving international interpretations to justify Commonwealth intervention.
- Creates a dangerous precedent where broad and shifting international norms can be used to justify federal laws that override domestic legislative intent.
This case demonstrates a disturbing trend in which the external affairs power is being used as a legal mechanism to impose ideological changes on domestic law under the guise of treaty compliance. The Federal Court, rather than interpreting Australian law according to clear legislative intent, instead relied on evolving international interpretations to reshape the meaning of “sex” and “gender identity” in Australian anti-discrimination law, raising real questions for Australia’s democratic sovereignty.
2. The Corporations Power: Piercing the Corporate Veil to Regulate a Non-Trading Entity
The corporations power (Section 51(xx) of the Constitution) was also inappropriately applied to justify regulating Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd under Commonwealth anti-discrimination law. The Federal Court ruled that Giggle was a “trading corporation,” meaning it could be regulated under the Sex Discrimination Act as a commercial entity. However, this finding is highly questionable.
Giggle for Girls was not, in reality, a trading corporation. It did not operate as a business in the conventional sense—it did not generate any real revenue, nor was there an expectation that it would do so in the near future.
- The platform was created primarily as a female-only social network, not as a commercial enterprise. The intention was to provide a protected digital space for women and girls, rather than to operate as a profit-driven company.
- The suggestion that Giggle was engaged in trade was based on a tenuous interpretation of corporate intention. While there was a vague expectation that investors might be repaid in the future, there was no legal obligation for this to occur, nor was it a structured business model.
Despite this, the court pierced the corporate veil and imposed commercial obligations on a platform that was not, in any meaningful sense, a trading entity.
The justification for this decision was deeply flawed:
- The mere possibility of future revenue was treated as sufficient evidence of trading activity.
- The court ignored the fundamental distinction between a trading corporation and a social enterprise.
- By classifying Giggle as a trading corporation, the court effectively ensured that all small platforms, advocacy groups, and social networks that charge any form of fee or accept investment could be regulated under federal anti-discrimination laws.
This ruling has serious implications for how the corporations power is applied.
3. The Broader Constitutional Impact
The Tickle v Giggle ruling is constitutionally significant because it:
- Distorts the meaning of “sex” in law, replacing it with gender identity and overriding Australia’s obligations under CEDAW.
- Uses the external affairs power to impose gender ideology through international treaty interpretation.
- Expands the corporations power to regulate social networks and digital spaces, even when they do not function as trading entities.
- Sets a precedent for further federal intervention in areas that were never intended to fall under Commonwealth jurisdiction.
This case demonstrates how constitutional mechanisms can be exploited to reshape fundamental legal concepts without democratic oversight. The appeal is not just about Giggle—it is about resisting the federal government’s ability to redefine sex, override international treaty obligations, and impose gender identity ideology through expansive constitutional interpretation.
If this ruling is upheld, it will legitimise the ongoing erosion of sex-based rights, open the door to unrestricted federal control over social policy, and empower courts to import ideological frameworks into domestic law under the guise of constitutional interpretation.
The outcome of this appeal will determine whether the Australian Constitution continues to function as a safeguard against overreach or becomes a tool for judicial and legislative activism that undermines foundational legal protections.
Defend Sex-Based Rights and Constitutional Freedoms
This case is one of the most significant legal battles of our time concerning sex-based rights, constitutional overreach, and the erosion of protections for women, lesbians, and same-sex attracted people. It is the first time the gender identity amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) have been tested in court, and the outcome will have far-reaching implications in Australia and beyond.
This case is not just about one platform—it is about whether sex remains a meaningful legal category or whether it will be replaced by gender identity, forcing women’s, men’s, and gay and lesbian spaces to redefine themselves against their will. It also raises serious constitutional concerns about the misuse of international treaties and the expansion of federal power to enforce gender ideology on private organisations.
The appeal will challenge the Federal Court’s ruling that redefined sex as changeable, undermining the protections enshrined in CEDAW, and will test the extent to which international human rights bodies can dictate Australian law. This is a fight not just for women’s rights, but for Australia’s sovereignty through the integrity of constitutional limits on government power and the preservation of fundamental freedoms.
About Donating
All donations made via this crowdfund are by way of gift.
These funds are being raised in the public interest to ensure that critical legal principles concerning sex-based rights are fully ventilated and determined, allowing this important matter to be properly argued and resolved.
The funds raised, less any processing fees, will be used exclusively to cover legal fees and associated costs incurred in the appeal proceedings, any subsequent hearings, and efforts necessary to ensure this important matter is fully and properly determined.
Any excess funds remaining at the conclusion of the case will be held on trust and donated to other litigation efforts and advocacy projects supporting sex-based rights, and constitutional legal challenges to ideological overreach.
How You Can Help
If you believe in the importance of defending sex-based rights, safeguarding female-only spaces, upholding constitutional principles, and ensuring that same-sex attracted people can lawfully define their identity and advocacy on their own terms, then your support is critical.
Every contribution strengthens the fight to restore clarity to Australian anti-discrimination law, to ensure that international human rights treaties are not manipulated to override women’s rights, and to protect the fundamental freedoms of women, lesbians, and all those affected by gender ideology’s encroachment into law and policy.
Thank you for standing with us in this important fight.