Roxanne Tickle Wins Discrimination Case Against Giggle

Australia’s Federal Court has declared that “Giggle for Girls”, a female-only social media platform, constructively discriminated against trans woman Roxanne Tickle by terminating her service. The app has been ordered to pay Tickle $10,000 for her discrimination. The action was based on “direct and indirect discrimination concerns”.

Roxanne Tickle brought about the claim herself and filed in 2020 after her service was directly terminated. Manual removal of her account was performed by Sall Grover, the app’s founder, on the grounds that Tickle was male. The defendant argued she was indirectly and directly discriminated against her gender identity.

There was no evidence of direct discrimination since it is unknown whether Sall Grover knew Tickle was a trans woman. She had legally changed her sex on his birth certificate in 2018. Therefore, Roxanne Tickle was indirectly discriminated against as the service participation criteria included cisgendered women only. They cannot accept usage from the defendant even if they have a legal obligation to do so. As such, Sall Grover’s service is indirectly discriminating against diversity and acceptance of physically male women based on gender appearance.

This is a landmark decision in Australian legal history. This was one of the first major tests of gender discrimination by the Sex Discrimination Act since its inclusion in 2013. This means that Australia legally recognizes gender as a fact and it is worth protecting legally. That is why the evidence collected presents both direct and indirect grounds.

The court’s decision sees gender and sex as two separate factors. Thus, there is no way that women can be male even though it may be so in appearance, which means equal protection under the law. Therefore, the case will be cited as the basis of any gender equality debate and appropriate legal action in Australia against discrimination against physical appearance. Moreover, it is an important ruling for Roxanne Tickle and her transgender colleagues, who experience similar discrimination all the time. The defendant, her lawyer, and all the witnesses were relieved of the complaint and said it was healing. I am not personally aware of how the defendant or the plaintiff responded to the verdict. However, it seems there is no information about appeals from the defendant, who makes comments shortly after the decision, suggesting it might still do so.