Latest news with #GiggleForGirls
The Guardian
4 days ago
- The Guardian
Meaning of ‘woman' goes beyond dictionary definition, court hears as Giggle for Girls appeal concludes
Sex exists on a scale and the definition of 'woman' is not limited to the pages of a dictionary, a court has heard in an appeal hearing to overturn a landmark gender identity discrimination finding made against a women-only social media app. Giggle for Girls and its CEO, Sall Grover, are challenging Justice Robert Bromwich's August 2024 federal court judgment that found Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman, was indirectly discriminated against when she was barred from the platform in September 2021. The case was the first gender identity discrimination case to reach the federal court. Much of the proceedings, which concluded on Wednesday, centred on the definition of sex, woman and what it means to be a woman. On Wednesday, Celia Winnett, the barrister for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who acted as a friend of the court, said the definition of 'women does include transgender women'. The full court of the federal court heard Giggle for Girls and Grover argue that the Sex Discrimination Act bears the 'ordinary' meaning of men and women. But Winnett said that ''woman' does now have a broader ordinary meaning … informed by its use' and that the meaning was 'broad enough to include trans women'. 'There's no need for ordinary meaning to hinge or rely on dictionary meanings,' she said. On Monday, Grover's barrister, Noel Hutley SC, told the court that 'even today, the Macquarie dictionary defines the word 'women' by reference to what I have called 'natal' woman'. A natal woman is a term used to describe a person who was assigned female at birth. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Giggle for Girls and Grover argue the app was allowed to discriminate against men because it was a special measure that redressed historical disadvantage between men and women. Grover has persistently misgendered Tickle and claims she did not know Tickle was a trans woman when she barred her from the app. The words 'opposite sex' were replaced with 'different sex' in the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013, when amendments made it unlawful under federal law to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Man, woman and sex are not defined in the act. Ruth Higgins SC, acting for Equality Australia, on Wednesday told the court that transgender people experienced unique forms of identity discrimination and that 'sex' included social recognition and personal identification. 'Sex is way of classifying people along a scale between a man at one end and woman at the other,' she said. 'Sex at birth is but one conception of sex.' A purely biological definition relied on a 'false simplicity', she said, questioning whether biological meant anatomical, chromosomal, hormonal or a balance thereof. The Lesbian Action Group was also given leave to intervene in the appeal. Its barrister, Leigh Howard, referred to the For Women Scotland case, when the UK supreme court in April issued a historic and definitive ruling that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the UK's Equality Act refer only to a biological woman and to biological sex. He said 'sex is a biological condition, not an identity' and urged for the word 'woman' to be given the same meaning throughout the act. Georgina Costello KC, Tickle's barrister, said Giggle for Girls' policy to exclude transgender women from the app disadvantaged transgender women – and that those women could face gender identity discrimination because of a discordance between their appearance and their identity. Because Giggle for Girls required users to have a gender identity that appeared consistent with their gender identity at birth, direct discrimination – rather than indirect discrimination as Bromwich found – was a 'better fit', she argued. But her opposition said it could not have been parliament's intention, when writing the Sex Discrimination Act, for protected measures – such as gender identity – to prejudice special measures for women. 'It would be an extraordinary by-blow of this exercise that expanding protection in effect undermines the ability to set up measures to achieve substantive equality,' Hutley said. Over the two-and-half-day appeal, the court heard Tickle was seeking $40,000 in damages and that she was treated as a 'hostile invader' when joining the app. A finding is expected by February.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- The Guardian
Transgender woman treated as ‘hostile invader' when joining women-only app Giggle for Girls, court hears
