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.
How the ABC Covered the Decision
In the days following the judgment, the ABC published an article by Professor Paula Gerber on its Religion & Ethics platform. The piece argued that the decision was positive for both transgender rights and women’s rights and was promoted across ABC platforms.
Sall Grover, the founder of Giggle for Girls and a central participant in the litigation, later sought to publish a responding opinion piece. After an initial positive response from the editor of ABC Religion & Ethics, an extended editorial process followed involving multiple revisions over several weeks.
According to correspondence later made public, one version of the article was described internally as “very, very good.” Nevertheless, on 19 June the ABC informed Grover that it would not publish the piece, citing concerns about accuracy regarding the Sex Discrimination Act and the Court’s judgment.
On 23 June, the article appeared in The Australian.
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?
Later Developments
On 29 June, ABC Religion & Ethics published a critical analysis of the judgment by Associate Professor Neil Foster. The same day, the ABC’s Media Watch program examined the editorial handling of the matter in a segment titled “Giggle Gagged.”
Former ABC Editorial Director Alan Sunderland told the program that, given the revisions made and the apparent willingness to continue working with editors, it was unclear why a publishable version could not be found.
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.”
Why This Matters
Reasonable people disagree about the Giggle decision and about the wider questions of sex, gender identity and women’s rights. Those disagreements are legitimate and should be aired.
The episode raises a broader issue about how contested legal and social questions are handled by a public broadcaster. When a decision has significant implications for the practical ability to maintain female-only spaces, the public benefits from hearing a range of informed perspectives, including from those directly involved in the litigation and from those concerned about the consequences for sex-based rights.
Women Speak Australia’s interest in this matter is the ongoing legal and practical status of female-only spaces and services, and the importance of open, evidence-based discussion of laws that affect the sex-based rights of women and girls. A healthy democratic debate requires space for competing viewpoints on questions that remain deeply contested.
Further Reading:
Correspondence between Sall Grover and ABC