ABC Finally Admits the Truth: Giggle v Tickle Was a Legal Disaster for Women

ABC Finally Admits the Truth: Giggle v Tickle Was a Legal Disaster for Women

ABC Opinion Desk Breaks Ranks on Giggle v Tickle Ruling

The ABC has at long last published a legal critique of the Giggle v Tickle ruling after years of biased coverage that included calling Roxanne Tickle a “transgender woman”.

The ABC has published a legal academic’s critique of the Federal Court’s Giggle v Tickle ruling in its opinion section, three days after rejecting a similarly argued piece from Sall Grover, the case’s losing appellant.

Neil Foster, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Newcastle, wrote in the ABC’s Religion & Ethics section over the weekend that under the ruling, “any place or activity that is meant to be provided for ‘women’ will have to be open to biological males identifying as such.”

The Full Federal Court dismissed Sall Grover’s appeal in May, ruling that her women-only app, Giggle for Girls, unlawfully discriminated against Roxanne Tickle, a man who holds a Queensland birth certificate that states he is female. The court doubled damages against Grover to $20,000 and found the discrimination was direct rather than indirect.

News and Opinion Diverge: Giggle v Tickle

The ABC’s own news report on the case described it as a “landmark” ruling and referred to Tickle throughout as a “transgender woman”. In the report, Tickle was quoted as saying the outcome would help “trans and gender diverse people and their loved ones to heal”.

The ABC had earlier declined to publish an opinion piece from Grover after 37 email exchanges and two redrafts, objecting to her use of phrases such as “biological reality” and “truth”. Grover’s piece, later published in The Australian, argued the ruling eroded women’s sex-based rights.

The rejection followed the ABC’s publication of an article by law academic Paula Gerber describing the Giggle v Tickle ruling as “good for trans rights and women’s rights”.

A 2025 study cited by The Daily Declaration found that of 540 ABC News articles on gender identity published between January 2020 and June 2025, only one discussed the Cass Review into youth gender medicine. None reported on the more than 100 Australian clinicians who called for a halt to youth transition procedures.

Foster’s Legal Argument

Foster’s critique centres on section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. This provision lets someone set up a “special measure” — a women-only space or service — to help achieve equality between men and women, without that measure itself being ruled unlawful discrimination.

Grover argued the Giggle app was exactly this kind of measure: a space where women could interact online without men present. The Full Court rejected the defence. It found the exemption protects a women-only space from a sex discrimination claim, but not from a gender identity discrimination claim — the ground on which Tickle sued.

Foster argued the court read the provision too narrowly. It was written to cover both grounds together, he said, not split them apart.

He also argued the Full Court had no basis for treating this as new or unsettled ground. He pointed to two earlier cases where the same defence was accepted without being split apart by discrimination type: a women-only gym class, and a union that reserved leadership roles for women. In neither case did a court limit the exemption to just one kind of discrimination claim, he wrote — which is what the Full Court did for the first time in Giggle’s case.

Foster noted the judges essentially conceded as much. Justice Melissa Perry acknowledged a literal reading of section 7D “is an available one”. Justices Wendy Abraham and Geoffrey Kennett went further, finding the same reading “works grammatically” and “does not strain the language” of the provision. All three adopted the narrower interpretation anyway.

A Question of Definition

Foster also disputed the majority’s finding that the word “woman” in the Act shouldn’t be tied to any “narrow or rigid conception of femaleness”. He argued the Act exists to implement a well-known 1979 international treaty aimed at ending discrimination against women, which assumes throughout that it’s protecting biological women, given its provisions on pregnancy, maternity leave and breastfeeding.

He also contrasted the ruling with the UK Supreme Court’s 2025 decision which ruled that “sex” in British discrimination law means biological sex.

Grover has applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal.

Foster wrote the case raises “questions of law of public importance” affecting women’s refuges, sporting teams and prisons, and warned that religious groups relying on section 37 of the Act to operate according to their doctrines face similar legal risk.

The High Court has not yet decided whether to grant leave.

---

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

---

ODM Daily Commentary

Let’s be honest: the ABC has been an activist organisation disguised as a public broadcaster for years. But this time, even they couldn’t keep the lid on the truth forever. After rejecting Sall Grover’s piece 37 times — yes, 37 times — they finally published a legal critique that exposes the Giggle v Tickle ruling for what it is: a judicial disaster for women.

The ruling is breathtaking in its consequences. Under the Full Federal Court’s interpretation, any place or activity meant for women must now be open to biological males who identify as female. Women’s refuges. Women’s prisons. Women’s sporting teams. Women’s changing rooms. All of them are now legally vulnerable. All of them are now subject to the whims of a court that decided to redefine reality.

The article highlights the absurdity of the court’s reasoning. Section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act was designed to allow women-only spaces as a “special measure” to achieve equality between men and women. But the court ruled that this exemption only protects against sex discrimination claims, not gender identity claims. So a woman can create a space for women, but she can’t keep men out if they identify as women. The logic is so twisted it would make Orwell blush.

Professor Neil Foster’s critique is devastating. He points out that the court’s ruling contradicts previous cases where the same defence was accepted without being split apart. He notes that the judges essentially conceded that a literal reading of the provision would protect women-only spaces, but they chose the narrower interpretation anyway. This wasn’t an accident. It was an act of judicial activism.

And let’s not forget the hypocrisy of the ABC. They published an article praising the ruling as “good for trans rights and women’s rights.” They refused to publish Grover’s piece because she dared to use the phrase “biological reality.” Yet when a legal academic makes the same argument, suddenly it’s fit to print. The only difference? Foster is a man with academic credentials. Grover is a woman who lived the case.

This case is about more than one app. It’s about the erasure of women’s sex-based rights. It’s about the redefinition of language to suit an ideology. It’s about the willingness of courts and media to sacrifice women’s safety on the altar of progressive dogma.

Grover has applied to the High Court for leave to appeal. The outcome will determine whether Australia follows the UK in recognising biological sex, or whether we continue down the path of legal fiction. If the High Court upholds this ruling, every women’s space in the country will be at risk.

This is not a debate about transgender people. This is about whether women have the right to safe spaces. This is about whether the law will reflect biological reality. This is about whether common sense will prevail over ideology.

The ABC can pretend to be balanced. The courts can pretend to be neutral. But the truth is clear: Giggle v Tickle is a warning. And if we don’t heed it, women will pay the price.

— ODM Daily