A transgender woman was treated 'as a hostile invader' and directly discriminated against twice when she was excluded from a women-only social media app, a court has heard. Giggle for Girls and its CEO, Sall Grover, are challenging Justice Robert Bromwich's landmark federal court judgment that found Roxanne Tickle was indirectly discriminated against when she was barred from the platform in September 2021. The case was the first gender identity discrimination case to reach the federal court. On the second day of the appeal hearing in Sydney, Tickle's barrister, Georgina Costello KC, told the court her client was directly discriminated against, both when she was barred from the app and when the app refused to readmit her. Costello said her client was treated 'as a hostile invader', rather than how a cisgender woman would have been treated when joining Giggle for Girls. The court heard Tickle, who is from regional New South Wales, presented as a woman in an onboarding selfie she uploaded to the app, including by wearing a low-cut top and with her hair down. Grover checked the photo and barred Tickle from membership to the app. Tickle then approached Grover multiple times asking for her membership to be reinstated. Grover's actions in response were again in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act because she saw Tickle as a man, despite Tickle's continued presentation and identity as a woman, the court heard. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Costello said Bromwich erred when he did not consider evidence including that Tickle presented as a woman in her selfie, that she politely inquired as a female about her access to the app not functioning, and that Grover treated her as a woman when she said she would 'look into' the issues. 'She thinks she's dealing with a woman, then she looks at the photo and decides she is dealing with a man,' Costello said, adding that Grover had a 'wilful blindness to gender identity'. Tickle's team put to the court that Grover knew she was dealing with a transgender woman – a claim that Grover has always denied. Grover's denial she knew Tickle was a transgender woman was 'not a defence to direct discrimination', Costello said. If it was, a person could simply deny knowledge of an attribute protected by the Sex Discrimination Act, which would subvert its function, the court heard. In response to Costello's arguments, Grover's barrister, Noel Hutley SC, said Bromwich was correct in finding direct discrimination had not occurred and that his client was not aware Tickle was transgender. When dealing with Tickle's potential readmittance to the app, Grover was reacting to a photograph only, he said. 'My client looked at that and formed the view that the respondent was a male,' he told the court, adding that the organisation was having to review 'thousands' of selfies a day. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion He said Costello should have cross-examined Grover in court about her affidavit containing evidence she was aware of Tickle's full name, had communicated with her as a female and only then saw her photo. The court heard Tickle's core sense of identity and self had been undermined by Grover's actions. Tickle is seeking a total of $40,000, which includes $30,000 in general damages, and $10,000 in aggravated damages. Her team will argue previously awarded damages of $10,000 are inappropriate and did not take into account Grover's conduct around the proceedings. The court's attention was taken to a candle depicting a crude caricature of Tickle, on sale as part of fundraising efforts for Giggle's campaign. In April 2024, the court was not shown the candle as Bromwich found it too offensive. Tickle's team claimed further damages should be awarded because of Grover's continued campaign of misgendering of their client and because she laughed at the caricature in a full court room, 'exacerbating the embarrassment and stress'. Hutley said Grover's laughter in court – described by Bromwich in his judgment as 'obviously disingenuous … offensive and belittling' – should be excluded on the basis that it was the fault of Tickle's counsel for submitting the candle as evidence. The hearing continues.
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Daily Mail
JK Rowling throws her support behind Giggle for Girls founder Sall Grover: 'May the best woman win'
JK Rowling has waded in to a highly publicised Australian legal battle that could carry major implications for transgender rights across the country. The case, known as Tickle v Giggle, centres around Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman who sued social media company Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and its founder, Sall Grover, for alleged discrimination based on gender identity. Giggle, a women-only app, removed Ms Tickle from its platform in September 2021. In 2024, the Federal Court found that Ms Grover and her app Giggle had unlawfully discriminated against the 54-year-old. Ms Grover is now appealing that decision, with the first hearing held on Monday. Rowling, who has been a vocal critic of gender identity ideology and a prominent supporter of sex-based rights, publicly backed Grover ahead of the hearing. 'Good luck, Sall. May the best woman (haha) win x,' Rowling wrote on X. Earlier this year, the Harry Potter author celebrated a UK Supreme Court ruling that determined that, under Britain's Equality Act, the legal definition of 'woman' refers specifically to a biological female, not to gender identity. 'Good luck, Sall. May the best woman (haha) win x,' Rowling wrote on X (pictured) The bestselling author was a major backer of the legal campaign behind that decision and donated more than $140,000 to the group behind the case. On Monday, the appeal court heard that Giggle was a 'special measure' exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve equality between men and women. Ms Grover's barrister, Noel Hutley SC, said the ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be compromised if Justice Robert Bromwich's decision remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against a group. '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 his client's intentions had been to create a 'safe space' for women. The court was shown evidence of women who had suffered sexual abuse, trolling, alcoholism, and harassment from men, and had found refuge on the Giggle platform. Mr Hutley told a panel of three judges that the evidence showed 'the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet'. 