The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has handed down its long-awaited decision in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 64 (15 May 2026). I commented on the trial decision in this case in an earlier post. In the trial decision, as I noted, 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 at trial:

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])

While the appeal decision overturned some rulings of the trial judge, the outcome was that Giggle and Sall Grover were still held to have unlawfully discriminated, and were hit with double the previous award of damages (raised from $10,000 to $20,000.)

Recently I posted about another case where I suggested that the decision of Federal Court judge represented “one step closer” to recognition of the reality of biological sex in our legal system. Sadly, it has to be said that this decision of the Full Court might now be seen as “two steps back”.

In short, I think this appeal decision is also legally wrong, and I look forward to it being overturned on appeal to the High Court of Australia if that goes ahead. But the decision also strongly points to the need to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (“SDA”) to restore a clear definition of the word “sex”, and reaffirm the right of women to be able to enjoy single-sex spaces without being intruded upon by biological males.

Continue reading