Female 'safe space' app defends booting trans woman
The Giggle for Girls app and founder Sall Grover are seeking to overturn a 2024 finding it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021.
The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday.
The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said.
"A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday.
The barrister said Ms Grover's intention behind the app was to provide a "safe space" for women.
Evidence was shown to the court from women of sexual abuse, alcoholism, trolling and harassment from men who had found refuge on the Giggle platform.
"It's got to the point to say that a by-blow of it is that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate," Mr Hutley said.
The evidence showed "the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet," he told a panel of three judges.
The need for this type of space was "manifest" and it was a special measure despite excluding certain groups.
Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this in court, saying "invidious discrimination" could be - on Giggle's view of the world - permitted to take place under the guise of a special measure.
When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected.
"Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked.
Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation.
"So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked.
"Quite," Mr Hutley replied.
"If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that."
Justice Perry asked what Ms Grover meant when she said she wanted Giggle to be a women-only safe space.
"Women who she had judged to look like women," Mr Hutley replied.
"No, but you're going in circles," the judge noted.
Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from the app in September 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman.
Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not "appear female," Mr Hutley said.
"Isn't that a distinction without a difference?" Justice Perry asked.
Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024.
She further claims the judge wrongly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover.
The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her.
Her barrister Georgina Costello KC gave short submissions that her client was in fact a woman and that the definition of "sex" was not confined to a biological concept.
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
A social media app has defended the ejection of a transgender woman, claiming the platform was needed as a safe space against "deplorable" behaviour from men.
The Giggle for Girls app and founder Sall Grover are seeking to overturn a 2024 finding it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021.
The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday.
The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said.
"A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday.
The barrister said Ms Grover's intention behind the app was to provide a "safe space" for women.
Evidence was shown to the court from women of sexual abuse, alcoholism, trolling and harassment from men who had found refuge on the Giggle platform.
"It's got to the point to say that a by-blow of it is that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate," Mr Hutley said.
The evidence showed "the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet," he told a panel of three judges.
The need for this type of space was "manifest" and it was a special measure despite excluding certain groups.
Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this in court, saying "invidious discrimination" could be - on Giggle's view of the world - permitted to take place under the guise of a special measure.
When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected.
"Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked.
Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation.
"So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked.
"Quite," Mr Hutley replied.
"If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that."
Justice Perry asked what Ms Grover meant when she said she wanted Giggle to be a women-only safe space.
"Women who she had judged to look like women," Mr Hutley replied.
"No, but you're going in circles," the judge noted.
Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from the app in September 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman.
Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not "appear female," Mr Hutley said.
"Isn't that a distinction without a difference?" Justice Perry asked.
Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024.
She further claims the judge wrongly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover.
The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her.
Her barrister Georgina Costello KC gave short submissions that her client was in fact a woman and that the definition of "sex" was not confined to a biological concept.
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
A social media app has defended the ejection of a transgender woman, claiming the platform was needed as a safe space against "deplorable" behaviour from men.
The Giggle for Girls app and founder Sall Grover are seeking to overturn a 2024 finding it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021.
The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday.
The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said.
"A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday.
The barrister said Ms Grover's intention behind the app was to provide a "safe space" for women.
Evidence was shown to the court from women of sexual abuse, alcoholism, trolling and harassment from men who had found refuge on the Giggle platform.
"It's got to the point to say that a by-blow of it is that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate," Mr Hutley said.
The evidence showed "the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet," he told a panel of three judges.
The need for this type of space was "manifest" and it was a special measure despite excluding certain groups.
Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this in court, saying "invidious discrimination" could be - on Giggle's view of the world - permitted to take place under the guise of a special measure.
When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected.
"Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked.
Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation.
"So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked.
"Quite," Mr Hutley replied.
"If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that."
Justice Perry asked what Ms Grover meant when she said she wanted Giggle to be a women-only safe space.
"Women who she had judged to look like women," Mr Hutley replied.
"No, but you're going in circles," the judge noted.
Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from the app in September 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman.
Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not "appear female," Mr Hutley said.
"Isn't that a distinction without a difference?" Justice Perry asked.
Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024.
She further claims the judge wrongly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover.
The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her.
Her barrister Georgina Costello KC gave short submissions that her client was in fact a woman and that the definition of "sex" was not confined to a biological concept.
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
A social media app has defended the ejection of a transgender woman, claiming the platform was needed as a safe space against "deplorable" behaviour from men.
The Giggle for Girls app and founder Sall Grover are seeking to overturn a 2024 finding it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021.
The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday.
The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said.
"A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday.
