On 15 May 2026, the Full Federal Court delivered its judgment in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle. The Court dismissed Sall Grover’s appeal and upheld, in part, Roxanne Tickle’s cross-appeal. It recharacterised the discrimination as direct rather than indirect, increased the damages award to $20,000, and ordered Grover and her company to pay capped costs of up to $100,000.
The ruling turned on the Court’s interpretation of “gender identity” under the Sex Discrimination Act. It found that Tickle’s male-typical appearance in a profile photograph constituted a protected gender-related characteristic. As a result, Grover’s decision to exclude Tickle from the female-only app on the basis of that appearance was found to be direct discrimination.
The decision has significant practical implications. Critics argue it increases the legal risks faced by those seeking to maintain female-only spaces using appearance-based or sex-based screening, whether in apps, events, shelters, sports, or other services. Supporters, meanwhile, regard it as an important affirmation of protections for people with a transgender identity.
Whatever one’s view of the outcome, the case has become one of the most significant public debates about sex, gender identity, and women’s rights in Australia.
One Side Gets a Platform
In the days following the judgment, the ABC moved quickly to publish one perspective.
On 18 May, ABC Religion & Ethics published an article by Professor Paula Gerber titled Why the Giggle for Girls v Tickle judgment is good for trans rights and women’s rights. Gerber argued that the decision represented a victory for both transgender rights and women’s rights and welcomed the Court’s reasoning.
The article was promoted across ABC platforms and contributed to a growing national discussion about the implications of the ruling.
Sall Grover Tries to Respond
As the central figure in the case, Sall Grover sought to offer a different perspective.
On 28 May 2026, she pitched an opinion article to ABC Editorial Director Gavin Fang. The proposal was subsequently referred to ABC Religion & Ethics editor Scott Stephens.
Stephens initially responded positively. On 8 June he wrote:
“I would be very happy to receive an article from you by way of response to Paula Gerber’s article. It will be subject to the same editorial consideration and review that hers was given.”
What followed was a lengthy editorial process involving 37 emails exchanged over three weeks.
Grover revised her article multiple times in response to concerns raised by Stephens. After objections were raised about references to male violence, she removed those sections and submitted a substantially revised version focused on the importance of clear sex-based definitions in law.
On 12 June, Stephens appeared optimistic about publication:
“I think the piece is very, very good. I’ve made a few editorial changes and am checking with a couple fellow senior editors…”
Rejection
Seven days later, on 19 June, Stephens informed Grover that the ABC would not publish the article.
He cited what he described as “pervasive inaccuracies” regarding both the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Full Federal Court’s judgment, as well as what he considered to be overstatement about the impact of legal changes on women’s rights and single-sex spaces.
Despite the extensive editorial engagement, Grover was never shown the “significant rewrite” Stephens said he had undertaken, nor were the alleged inaccuracies publicly identified in detail.
On 23 June, Grover published the article in The Australian, accompanied by a note stating that it had been rejected by the ABC.
The Disputed “Inaccuracies”
One of the issues identified during the editorial process concerned Grover’s discussion of the legislative history of the Sex Discrimination Act.
The original 1984 Act contained explicit biological definitions:
“man” means a member of the male sex irrespective of age;
“woman” means a member of the female sex irrespective of age.
Those definitions were removed by amendments passed in 2013.
The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying those amendments stated that the definitions were repealed:
“in order to ensure that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are not interpreted so narrowly as to exclude, for example, a transgender woman from accessing protections from discrimination…”
The Memorandum also stated that it was intended that “man/men” and “woman/women” would continue to refer to males and females respectively.
The repeal of the definitions and the explanation provided in the Explanatory Memorandum are matters of public parliamentary record. While the legal implications of those changes remain the subject of debate, the legislative history itself is not in dispute.
This raises an obvious question: if the historical facts are clear and documented, what precisely made Grover’s discussion of them unsuitable for publication?
The ABC maintained that the article contained broader accuracy concerns relating to the operation of the Act and the implications of the Giggle judgment. However, the specific inaccuracies were never publicly identified.
A Later Critical Voice Appears
On 29 June, ABC Religion & Ethics published a critical response by Associate Professor Neil Foster arguing that the Giggle v Tickle judgment was detrimental to women’s rights and raised concerns about freedom of religion.
The publication demonstrated that critical perspectives on the judgment could, in fact, meet ABC editorial standards.
However, the article appeared more than six weeks after Gerber’s original piece and was written by a legal academic rather than the woman at the centre of the litigation.
Media Watch Weighs In
On 29 June, the ABC’s own Media Watch program examined the controversy in a segment titled Giggle Gagged.
The program reviewed the correspondence between Grover and the ABC and questioned why a publishable version could not be produced after weeks of editorial engagement and multiple revisions.
Former ABC Editorial Director Alan Sunderland told the program:
“Given the substantially refocused and restructured nature of the most recent piece and the apparent willingness of Ms Grover to make further changes as required, it is not clear to me why the ABC was not able to find a way of publishing the article.”
In his closing remarks, host Linton Besser stated:
“Her campaign to change the law is now a public conversation and the ABC should not deny its audience the opportunity to hear from its central player.”
Those observations came not from critics of the ABC, but from respected figures associated with the broadcaster itself.
Why Was the Piece Rejected?
Sall Grover approached the ABC in good faith, revised her work repeatedly in response to editorial concerns, removed material when requested, and indicated a willingness to continue working with editors.
The ABC initially invited a response to Paula Gerber’s article. One version of Grover’s article was described internally as “very, very good.” Yet after weeks of engagement, the article was ultimately rejected.
Reasonable people will disagree about the Giggle decision. They will disagree about sex, gender identity, and the future of women’s rights in Australia.
The issue raised by this episode is different.
Should a national public broadcaster deny its audience the perspective of a central participant in one of the country’s most significant sex-discrimination cases while publishing supporting commentary from others?
That question deserves serious consideration.
Women Speak Australia believes Australians benefit from open, evidence-based discussion on matters of public importance. A healthy democratic debate requires the willingness to hear competing viewpoints, particularly when the legal and social questions remain deeply contested.
Whether readers agree with Sall Grover or not, her perspective is unquestionably part of that conversation.
Further Reading:
Correspondence between Sall Grover and ABC