'It's got to the point to say that a blow-by-blow of it is, that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate,' he said. Lawyers for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner challenged this in court, saying 'invidious discrimination' could take place under the guise of a special measure. When Mr Hutley said this was an 'extreme example' and didn't need to be considered, Justice Melissa Perry 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?' she asked. Mr Hutley said 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. If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that,' Mr Hutley replied. Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Ms Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from Giggle in late 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman. Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not 'appear female', her lawyer 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 she was awarded in August 2024. She further claims the judge incorrectly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover. The judge found the condition that Giggle 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. Ms Tickle has identified as a woman since 2017, undergoing surgery two years later and getting a new birth certificate that lists her sex as female. For Ms Grover, sex is a biological reality assigned at birth and cannot be changed. Supporters of Grover have been seen outside the Sydney courtroom, holding banners in defence of sex-based rights. One sign read, 'Google autogynephilia', a reference to a term describing a man's sexual arousal at the thought or image of himself as a woman.
The Australian
28-07-2025
- Politics
- The Australian
Giggle app founder Sall Grover's laugh about transgender Roxanne Tickle becomes constitutional free speech case
When Giggle for Girls app founder Sall Grover burst out laughing in court at a caricature of transgender woman Roxanne Tickle, she couldn't have imagined it would spark a constitutional battle over the limits of free speech. That spontaneous laugh has turned the sex discrimination case about female-only spaces into an equally watershed test of whether a joke or insulting remark about trans gender people can be protected speech under law. In a new submission responding to a cross-appeal filed by Tickle, Grover's legal team argues that her 'momentary, reflexive laugh' in response to political satire was protected by the implied freedom of political communication in the Constitution. 'If the freedom protects mockery, it protects response to mockery,' Grover's lawyers claim in a submission lodged with the Federal Court late on Friday. Even highly offensive statements and insults may constitute protected political expression, the submission argues, otherwise the effect would be 'to chill political engagement and penalise dissent'. Grover is appealing judge Robert Bromwich's ruling in the Federal Court last year that she indirectly discriminated against Tickle by rejecting her from the female-only Giggle networking app because she looked like a man. Tickle is also appealing parts of Justice Bromwich's decision, arguing the judge should have found she was the victim of direct, rather than indirect, discrimination and that Grover should pay her at least $40,000 for the hurt caused. Under cross-examination during the case, Grover was confronted with a piece of crowd-funding merchandise sold online – a scented candle taking a satirical jab at Tickle's claim that she realised she was a woman because she 'hated the smell of balls'. The 'Sweaty Balls' scented soy candle was on sale at $37.30, but her involuntary laugh cost Grover $10,000. Justice Bromwich was not amused, awarding aggravated damages for her 'offensive and belittling' outburst. Grover rebuts Tickle's claim that the $10,000 penalty was 'manifestly inadequate', arguing the damages award was 'infected by legal error' and should never have been made. The only basis for the award 'was a brief and involuntary act of laughter' by Grover – reacting to a proposition put to her by Tickle's counsel – that the judge found was not deliberate, malicious, or intended to cause harm, the submission says. The laughter was a 'momentary, reflexive laugh' and a 'spontaneous courtroom response', and Tickle should not be allowed to increase 'this already flawed reward'. More importantly, Grover's legal team argues, imposing liability 'for expressive conduct during litigation' raises a potentially serious constitutional issue. 'The conduct in question occurred in court, during adversarial proceedings, in response to cross-examination in respect of political satire. The subject of that satire – a basis on which (Tickle) had publicly claimed to be a woman – is at the core of political discourse in this litigation. 