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.

Key Developments: Giggle for Girls and Sall Grover have filed comprehensive appeal submissions, mounting a robust challenge to the earlier ruling.

As we move forward, 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 of male sex, recognised as “female” under Queensland’s Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration legislation, against Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and its CEO, Sall Grover. The dispute centres on whether Giggle’s policy of limiting its female-only social networking app to females constituted unlawful gender identity discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act.

Creation of the Giggle App and Its Purpose

Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd, founded by Sall Grover, created an online women-only space to provide a safe networking platform for female users. The app marketed itself as a social space exclusively for women, offering functionality for networking, friendship, support groups, and professional collaboration.

The app’s verification process featured an artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition system to determine whether a user was female or male based on their selfie. The AI was set to err on the side of inclusion to avoid excluding female users. Final approval was conducted manually by Giggle staff, including Grover, who reviewed images passing the AI filter.

Tickle’s Access and Removal from the App

In February 2021, Tickle downloaded the Giggle App, submitted a selfie for AI verification, and gained access, using the app for several months. In September or October 2021, Tickle’s account was restricted following a manual review of their profile picture by Grover, who concluded Tickle was male, per Giggle’s policy of excluding men.

Tickle contacted Giggle via in-app support and email. Grover responded once, requesting a phone number, but no further action was taken. Justice Bromwich found that Tickle’s removal resulted from an appearance-based assessment, not knowledge of Tickle’s transgender identity, as Tickle’s profile did not indicate gender identity.

Key Findings by Justice Bromwich

• Tickle’s claim for direct discrimination failed, as there was no evidence Giggle knew of Tickle’s gender identity at the time of removal.
• Tickle’s claim for indirect discrimination succeeded, as Giggle’s appearance-based policy disproportionately impacted transgender women, who may not conform to conventional female appearance expectations.
• Giggle’s argument that its policy was a “special measure” under the Sex Discrimination Act was rejected, as the court found it did not shield against gender identity discrimination claims.

The court ordered Giggle to pay Tickle $10,000 in damages, denied requests for an apology or reinstatement, and ordered Giggle to cover Tickle’s costs, with constitutional and statutory arguments 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” in law.
• The right to single-sex spaces for all.
• The interaction between gender identity protections and sex-based protections in law and policy.

Giggle Appeal – Full Federal Court Decision Pending

The appeal in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle was heard on 4 August to the 7 August 2025 before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

We now wait for the Court’s decision, which we anticipate could take three to six months.

What Giggle and Sall Grover Fought For

In the Federal Court, Sall Grover and Giggle for Girls—represented by Noel Hutley SC and Bridie Nolan—fought for:

• Recognition of the ordinary meaning of “woman” and “man”: that a woman is an adult human female, a man is an adult human male, and “sex” refers to immutable biological reality.
• The right to operate Giggle as a female-only space for biological women, excluding males regardless of gender identity.
• Protection under s 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act as a lawful “special measure” designed to achieve substantive equality for women.
• The principle that biological sex matters in law, policy, and protections for women’s safety, privacy, and opportunity.

What Giggle and Sall Grover Fought Against

We opposed the positions advanced by:

• Roxanne Tickle, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (SDC), and Equality Australia.
• The argument that “woman” includes transgender women and that biological sex is irrelevant in equality law.
• The “distributive” interpretation of s 7D, which would strip special measure protection from any female-only policy if it disadvantages another protected attribute (such as gender identity).
• The notion that trans women are legally a subset of women, making exclusion of males who identify as women unlawful.
• The erasure of biological sex from the legal framework, replacing it entirely with self-declared gender identity.

What the Respondent, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and Equality Australia Want

Based on their written submissions and oral arguments, they seek:

• A legal definition of “woman” that includes trans women, and “man” that includes trans men.
• A reading of “sex” that is informed by gender identity protections, not fixed biology.
• A distributive s 7D: a special measure for one group cannot disadvantage any other protected group, making most sex-based measures unlawful if they exclude trans women.
• A ruling that trans women are women for all SDA purposes, and exclusion from a female-only service is direct discrimination.
• A national legal precedent that biological sex is not an independent basis for rights or protections.

If They Succeed, the Impact Will Be Profound

If the Full Court accepts their arguments:

• Giggle will no longer be able to operate as a female-only platform for biological women.
• Sall Grover will have lost the ability to maintain the space she built to protect women’s safety and connection.
• Australian law will treat “woman” and “man” solely as gender identity categories.
• Female-only spaces, services, and sports could be forced to admit males who identify as women.
• Biological sex would have no meaningful place in federal anti-discrimination law.
• The Court may also decline to decide what woman, man or sex means, as they may not find it necessary to decide in order to decide the question of direct or indirect discrimination.
• The precedent would make it much harder for any future case to restore sex-based rights.
• There will also be serious costs implications for Sall and Giggle, who will also be liable for the costs at first instance, as well as $50,000 costs-cap for the Appeal and $50,000 cost-cap for the Cross-Appeal.

If Giggle Wins

If the Court accepts our arguments:

• “Woman” and “man” will retain their ordinary, biological meaning in law.
• Giggle will be recognised as a lawful special measure for women.
• This will set a precedent protecting sex-based spaces and services nationwide.
• The ruling will send a message that Parliament—not ideology—must change definitions if it wants to erase sex from the law.

What’s Next – The Legal Pathway

1. Waiting for Judgment
   • Full Court decisions usually take 3–6 months.
2. If We Lose – 28 Days to Apply for Special Leave
   • Special leave is permission from the High Court to appeal.
   • The High Court grants it only if the case raises questions of law of public importance or affects the administration of justice nationally.
3. Special Leave Hearing
   • Usually before 2–3 Justices, often by video link.
   • If granted, a full bench of 5–7 Justices hears the appeal.
4. If Leave is Granted
   • Appeal is heard within 6–9 months.
   • High Court decision is final.
5. If Leave is Refused
   • The Full Court’s ruling becomes the law.
   • Only future litigation or legislative change could alter it.

In the High Court, Sall and Giggle’s opponent is not only the Respondent, but the Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner, whose position broadly aligns with the Respondent, backed by the resources of the Australian federal government, and supported by Equality Australia, a well-funded activist lobby charity with the Governor-General of Australia, Sam Mostyn, as their patron.

Fundraising Goal – $1 Million

Whether taking this case to the High Court or defending a win there, fighting for women’s rights is costly.

Sall is up against the federal government’s coffers and a well-financed activist network.

We must raise $1 million to ensure our best possible legal team, expert evidence, and court preparation.

This fight is not just for Giggle. Everyone should understand: if this interpretation of “woman” and “sex” stands, it could influence other jurisdictions worldwide.

Why This Case Matters

If Sall and Giggle take this all the way and wins, it will only be the beginning.

We face:

• A legislature with no political appetite to fix the problem it created.
• An executive branch actively opposing the recognition of biological sex in law.
• The need for ongoing court action to restore biological sex to its rightful legal place.

Women, and all defenders of biological reality, will need to keep using the courts to correct the legal distortions created by ideology and restore fairness, safety, and truth to the law.

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.

With the appeal now heard, the judgment could set global precedents – help us ensure women's rights prevail

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.

Funds will also cover post-hearing costs (e.g., transcripts, legal analysis) and any High Court appeal.

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.