The barrister said Ms Grover's intention behind the app was to provide a "safe space" for women.
Evidence was shown to the court from women of sexual abuse, alcoholism, trolling and harassment from men who had found refuge on the Giggle platform.
"It's got to the point to say that a by-blow of it is that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate," Mr Hutley said.
The evidence showed "the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet," he told a panel of three judges.
The need for this type of space was "manifest" and it was a special measure despite excluding certain groups.
Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this in court, saying "invidious discrimination" could be - on Giggle's view of the world - permitted to take place under the guise of a special measure.
When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected.
"Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked.
Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation.
"So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked.
"Quite," Mr Hutley replied.
"If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that."
Justice Perry asked what Ms Grover meant when she said she wanted Giggle to be a women-only safe space.
"Women who she had judged to look like women," Mr Hutley replied.
"No, but you're going in circles," the judge noted.
Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from the app in September 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman.
Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not "appear female," Mr Hutley said.
"Isn't that a distinction without a difference?" Justice Perry asked.
Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024.
She further claims the judge wrongly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover.
The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her.
Her barrister Georgina Costello KC gave short submissions that her client was in fact a woman and that the definition of "sex" was not confined to a biological concept.
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
3 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Kmart dragged into landmark legal case over alleged links to Uyghur forced labor in China
In an Australian legal first, Uyghur community leaders have launched Federal Court action demanding transparency from retail giant Kmart over its potential links to forced labour in China. The Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA) has filed a motion demanding Kmart hand over internal documents related to two of its clothing suppliers allegedly involved in forced Uyghur labour in the Xinjiang region. Both suppliers are listed in Kmart's 2024 and 2025 factory disclosures, AUTWA said. The legal action, led by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and supported by the Human Rights Law Centre, aims to test whether Kmart's ethical sourcing claims hold up under scrutiny. Speaking outside the court in Melbourne on Tuesday, AUTWA President Ramila Chanisheff said the case marks a historic milestone. 'We just filed a document into the Federal Court asking for records from Kmart about two supply chains that could be linked to Uyghur forced labor,' she told 'It is the first of its kind in Australia to bring a case against an Australian retailer, and it's not just a small retailer, it's actually a major. 'We want to make sure that the products that are made in China and sold in Kmart are not linked to forced labour.' Kmart publicly markets itself as an ethical business. 'We aim to provide great products at the lowest prices for our customers while respecting human rights,' the retailer states on its website. Kmart said it is continually working to improve its ethical sourcing standards and processes, and is collaborating with suppliers, NGOs, trade unions, and government representatives to help improve working conditions in the regions where it sources its products. The court action now centres around whether the company may have breached Australian Consumer Law by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct about the sourcing of its products. AUTWA is seeking access to documents that could demonstrate what Kmart knew — or should have known — about the origins of products made in factories with ties to Xinjiang, where widespread human rights abuses, including state-sponsored forced labour, have been well-documented. 'If it's found that Kmart's products are linked to forced labour, they must divest from those supply chains, not just in Xinjiang, but across China, where Uyghur people are often trafficked into mainland labour camps,' Chanisheff said. The goal is not only to hold Kmart accountable, but to put other industries on notice, she added. 'Australians deserve to make informed choices.' Retailers on notice Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis, who is leading the case, said the legal action aims to hold Kmart accountable for its ethical sourcing claims. She said the company must be transparent about its supply chain practices, especially given the known risks of forced labour in Xinjiang. 'Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights — but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang,' Kanis said. 'Documents will be sought from Kmart to determine whether it engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct about this issue.' She added the Federal Court will be asked to compel Kmart to provide evidence of what due diligence it has conducted on suppliers with links to the region. Associate legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre Freya Dinshaw said the case underscores significant weaknesses in Australia's approach to modern slavery. 'The alarm bells have been ringing for a long time in relation to the risk of forced labour in the Chinese garment sector, and Australian retailers have been on notice,' she said. 'This court case is about Kmart coming clean on whether it is really doing everything it claims to be doing to ensure that its products are slavery free.' Dinshaw argued it should not be up to the public to force companies into transparency through legal action and called for stronger laws that require businesses to investigate and prevent forced labour. She also noted that, unlike countries such as the US and Canada, Australia has not banned the importation of goods made with forced labour, allowing them to reach store shelves unchecked. What happens next? The Federal Court will consider AUTWA's request in the coming weeks. If successful, the outcome could pave the way for further legal action against Kmart or other major retailers. 'Kmart, and all companies, must ensure they are not profiting from forced labour in China.,' Chanisheff said. The case is expected to fuel growing public pressure on retailers to lift the veil on their offshore operations.