'To penalise expressive response to that claim is to burden political communication.' The satirical candle was sold on the Etsy website, along with other merchandise like T-shirts, with some of the profits going to Grover's Giggle crowdfund. That candle features a caricature of Tickle and a speech bubble reading: 'So, I realised I was a woman because I hate the smell of balls.' Grover's legal team says it was intended to mock a statement made by Tickle on the SBS Insight program 'to the effect that the realisation of being a woman was due to an aversion to the smell of men's locker rooms'. 'That was not a private disclosure. It was part of a public-facing narrative, voluntarily disseminated through broadcast media … and deployed in support of legal claims about gender identity and access to female-only spaces such as women's change rooms.' Grover's legal team cites a 2004 High Court case in which judge Michael McHugh observed that even highly offensive statements may still constitute protected political expression if they concerned political matters. Insults, like irony, humour and sharp criticism, are inherent features of political communication. 'To permit liability to attach to such conduct – particularly in the absence of any finding of harm – is to chill political engagement and penalise dissent', Grover's team argues. Grover is pushing back against the claim she discriminated against Tickle at all, arguing that her app simply excluded users based on a visual impression that they were men, not on their self-identified gender. Grover rejected Tickle from the app based on Tickle's selfie and 'a visual impression of maleness'. Giggle's submissions effectively ask: 'How can you discriminate against someone's gender identity if you don't even know what it is?' For discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act to occur, it must be by reason of a person's 'gender identity'. Grover argues that her app's condition applied uniformly to all users perceived as male, indifferent to any unknown or uncommunicated gender identity. There was no evidence a person of similar appearance but without Tickle's gender identity would have been treated differently. 'In short, a person of male appearance who did not identify as a woman would have been treated the same … The treatment was not less favourable by reason of 'gender identity'.' The appeal and cross-appeal will be heard over four days from August 4 in the Full Court of the Federal Court, before judges Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Wendy Abraham. Indigenous An academic who said 'Blak activists' were turning Melbourne University into 'an ideological re-education camp' has been mocked for using anti-discrimination laws in a bid to save his job. Podcasts The only recorded police interview with the estranged husband of missing Lennox Head woman Bronwyn Winfield could be inadmissable in any criminal proceedings against him.
Daily Mail
28-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Prominent women's rights activist breaks her silence after two transgender netballers were BANNED by a local league in Australia
A women's rights activist has spoken of her delight after two transgender athletes were banned from competing in a local netball league in Victoria. Australian businesswoman Sall Grover - who founded a women's only social media app called Giggle For Girls - says she is also hopeful that the decision might pave the way for other sporting bodies to follow suit. Earlier on Wednesday, it was revealed that two transgender netball players were being banned from competing in Victoria's Riddell District Netball Football League for the 2025 season. The athletes had been playing for Melton Central against Melton Souths, but over the weekend, footage emerged showing one of the Central players, Manawa Aranui, appearing to send an opponent crashing to the floor of the court. The play was legal and Aranui had offered to help her rival player back to her feet. Some players of the Melton Souths contingent have subsequently threatened to boycott matches against Melton Central over safety concerns on their decision to name two transgender players in their squad. Grover, meanwhile, had previously called for the exclusion of both Central netball players, but upon learning that both had subsequently been handed bans, the Australian said the decision was 'very satisfying'. 'I am incredibly happy that there has been one sport in Australia who has acknowledged the relevance of female sport,' Grover told Daily Mail Australia. 'I'm very, very happy because - and for it to be netball is also very good - netball is traditionally a female-led sport and it appears that they've looked at the law and gone, oh yeah, turn on, we can ban these men and there's nothing they can do about it. That is very satisfying.' The subject of transgender athletes has been a hotly debated topic in recent years, with multiple sporting bodies, from World Athletics to World Netball, prohibiting trans players from competing in top-level events. When pressed on why she believes it is important to stop transgender athletes from comopeting in female events, Grover said: 'It exists so women have safety and fairness. 'I mean, there's a reason why women aren't going out there and demanding to be part of - the example I always use - Can you imagine a woman on a rugby union field? I mean, she'd be killed. If they played at their full capacity, she's dead. 'Or then she changes the entire match because they don't play at their full capacity. And so it's this boring match where everyone watching players tiptoe around because there's a woman on the field. 