Tickle v Giggle

barely rates a mention in our state newspaper. True a report of the case is there on page 3 - but as nothing more than a small paragraph at the bottom. It would be easily overlooked. Perhaps it is because even the state's newspaper is wary of getting involved in the controversy.

For those of you who have missed it the case involves someone now called Roxanne Tickle and a one time social media app called "Giggle for Girls" then run by Sall Grover.  Tickle took Giggle and Grover to court because Tickle was denied access to the app due to something labelled "gender identity. 

The app was intended for women only. Apparently Tickle's birth certificate states "female" and Tickle underwent "gender affirming" surgery in 2019.

Yes, you can see where I am going here. Tickle was born male. Tickle may have undergone "gender affirming" surgery but many people would agree Tickle still looks and sounds male with a deep voice and obvious facial hair. Tickle wanted an "apology", "damages" and access to the app. The defence argued Tickle was male and no discrimination had occurred.

The case was decided in Tickle's favour with the judge saying that Tickle was indirectly discriminated against. Tickle was awarded costs and $10,000. The result has also been applauded by the Human Rights Commission. This is from the HRC website.

“The 2013 changes to the Sex Discrimination Act make it clear it is unlawful under federal law to discriminate against a person on the basis of gender identity,” says Sex Discrimination Commissioner Dr Anna Cody. “We are pleased this case has recognised that every individual, regardless of their gender identity, deserves equal and fair treatment under the law.” 

The role of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in this case was as a ‘friend of the court’ (amicus curiae). Dr Cody assisted the Court by providing submissions about the meaning, scope and validity of relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

“Gender equality means equal treatment for people of all genders, including trans people. Sex and gender identity are interconnected, not mutually exclusive, and access to justice for one group does not come at the expense of another, but rather strengthens our collective commitment to equality and justice for all. 

“We must continue to recognise the worth and dignity of every person and reject the harmful stigmas and stereotypes that cause discrimination. No one in Australia should face exclusion or discrimination based on sex or gender identity, and we will continue to stand with trans communities and advocate for the rights of all women, including women who are trans.” 

I know there will be people who will agree with the outcome. It is not something I can do. I believe it is wrong in fact. Yes, you can have "gender affirming" surgery. Yes, you can present as someone of another sex. Does it actually make you B instead of A or A instead of B? No.

It is also setting yet another dangerous legal precedent.  We already have those born male competing as females in sport. What do we do about "women's shelters" and "women's health clinics" and "women's prisons"? The latter have already had incidents of rapists being housed in them and causing harm. 

I really do feel for people who believe they are the "wrong" sex. It must be an extraordinarily difficult thing to live with every day. Whether it gives someone in that position special rights over others however is something I would question. Just as some people have to accept that a disability can bar them from doing something is it possible some "transgender" people need to accept there are activities they cannot participate in?