1/
🚨 Giggle v Tickle – Day 1 of the appeal in Australia’s Federal Court has wrapped.
This is about far more than one app. It’s about whether women are still allowed any space of their own – and whether the law still knows what a woman is.
🧵1/12
🚨 Giggle v Tickle – Day 1 of the appeal in Australia’s Federal Court has wrapped.
This is about far more than one app. It’s about whether women are still allowed any space of their own – and whether the law still knows what a woman is.
🧵1/12
2/
Sall Grover’s app, Giggle for Girls, was built to be a female-only digital space.
Roxanne Tickle – a male person identifying as a woman – was removed after selfie verification.
Tickle sued under Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act. The judge ruled in his favour.
Sall Grover’s app, Giggle for Girls, was built to be a female-only digital space.
Roxanne Tickle – a male person identifying as a woman – was removed after selfie verification.
Tickle sued under Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act. The judge ruled in his favour.
3/
Now Grover is appealing.
Her legal team argued that the word “woman” has a plain, binary meaning – and that no Act of Parliament has ever changed it.
Repealing a definition doesn’t abolish biological reality.
That was the core of the day.
Now Grover is appealing.
Her legal team argued that the word “woman” has a plain, binary meaning – and that no Act of Parliament has ever changed it.
Repealing a definition doesn’t abolish biological reality.
That was the core of the day.
4/
They went deep into the legal weeds:
s5B: indirect discrimination
s7D: special measures
s7B: reasonableness
The meaning of “likely disadvantage”
The repeal of the 1984 definition of “woman”
The 2013 amendments and what they didn’t say
They went deep into the legal weeds:
s5B: indirect discrimination
s7D: special measures
s7B: reasonableness
The meaning of “likely disadvantage”
The repeal of the 1984 definition of “woman”
The 2013 amendments and what they didn’t say
5/
Grover’s barrister argued Giggle was a lawful special measure under s7D – a space designed to let women participate online, free from male harassment.
The court heard from rape survivors, lesbians, and women of faith who said Giggle was their only safe place online.
Grover’s barrister argued Giggle was a lawful special measure under s7D – a space designed to let women participate online, free from male harassment.
The court heard from rape survivors, lesbians, and women of faith who said Giggle was their only safe place online.
6/
The judges – especially JP – pushed back.
Did Grover really exclude based on appearance? Or was this actually about sex at birth?
And if the app functionally excludes trans-identified males, does that still count as discrimination on gender identity?
The judges – especially JP – pushed back.
Did Grover really exclude based on appearance? Or was this actually about sex at birth?
And if the app functionally excludes trans-identified males, does that still count as discrimination on gender identity?
7/
Grover’s team held the line:
➡️The selfie check was about appearance
➡️The app didn’t ask for legal sex
➡️It wasn’t built to target trans-identified people – it was built to include women
➡️That’s what s7D was made for
Grover’s team held the line:
➡️The selfie check was about appearance
➡️The app didn’t ask for legal sex
➡️It wasn’t built to target trans-identified people – it was built to include women
➡️That’s what s7D was made for
8/
Where Grover's case wobbled slightly:
❔The fallback argument under s7B (reasonableness) may not have been properly raised in the original trial
❔The court showed some discomfort with the idea that protecting one group might lawfully exclude another
Where Grover's case wobbled slightly:
❔The fallback argument under s7B (reasonableness) may not have been properly raised in the original trial
❔The court showed some discomfort with the idea that protecting one group might lawfully exclude another
9/
Tickle’s side only began at the end of the day.
They argued that sex under the SDA isn’t purely biological. That Tickle presents as a woman, identifies as a woman, and therefore is a woman – legally and socially.
More of their case is coming tomorrow.
Tickle’s side only began at the end of the day.
They argued that sex under the SDA isn’t purely biological. That Tickle presents as a woman, identifies as a woman, and therefore is a woman – legally and socially.
More of their case is coming tomorrow.
10/
So where are we?
Grover’s side was legally sharp and emotionally grounded.
The judges were clearly taking her arguments seriously – especially around statutory meaning and women’s safety.
This wasn’t a walkover, but it was a solid showing.
So where are we?
Grover’s side was legally sharp and emotionally grounded.
The judges were clearly taking her arguments seriously – especially around statutory meaning and women’s safety.
This wasn’t a walkover, but it was a solid showing.
11/
What’s at stake?
If the court rules that apps like Giggle must include anyone who says they’re a woman, then sex-based protections die quietly in the codebase.
This case could decide whether women are still allowed to say “no” in their own spaces.
What’s at stake?
If the court rules that apps like Giggle must include anyone who says they’re a woman, then sex-based protections die quietly in the codebase.
This case could decide whether women are still allowed to say “no” in their own spaces.
12/
Next: Day 2 continues with the respondent's full argument and intervention from the Equality Australia team.
But Day 1 belonged to Grover.
And if reason still matters in Australian law – she’s on strong ground.
Next: Day 2 continues with the respondent's full argument and intervention from the Equality Australia team.
But Day 1 belonged to Grover.
And if reason still matters in Australian law – she’s on strong ground.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
