Giggle Founder Slams ABC for Ignoring ‘What is a Woman’ Appeal

Download IPFS

Sall Grover, founder and CEO of Giggle for Girls, has raised concerns about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s lack of coverage of her appeal in a high-profile gender discrimination case currently before the Federal Court of Australia. The matter, Tickle v Giggle, is being closely watched due to its potential implications for how the term “woman” is interpreted under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA).

Giggle for Girls is a women-only social networking application launched by Grover in 2020. In 2021, the account of Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman, was removed from the platform. Grover has stated that the removal was based on the app’s policy of allowing only female users. Tickle subsequently filed a complaint, alleging unlawful discrimination.

In August 2024, Justice Robert Bromwich found that Giggle had indirectly discriminated against Tickle and ordered Grover to pay $10,000 in damages as well as legal costs. The court determined that the exclusion was contrary to the SDA.

Grover’s legal team, led by senior counsel Noel Hutley SC, has argued in the appeal that Giggle’s operation qualifies as a “special measure” under the SDA, intended to promote equality for women. They have further submitted that the definition of “sex” should be understood as biological and that the app’s policy is based on that understanding.

Tickle’s legal team, led by Georgina Costello KC, maintains that the removal constituted direct discrimination on the basis of gender identity. They are seeking an increase in damages to $40,000.

The appeal was heard in Sydney from August 4 to 7, 2025. The Australian Human Rights Commission has intervened in the proceedings, as has the Lesbian Action Group, both citing the potential significance of the case for the interpretation of the SDA and for policies on single-sex spaces.

Grover has stated that the ABC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, should provide more coverage of the case due to its national legal implications. She has argued that the matter involves important questions about the operation of anti-discrimination law in Australia.

The Federal Court’s decision is expected in 2026. Legal commentators note that the outcome could influence how future cases concerning single-sex services and gender identity are approached under the SDA.

The case has attracted attention from advocacy groups on both sides of the debate, with each citing the potential impact on rights and protections relating to sex and gender identity.