Judge Issues Warning in Landmark Transgender Case

A transgender flag sits on the grass outside of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, on May 22, 2023. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Tensions are heating up at the landmark Tickle v Giggle case in the Federal Court of Australia after Justice Robert Bromwich warned the full courtroom that he would not put up with any “intimidation or harassment” within or outside the court.

Sall Grover, founder of women-only social app Giggle for Girls, is being sued by activist Roxanne Tickle, who identifies as a woman.

Ms. Grover is being sued for the female-only membership policy of her app, while Mr. Tickle has a birth certificate legally identifying as a female from Queensland following gender affirming surgery in October 2019.

Ms. Grover has indicated that she is willing to take the case all the way to the High Court if she loses the case in the Federal Court.

Justice Bromwich expressed he appreciated that the case gave rise to strongly held views and emotions. However, some people outside the court were “unable or unwilling” to tolerate the existence of any view contrary to their own,” AAP reported.

Women’s Forum Australia CEO Rachael Wong posted on X that the courtroom was “overflowing.” She raised concerns about the hearing not being live-streamed to accommodate more people.

“The courtroom for Tickle v Giggle is overflowing and they have kicked out everyone who is standing or sitting on the floor and won’t allow more seating to be brought in (until maybe, after lunch),” Ms. Wong said.

“The case is of critical importance to women’s rights both nationally and internationally, and it is shameful that adequate provisions have not been made for members of the public who wish to attend the hearing—including not allowing it to be live-streamed—despite it being a matter of significant public interest.”

Ms. Wong added it was “almost like they don’t want people to hear” the “ridiculous arguments being made about how men can be women.”

Tickle v Giggle

In December 2022, Mr. Tickle filed a claim to the Federal Court of Australia accusing Giggle and Ms. Grover of discriminating against him on the basis of gender identity after he was barred from joining.

It became unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender identity after former Prime Minister Julia Gillard introduced the amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013.

Ms. Grover is arguing that she is discriminating against Mr. Tickle on the basis of sex, not gender identity. In certain cases, discrimination based on sex is lawful under the Act.

On her website, Ms. Grover states that the case is significant because if gender identity protection laws are found to be unconstitutional or unlawful, every gender identity law across the country would be rendered invalid.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Attends Case

Meanwhile, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is attending the case to “assist the court” by providing submissions of relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

“Every individual, regardless of their gender identity, deserves dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law,” Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody said.

“Gender equality means equal treatment of all genders, including trans people. When we recognise trans rights, we recognise the worth and dignity of every person and reject the harmful stigmas and stereotypes that lead to discrimination.

“We stand with trans communities and will continue to advocate for their rights and the rights of women. No one in Australia should face discrimination or exclusion based on their sex or gender identity.”

Ms. Cody previously claimed that a person’s sex was neither a binary concept nor limited to biology.

In a submission to the Federal Court for the case, Ms. Cody said the term was “broad enough to encompass the idea that a person’s ‘sex’ can be changed.”

Meanwhile, Ms. Grover told Sky News that she had “never been so anxious” ahead of the court case on April 9.

“I didn’t know that this whole gender identity ideology existed, never in my wildest nightmare did I think there was anyone saying men are actually women if they just say it,” she said.

Ms. Grover expressed the case threatened not just woman’s rights, but also freedom of speech, association, and belief.

“I mean, what’s the point of even having a category of woman in law if it’s not defined as ‘biological adult human female’ if it’s just a category any man can become,” she said.

AAP and Rebecca Zhu contributed to this report