Giggle v Roxanne Tickle: Trans woman an ‘activist’ manipulating legal procedure, court hears

A trans woman suing a female-only social networking app for refusing to let her join the platform is simply an ‘activist’ manipulating court proceedings, a court has heard.

Giggle for Girls CEO Sall Grover. Picture: Glenn Hunt

A trans woman suing a female-only social networking app for refusing to let her join the platform is simply an “activist” manipulating court proceedings to further her pro-trans agenda, a court has heard.

Roxanne Tickle, whose updated birth certificate following her transition from male designates her as a female, is suing social media app Giggle, which is marketed as a “safe space” for women, and its owner Sall Grover who had referred to Ms Tickle as a man.

The Federal Court on Friday heard Ms Tickle was pursuing the case for activist purposes, and had initially attempted to join the app with “a broader interest than just her own interests”.

“This is not just merely an applicant who wishes to enjoy the community of women on an app,” Ms Grover’s defence barrister Bride Nolan told the case management hearing.

“This is an activist seeking to participate in a female-only app, in circumstances where they already had an exchange with the known CEO of that app to challenge her views on this topic.”

Ms Nolan went further to suggest that Ms Tickle’s did not carry much weight if it was rooted in advocacy, likening it to if a woman were to attempt to join the prestigious male-only Australia Club for activist purposes, and then sued if she wasn’t let in.

Roxanne Tickle in Lismore.

“If I were to go to the Australia Club and say I’d like to be a member purely from an activist perspective … If I were to do that it would be purely as an act of activism,” Ms Nolan said.

“Me being a member of the Australia Club if I‘m simply doing it not because I wish to enjoy the benefits of that membership, but to prove the point that women should be permitted … then that is a feature that the court would take into consideration if I were to turn up and seek this court’s relief.”

Ms Tickle filed an application to the Federal Court in June last year but after Ms Grover tweeted she would raise constitutional issues in her defence and was willing to “take the matter all the way to the High Court” she discontinued it.

She has since applied for the court to again bring the application “out of time” after “subsequently receiving limited funding”.

Ms Tickle’s counsel Georgina Costello disputed Ms Nolan’s claims, saying “we submit the applicant is a woman, and has not been treated equally, and instead has been discriminated against on the basis of her gender identity.”

“It is a serious matter to her about her existence and identity,” Ms Costello said. “It’s also a matter that clearly raises matters of public importance … as is clear from the fact that the Discrimination Commissioner has sough to intervene … there is no case law on this question of how discrimination on the basis of gender identity for someone who is a woman who once was a man is applied.”

Ms Costello also applied for a costs cap to be considered in the case, through which neither party would be required to pay more than $50,000 at its conclusion.

The court heard Ms Grover had raised $118,000 through online fundraising for the case. Ms Nolan objected to Ms Costello’s request.

Earlier this week failed Liberal candidate Katherine Deves dropped out of the race for a vacant Senate seat due to her dedication to her legal advocacy for Ms Grover’s case.

“I considered my priorities and realised the Tickle v Giggle case was too important to step away from,” she told The Australian at the time. “The opportunity to contribute to the law in this way may never arise again.”

Ms Deves appeared in the courtroom on Friday, dressed identically to Ms Grover’s legal team in a white suit and a green top.

The matter will return for case management on June 2.