Giggle v Tickle. The name of this Australian court case sounds like an A.P. Herbert legal parody. Except that it is no parody. It is an action brought by a transgender person and activist Roxanne Tickle against a woman-only website, Giggle for Girls, founded and run by a feminist businesswoman Sall Grover.
Tickle, born male but who underwent a surgical sex change in 2019, claimed she was discriminated against by Giggle and Grover on the basis of her being a transgender rather than biological woman, principally on the basis of a selfie submitted to the website and Grover for review as part of her application. Grover, on the other hand, argued that Tickle was not a woman, sex is not changeable, and it was appropriate to block Tickle from joining Giggle, it being a woman-only space.
Essentially, Bromwich answered the burning question of ‘what is a woman?’
In her case, Tickle claimed to have been subjected to unlawful discrimination under Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act, and international human rights conventions to which Australia is a party. In response, Grover and Giggle questioned the validity and constitutionality of the Act’s provisions, and the relevant parts of the state of Queensland’s births, deaths and marriages legislation upon which Tickle relied.
The case was heard by Mr Justice Bromwich of the Federal Court of Australia, and his decision was handed down today. Bromwich ruled that Tickle is a transgender woman ‘whose sex is recognised by an official, updated, Queensland birth certificate’ and, that blocking Tickle’s membership, Giggle (and, by extension, Grover as the sole proprietor and director of the company operating the website), indirectly discriminated against Tickle as one of a class of persons refused service by Giggle.
Essentially, Bromwich answered the burning question of ‘what is a woman?’ by ruling that if someone identifies as a woman, that is enough. It appears that, in his view, even a surgical transition like Tickle’s is not necessary. He awarded Tickle damages of A$10,000 (£5,127) – admittedly far less than the A$200,000 (£102,500) she sought – and costs.
Grover so far has said little publicly. ‘Unfortunately, we got the judgment we anticipated. The fight for women’s rights continues’, she tweeted after the decision was released.
Tickle, on the other hand, was effusive. ‘I’m pleased by the outcome of my case, and I hope it is healing for trans and gender diverse people’, she said in a statement. ‘The ruling shows that all women are protected from discrimination. I brought my case to show trans people that you can be brave, and you can stand up for yourself. I can now get on with the rest of my life and have a coffee down the road with my friends, play hockey with my team and put this horribleness behind me.’
This ‘what is a woman?’ case has attracted interest around the world, and Mr Justice Bromwich’s judgment was instantly celebrated by progressive media outlets including the Guardian and the BBC. The Guardian report particularly emphasised the judge’s criticism of Grover’s case and even her demeanour in court. Indeed, it seems clear from observations in the judgment that Mr Justice Bromwich’s sympathies, such as his rebuke of Grover, were more with Tickle, however impartial his actual reasoning.
There’s no question that this case is significant well beyond the parties and even Australia. If the judgment is left to stand unchallenged it, and Bromwich’s legal reasoning, will be relied on to justify the further intrusion of people identifying as women into woman-only spaces, and activities designated for women only. That now includes online ‘spaces’ like Giggle as well as physical spaces such as women’s change rooms.
Under Bromwich’s reasoning, for example, the Algerian and Taiwanese boxers whose gender identity was so controversial at this month’s Paris Olympics could not be questioned. Whilst both athletes maintain they are biologically female and eligible to compete, it must be right that questions can be raised over any natural hormonal or chromosomal advantage athletes may or may not have. Indeed Tickle’s post-judgment statement, referring to her women’s hockey team, implies just that.
Whether Grover is going to appeal this decision is as yet unclear, but for certainty it needs to be. A high-profile precedent such as this, with ramifications affecting so many aspects of everyday life, the relations between the sexes and the fundamental question of who and what a woman is – or, indeed, what makes a man – cannot be allowed to hinge on the opinion of a single judge.
At least, however, we should be grateful to His Honour for highlighting, in his painstaking and legalistic way, the moral and ethical morass that is gender identity and ideology. This includes the prevailing notion that a person’s gender is a matter of personal preference, as fashionably changeable as a suit of clothes and not a product of biology and nature.
Whatever happens next, however, Sall Grover deserves respect. Like JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova (who tweeted her support) and others, Grover has shown personal courage in risking her reputation and livelihood by daring to stand against the repressive and intolerant gender identity zeitgeist. She has been the target of vicious social media trolling and, as with the Guardian’s report, faced ridicule by much of the progressive establishment – even more courageously so because unlike, say, Rowling, she is not a person of great wealth.
But in her stand, Grover is not alone. This legal battle is not over yet, and the world will be watching.
Comments