by Nick Cater, spiked
It’s official – there is now no such thing as a woman in Australian law.
Last year’s UK Supreme Court ruling that sex means biological sex received wide coverage in Australia, raising hopes that the tide of transgender adventurism may have turned. The optimism was crushed last week by a ruling in the Australian Federal Court that might have come straight from the mouth of Humpty Dumpty. ‘When I use a word’, Humpty told Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less’.
The case of Giggle for Girls Limited vs Roxanne Tickle is a contest over the meaning of words. The plaintiff, Roxanne Tickle, was born male. He alleges unlawful discrimination because he claims to be an actual woman who was excluded from an online platform reserved for females. The plaintiff, Giggle for Girls founder Sall Grover, holds that Tickle cannot become a woman simply by declaring himself to be one. She also holds that Giggle for Girls’ defining purpose – to serve as an online haven for women – would not be served if biological men were allowed in.
She barred Tickle from the site after examining a picture he had submitted and concluding he was a biological male. Based on Tickle’s appearance, the conclusion was not difficult to draw. Yet the court holds that judging a protected person’s identity from their appearance is also in conflict with the law.
Read also: Australia urged to protect women-only spaces after ‘insane’ court judgment, The Christian Institute