In his decision in Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960 (23 August 2024) Bromwich J in the Federal Court of Australia found that the company Giggle had been guilty of indirect gender identity discrimination when its director, Sall Grover (who was also sued), had removed Roxy Tickle from her women-only social media app. Roxanne Tickle (“the applicant”), as Bromwich J noted:
was of the male sex at the time of birth, but is now recognised by an official updated Queensland birth certificate, issued under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 (Qld) (Qld BDM Registration Act), as being of the female sex. This followed from, and was predicated on, sexual reassignment surgery, being the term used in the Qld BDM Registration Act.. (at [3])
I commented on earlier stages of this litigation in a previous post. The question as to whether sex as a legal category is changeable, and the implications of this for discrimination law, are of great concern to many concerned with protection of traditional female-only spaces. It is a question which raises concerns for religious folk, many of whom see sex as a biological category determined at conception and ordained by God. Hence a review of the decision seems justified on this blog concerned with law and religion, although I note that none of the participants in the case professed any religious reasons for their views. The view that sex is determined by fundamental biological facts is shared by many, on both religious and scientific grounds.
In short, I think this decision is incorrect as a matter of law, and the implications of the decision are bad for society as a whole, and women in particular. I hope it will be overturned on appeal.
Law and Religion Australia 