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘May the best woman win': JK Rowling weighs in on Giggle v Tickle discrimination case
JK Rowling has thrown her support behind the founder of a women-only app currently appealing a Federal Court ruling that she had unlawfully discriminated against a transgender woman. Sall Grover was ordered to pay $10,000 in damages last August after she was found to have indirectly discriminated against transgender woman Roxanne Tickle when she removed her from her social media app, Giggles for Girls. AI software designed to filter out men from the women-only app had cleared Ms Tickle, but Ms Grover removed her from the app herself after seeing her profile in 2021. The landmark case resulted in Federal Court Justice Robert Bromwich ruling that Ms Tickle was excluded from the app for not looking 'sufficiently female', and therefore was indirectly discriminated against. Ms Grover filed an appeal against Justice Bromwich's judgement in October. The first hearing of her appeal was held on Monday. Ahead of the hearing, Rowling – who has been outspoken in her criticism of what she sees as an assault of women's rights coming from transgender activists – issued a message of public support to Ms Grover. 'Good luck, Sall,' the Harry Potter author wrote on X. 'May the best woman (haha) win x.' Rowling also shared a post of Ms Grover's on the social media platform – a screenshot of an article by The Australian about Monday's hearing. Ms Grover captioned the screenshot of the article – headlined 'Trans women 'should have legal protections available to pregnant women'': 'This is how insane gender ideology is.' Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Brisbane in October, Ms Grover insisted 'somebody's biological sex is immutable' and it was a 'natural human instinct for us to be able to tell this'. 'And if you are then being told that you cannot acknowledge that really basic instinct, you have lost the ability to recognise one of our most basic skills,' she said. 'If you just look to the person sitting next to you right now, you can tell if they are male or female. Now imagine if you can't do that anymore because you've got to ask, 'Do you have a gender identity?'. And if you don't acknowledge that and give meaning to that then you're breaking the law. It simply doesn't work.' Ms Grover added 'we are told constantly that trans rights are human rights, but human rights cannot be rights that take away other people's rights'. 'That's not how it works. And it's not only that they're taking away our rights, we're actually being coerced into giving up our rights,' she claimed. It's not the first time Rowling has weighed in on an Australian court case related to women's and transgender rights. In December, she congratulated Moira Deeming's defamation win against John Pesutto, following a ruling from Federal Court Justice David O'Callaghan that Mr Pesutto had defamed Ms Deeming as a Nazi sympathiser after she attended a rally critical of transgender beliefs. 'The 'right side of history' is racking up a hell of a lot of losses recently, isn't it?' Rowling wrote on X at the time. 'Congratulations Moira Deeming.' She similarly celebrated Britain's Supreme Court's decision in April that a woman is defined by her sex at birth, in a major blow for transgender people in the UK. The case came about because the Scottish Government had argued trans women with a valid gender recognition certificate (GRC) could be afforded the same rights as all women under the Equality Act. A GRC can be issued by the UK government to people who are living as a different gender to their biological sex so long as they have been doing so for at least two years, have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and medical reports from two doctors. Campaign group For Women Scotland fought the Scottish Government's decision in the Scottish courts and lost, eventually bringing the case to Britain's Supreme Court. That court said Edinburgh's 'interpretation is not correct'. While someone might possess a certificate saying they live as a female and they assert that gender, that 'does not come within the definition of a 'woman' under the Equality Act 2010', the ruling said. The Equality Act, the judges said 'makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man'. It means a trans woman with a GRC cannot claim she is being discriminated against if she is barred from female only spaces like, for instance, domestic violence shelters and toilets. However, Lord Hodge said trans people were a 'vulnerable and often harassed minority', who 'struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity'. The Supreme Court also stressed that 'trans people are protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment'. Ms Rowling, who lives in Scotland and is an ardent campaigner against trans rights, lauded the outcome. 'It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK,' she wrote on X.
