Tickle v Giggle: Hearing Highlights

Imagine having to raise half a million dollars to defend against a human rights discrimination claim simply for knowing men can’t be women?

Sall Grover doesn’t have to imagine. This is her life since refusing to allow Roxy Tickle, a man who identifies as a woman, to use her female-only networking app, Giggle.

Last week, Tickle v Giggle, one of the most critical cases for women’s rights Australia has seen, was heard in the Federal Court in Sydney from 9 till 11 April.

I attended the three-day hearing along with Women's Forum Australia Research Fellow Stephanie Bastiaan to support Sall and to ensure that what happened during the proceedings was broadcast far and wide. Sharing what happened during the hearing was all the more important given the Judge's decision not to live-stream it.

The reason given for not live-streaming the hearing was the bad behaviour of trans activists in relation to a live-streaming of an interlocutory hearing for the same matter last year, a reason that was inadequate given the case's critical importance to women's rights both nationally and internationally, and the Judge himself having deemed it a matter of public interest. This regrettable decision was felt even more acutely by the fact that an overflowing courtroom meant members of the public who turned up wishing to attend the hearing, were unable to do so.

Stephanie shared live updates on X/Twitter during the course of each day, allowing thousands of people all around the world to follow along as this landmark hearing unfolded. I too shared my observations on social media, as well as with Rita Panahi on Sky News Australia.

Below are some of the highlights I shared from each day of the hearing.

For a more in depth understanding, you can read our double feature on the case: 'Women's Rights on Trial' and 'How the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is Failing Women'.

We will also be publishing a follow up piece on the hearing in due course, which will include a closer look at the arguments made in court by the applicant, the respondent and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner as amicus curiae (on behalf of the Australian Human Rights Commission).