The landmark Tickle v Giggle case has wrapped up after a 3-day hearing in the Federal Court.

(2) Tickle vs Giggle - Open Justice with Tribunal Tweets (substack.com)

Roxy Tickle, a male, took Sall Grover to court after she denied him access to her female only app. The court case has been dubbed the “What is a Woman” trial as it pits sex against gender identity. Tickle also wants up to $200,000 in “damages” for his hurt feelings after Sall repeatedly referred to him as male.

The Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) includes both sex and gender identity but does not define either. The Gillard government removed the definition of sex as male and female in 2013 when they passed amendments that removed protections based on sex from the act.

The case is set to determine whether or not female sex-based rights still exist in Australia or if the law will render the word “woman” meaningless by claiming that males can be women.

Tickle's lawyers argued he is a woman because he feels like one and because he takes drugs and had surgery to mimic a female body. They also claimed that because he shops in the women’s section and some people accept him as a woman, he is therefore a woman. Can you believe such nonsense?

Embarrassingly, the Australian Human Rights Commission argued that sex is not a biological concept and the word woman encompasses anyone who feels like one. They failed to explain exactly what it is a woman feels like and they failed to explain how a male can identify as a woman if we don’t know what a woman is.

Barrister Bridie Nolan did an exceptional job representing Sall Grover and highlighting the importance of female sex-based rights. Rachel Wong, who was present in the courtroom, posted on X her summary of statements made by Nolan.

“What is a woman, if thinking one is a woman, means one is a woman? A woman is not a thought.

The applicant’s lawyer’s summation of a woman is not only deeply offensive but absurd – how one dresses, where one shops, etc.

Both sexes can shop on the opposite side of the aisle.

The more troubling and insidious aspect of the applicant’s evidence, is that there is this entitlement to access spaces where the female sex go, proving incontrovertibly that the applicant does not have the psychology of a woman.

Our society recognises the importance of single-sex spaces in certain circumstances – female-only toilets, dormitories etc – to keep women safe from male violence. These are the very places the applicant says he goes.

Sall also took the stand and was subjected to a barrage of questions about ‘misgendering’ Tickle. In cross examination she was asked by Tickle’s representation, “even where a person who was assigned male gender at birth has transitioned to being a woman” by having gender-affirming surgery, taking hormones to make them grow breasts, removing their facial hair, wearing female clothing and using female changing rooms, “you don’t accept that that person is a woman, do you?”

“No,” Sall replied.

Tickles lawyer also asked, “I suggest to you that in Australian ­society, the natural meaning of, the ordinary, contemporary meaning of woman, includes women whose gender is dated to be a woman on their birth certificate, having transitioned from man to woman?”

“I don’t agree,” was Sall’s reply.

Sall is 100% correct. No male can change his sex. It is written on every cell in his body. Feelings can’t change that, neither can costumes, drugs or surgery.

She also said, "There isn’t a woman in the world who’d have to take me to court to use this woman only space. It takes a man for this case to exist."

Justice Bromwich will now consider the evidence and make a decision in the coming months.

Regardless of what he decides, the fact remains that no one can change their sex.