'It changes the entire game. It just is what it is. We watch these matches to watch the most extreme fitness of bodies in play like right now.' Victoria's Riddell District Netball Football League released a statement on Wednesday on the bans, revealing they had made the decision to impose suspensions on the two players in relation to Section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act. The statement read: 'After lengthy consideration and consultation, the RDFNL has ruled that the two transgender participants be excluded from the RDFNL Netball Competitions for the remainder of the 2025 season on the premise that both participants exhibit superior, stamina and physique over their competitors deeming Section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act relevant.' The Sex Discrimination Act makes it clear that it is against the law for a person to discriminate against another because of their sex or gender identity. Section 42 of that act, states: 'Nothing in division one or two renders it unlawful to exclude persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant.' Aranui, meanwhile, has subsequently broken her silence on the matter, after it was announced she and another player had been banned. 'I've sat quietly long enough while this narrative brewed and I've been dragged—publicly and without consent — into a conversation where both my character and identity have been attacked,' Aranui wrote. 'You're entitled to believe it's 'unfair' for cis women to compete against transgender women. That's your opinion. But the lies? They need to stop. 'You're not out here protecting women's sport. You're being malicious, using false narratives to mask your bigotry and personal agendas behind the guise of 'safeguarding women's spaces.' 'You've spread stories, targeted me, and enabled me to become the sole focus of online abuse and sideline harassment from other clubs and their supporters — right here, in a space where I come to play a sport I love. A place I come to laugh, sweat, compete, and find community. 'I hope you're proud of that. And I hope no child in your families ever has to endure what you've subjected me to.' Netball Victoria is understood to be investigating the matter. 'We support and welcome netballers of all backgrounds,' a spokesperson for Netball Victoria said. 'That includes gender diverse players who have rights under anti-discrimination laws.' The governing body's current policy, introduced in 2018, allows transgender and non-binary players to register and compete in female competitions based on self-identified gender. 'Our goal is to ensure every player feels safe, valued and supported,' the spokesperson added. 'We are working closely with affected clubs to find a resolution that is lawful, inclusive and safe for all participants.' However, by allowing trans athletes to compete in women's disciplines, Grover claims sports are not respecting the rights of female athletes to fair competition. 'I mean, fairness is following the same rules as everyone else, which is just participating in sport according to your sex category,' Grover, who has worked in the film and television industry and studied journalism and philosophy at Bond University, added. 'That's all it is. And so if you wanted any sort of accommodations in that, it would be like making sure that male teams were quite OK with guys that wear skirts arriving and if they have the feminine presenting them, whatever, the trans-identified men, they just accept them. So the onus is on them. 'The onus is not on women's sports teams to change the entire rules of the game and put women in danger and take away opportunities. Because the other thing, and this isn't necessarily a bigger thing in recreational netball-type sports, but leaning up further into it, we must remember that every time there's a man on the team, or in the track event, or the swimming, whatever it is, women missing out purely because he's there. Because it's a numbers game. So there's eight people who can swim in the race and you've got seven women and one man. Well, who's the eighth woman who missed out? Because they put him in instead. She didn't even get a chance.' While World Netball prohibits trans players from competing on the international stage, Equality Australia, who advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, say blanket bans on trans athletes are unfair. 'Community-level sport should focus on inclusion and participation,' a representative said. 'Sport is for everyone, and [Australian Institute of Sport] guidelines reaffirm the need that sporting bodies play their part in providing a safe and inclusive environment for all,' Beau Newel, Equity Australia national program manager of pride in sport added. The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) guidelines add that it is important for all Australians to have the chance to compete in sport. 'All Australians should have the opportunity to be involved in sport and physical activity, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, ability, cultural background or ethnicity,' the ASC writes. 'It is important that sporting bodies, from local clubs through to national sporting organisations, reflect the diversity in the communities they are a part of, and that together, we ensure every person is treated with respect and dignity and protected from discrimination.'