The Australian
6 hours ago
- The Australian
Roxanne Tickle says Sall Grover must pay damages for misgendering her in 50 media interviews
Giggle app founder Sall Grover should have to pay hefty damages to trans woman Roxanne Tickle because she 'misgendered her' in media interviews, Ms Tickle's legal team has pleaded in a bombshell submission to the Federal Court. In a submission which, if accepted, would have far-reaching implications for free speech, Ms Tickle's lawyers argued that Ms Grover's description of Ms Tickle as a man in at least 50 interviews should make her liable for 'significant' aggravated damages. Ms Grover is appealing a decision by judge Robert Bromwich that she indirectly discriminated against Ms Tickle by rejecting her from the Giggle for Girls female-only networking app because she appeared to be a man. Justice Bromwich had awarded $10,000 damages because Ms Grover had laughed in court at a satirical piece of merchandise – a scented candle – which appeared to mock Ms Tickle. Ms Tickle is also appealing parts of Justice Bromwich's decision, asking for a finding of direct rather than indirect discrimination and that the damages be increased to at least $40,000. Ms Tickle had sought $200,000 in damages at the previous trial. The Giggle v Tickle appeal has gained global attention, with author and prominent women's rights activist J.K. Rowling expressing support for Ms Grover in an overnight post on social media platform X. Rowling retweeted a post by Ms Grover of The Australian's story revealing a submission by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner that trans women 'should have legal protections available to pregnant or potentially women'. Ms Grover had captioned the post: 'This is how insane gender ideology is.' Rowling also sent her support to Ms Grover. 'Good luck, Sall. May the best woman (haha) win x,' she wrote in a post on X. On Tuesday, counsel for Ms Tickle, Briana Goding, said the $10,000 damages award was insufficient, in part because the beliefs Ms Grover held privately were also being made publicly and expressed in dozens of media interviews. 'There was evidence that Ms Grover had participated in some 50 interviews in relation to this case, and in each of those she used the male pronouns for Ms Tickle, and that on at least 10 occasions she referred to being scared or threatened or harassed by Ms Tickle,' Ms Goding said. Ms Grover's conduct 'has at the very least been seriously aggravating and has caused Ms Tickle injured feelings', Ms Goding said. 'The aggravation and injured feelings have mounted up, blow by blow.' Ms Goding said Justice Bromwich had found the satirical candle to be so offensive that he didn't repeat the content in his written judgment. 'However, it's our submission that His Honour ought to have gone beyond that single act of laughing in court and awarded aggravated damages for much broader conduct in the proceedings. Those matters included the statement that Ms Tickle was a man, but should also include the fact that in her opening submissions Ms Grover and Giggle stated they 'do not know, and cannot admit, whether the applicant is a natural person capable of being sued in the name of Roxanne Tickle'. 'This is not just a delegitimising of gender, but a delegitimising of humanity,' Ms Goding said. 'There's further, the overall conduct of crowd funding for the case using the demeaning material, the promoting of others to purchase material from the Etsy store as well as the laughing in court,' Ms Goding said. Ms Grover has previously stated that she did not have any role in producing or selling the candle merchandise. Ms Goding asked the appeal court to reject Justice Bromwich's finding that Ms Grover's views were genuinely held and bona fide because of the 'continued public misgendering and denial of gender identity of Ms Tickle'. 'This is not a case of asking anyone to change their opinions, it is not policing the opinions that someone can hold,' Ms Goding argued. Given the purpose of the Sex Discrimination Act in eliminating gender identity discrimination, the 'continued misgendering of Ms Tickle' could not be considered bona fide, proper or justifiable, she said. Earlier in the hearing, Ms Tickle's legal team had contested Ms Grover's claim that her rejection of Ms Tickle from the app was on the basis of her perceived sex – that she appeared to be a man – not because she was transgender. 'It was proved that not only did Giggle have a policy of excluding transgender women, they did exclude transgender women, and not only Ms Tickle,' said Georgina Costello KC, also appearing for Ms Tickle. 'Ms Grover has a policy that is not a secret. In fact, it's spoken about with some confidence and pride,' she said. 'Ms Tickle provided a selfie to the Giggle app in which she had a low-cut T-shirt on and a female haircut. She used the name Roxy, and that's important because they now say that they didn't know she was a transgender woman. We say that you shouldn't accept that evidence. 'The fact that (Ms Grover and Giggle) deny that they knew that Ms Tickle was a transgender woman when they excluded her from the app is not a defence to direct discrimination.' Counsel for Ms Grover, Noel Hutley SC, noted in relation to the demand for additional damages that the trial judge had found that although the denial of her gender identity had upset Ms Tickle, he was unable to attribute responsibility to Ms Grover for her 'finding this exhausting and draining'. 'Ms Tickle's evidence as to loss or damage is slight, if not minimal, and does not rise higher than a modest degree of hurt,' Justice Bromwich found. Politics Treasurer's marathon consultation with Australia's business elite faces being relegated to a talkfest as government backs away from major economic reforms. Politics Jim Chalmers has abandoned major tax reform for his economic roundtable, instead focusing on deregulation and housing productivity amid rising business sector anxiety.
