UN Official Pans Australian Court Decision to Allow Trans Person on Female-Only App

UN Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem said a degree of discrimination is allowed under international law.

Roxanne Tickle (left) at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney, Australia on April 9, 2024. AAP Image/Bianca De Marchi

The U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Reem Alsalem, has criticised the outcome of an Australian court case ruling that a trans individual could access a female-only mobile app.

Sall Grover founded the app Giggle for Girls exclusively for female social interaction. However, when Roxanne Tickle—born a male, but later legally changed his sex—tried to join the app, Grover decided to block her.

Grover was taken to court by Tickle accused of discrimination.

The Federal Court found Grover had committed “indirect discrimination” in blocking Tickle, yet Justice Robert Bromwich also said his job was not to assess the intricacies of gender identity, but to determine if Tickle was legally discriminated against.

“Ms. Tickle is a legal female, as reflected in her updated birth certificate issued under Queensland law. The discrimination complained of by Ms. Tickle is on the basis of gender identity and not sex,” he wrote.

Justice Bromwich ruled in favour of Tickle and ordered Grover pay $10,000 in compensation.

UN Rapporteur Says Gender Identity Overruling Biological Sex

In response, the U.N.’s Alsalem has encouraged Grover to appeal.

“I am gravely concerned over the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in (this case), which ruled that the exclusion of a male—who identifies as a woman and is recognised as a female under the law—from a female-only social media platform constitutes unjustified indirect discrimination,” she said in a statement.

“The ruling demonstrates the concrete consequences that result when ‘gender identity’ is allowed to supplant ’sex'—and override women’s rights to female-only services and spaces.”

Alsalem said the court’s ruling concerned the Australian Sex Discrimination Act, but while the Act differentiates between the concepts of sex and gender identity, the distinction is abandoned in practice.

“The Act also severed the term sex from its ordinary meaning of biological sex, operating what I would describe as a built-in and fictitious premise that every human being has a gender identity,” she said.

A Degree of Discrimination Allowed Under UN

Alsalem also disagreed with the judge’s decision to rely on the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights to argue that discrimination was not allowed based on gender identity.

She pointed to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, which stated in 1989 that discrimination could be allowed if the criteria was “reasonable and objective” under the Covenant.

“I am also concerned that the court decision could make it potentially harder for women and girls to argue for proportionality, legitimacy, and necessity of female-only spaces in some circumstances,” she wrote.

Alsalem said the Sex Discrimination Act did allow for single sex services, but now it was unclear whether “Australian law is fully compatible with international obligations.”

Women’s Forum Australia CEO Rachael Wong, who has been an advocate for Grover, said the outcome revealed the problems with blurring biological sex and gender identity.

“The ruling demonstrates the concrete consequences that result when gender identity is allowed to supplant sex—and override women’s rights to female-only services and spaces,” she said.