Roxanne Tickle, the transgender woman at the centre of Australia's high-profile 'what is a woman' sex discrimination case, has spoken out after the High Court of Australia ruled in her favour, rejecting a final appeal from Giggle for Girls app founder Sall Grover.
The High Court on Thursday refused Grover special leave to appeal and ordered her to pay Tickle's costs, ending a legal battle that began when Grover banned Tickle, who was born male but identifies as female and has undergone gender-affirming surgery and hormone treatment, from the female-only networking app in 2021.
Tickle said the case had taken a heavy toll since she lodged her discrimination complaint nearly five years ago.
"It's been nearly five years since I lodged my discrimination complaint. It's been a relentlessly exhausting time, both physically and emotionally, for me and many others," she said.
"I hope that yesterday's High Court special leave refusal provides clarity to the protections in law for transgender and gender diverse people in Australia, and perhaps provides a beacon of light to the rest of the world."
She added a message of support for others in the transgender community. "I wish my trans and gender diverse siblings, as well as their loved ones, much hope and love for their collective futures," she said, urging people to be kinder to one another.
Grover's response
Grover, who had lost her appeal at the Federal Court in May, when damages awarded to Tickle were doubled to $20,000 and she was ordered to pay up to $100,000 in legal costs, said she intended to leave Australia to set up her business overseas following the High Court loss.
In a Facebook post on Saturday, she thanked supporters and vowed to continue fighting.
"I'm ok, angry & sad, but ok, and the fight isn't over," she wrote. "A marathon runner doesn't give up at kilometer 30, and neither do I. We're in this together."
Grover told the Daily Mail she wanted to leave the country "because I will never forgive the government and I have no respect for the judiciary," adding that she would "never live under an authoritarian nonsense ideology."
She said she was fortunate to have the option to leave, but that others could not. "The girls in school with boys in their bathrooms and sports competitions, the women in prison with male rapists, and every Australian woman who has had her sex-based rights abolished can't leave," she said. "I will fight with every Australian woman until our rights are restored."
A divided reaction
The ruling has split public opinion in Australia. Some critics said the decision undermined women's rights, with one person writing, "This sets women's rights back 100 years," and another calling it "a sad day for all girls and women in Australia" that "erases girls and women, by supporting the idea that anyone can be one just because they say they are one."
Others backed Tickle. "Well done Roxy. Trans women have been treated as women by Australian law for decades without issue," one person wrote, adding that the only thing new was "the scale of the highly funded and co-ordinated US Christian lobby-funded campaign to spread misinformation and strip trans people of their legal rights." Another wrote, "Good on you Roxanne! So many of us are on your side!"
The court's reasoning
In its two-sentence explanation, the High Court said there was "no reason to doubt the Full Court's construction" and that any appeal had "insufficient prospects of success." Grover said the statement "makes no sense" and argued the ruling effectively told Australians they must "adhere to transgender ideology" or be punished.
"They have basically said that there is no issue with the law. But that is not true," she said. "Women still exist and we require legal protections. Currently, we don't have them. The High Court is fine with that. The only option left is for politicians to do their jobs and put women's sex-based rights back into law."
Grover conceded there were no further legal avenues left for her to pursue.
Background to the case
During the drawn-out case, lawyers for the Giggle for Girls app argued it was exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, saying its intention was to create a "safe space" for women.
