One of the better named legal cases to ever have come before a court , Roxanne Tickle v. Giggle for Girls (“Tickle v. Giggle”), is no laughing matter for the women of Australia. The landmark gender-versus-sex case is underway where a man who identifies as a woman has gone to court against a female-only social networking app and its founder and CEO after being barred from the platform.
In the case, which opened today, April 9, before the Federal Court of Australia, the question of whether women should be forced to open female-only spaces to men is front and centre. Tickle, a man who identifies as a woman, is claiming to have been discriminated against in being banned from the female-only social networking app, ‘Giggle for Girls’.
Tickle is claiming that, being “legally permitted to identify as female” and having had his birth certificate updated to represent him as such, he should be allowed entry into both physical and digital female-only spaces.
He’s seeking damages, a written apology and complete access to the platform.
Meanwhile, the defence is arguing against the suggestion that Tickle was discriminated against on the basis of gender identity, arguing instead that he was denied access to the app on the basis of sex.
On Tuesday, 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”.
Giving evidence late on Tuesday afternoon, Tickle clarified what living as a female meant by describing his taking of hormones to alter his body and undergoing surgical and social transitions.
He reiterated the changes to his government documents that indicate that his is now female and said that he has spent time and money on his wardrobe and removing facial hair, while using female changing rooms and playing on a female hockey team.
Meanwhile, Giggle’s barrister Bridie Nolan said that the focus must be on biological sex.
“Sex is discriminatory, it always has been and always will be … biological sex must prevail,” she said.
The case is asking the court to adjudicate between gender identity claims on the one hand and sex-based women’s rights, which is prompting the framing of the case as one tasked with deciding, ‘What is a woman?’
As such, the outcome of the case could set a legal precedent for the resolution of conflicts between gender identity claims and sex-based rights, where they arise.
Founder and CEO of Giggle, Sall Grover said that for decades, “women’s movements have fought for the right to have female spaces in society. Yet today, the clock is being wound back”.
“I designed my app to give women their own space to network. It is a legal fiction that Tickle is a woman. His birth certificate has been altered from male to female, but he is a biological man, and always will be. A woman’s-only app isn’t about discrimination. It’s about freedom of speech, belief and association,” she said.
“We are taking a stand for the safety of all women’s only spaces, but also for basic reality and truth, which the law should reflect.”
The defence is arguing that Australia’s ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) obliges the Australian government to protect women’s rights, including the right to female-only spaces. They further argue that expanding the legal definition of “women” to include men contradicts this key international treaty.
Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act (1984) considers differentiations on the basis of sex to be lawful when it comes to supporting women’s equality.
However, the state amended the Act in 2013 to make it unlawful to discriminate against persons on the basis of “gender identity”, while also removing the biologically-based definitions of “woman” and “man”.
The defence in Tickle v. Giggle has taken issue with this, and so is arguing that the Australian government acted unconstitutionally in its amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act to legislate for “gender identity” as a protected characteristic. It’s arguing that this is against the purpose for which the act was designed.
The case’s outcome will be of relevance to all countries that have ratified CEDAW, of which Ireland is one, with advocates for sex-based women’s rights arguing that a win for Giggle could potentially help safeguard female-only spaces around the world.