Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Tech Style & Beauty Kitchen & Dining Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentAmy Hamm: Australia's Sall Grover fined a disgraceful AU$120K for running female-only appThe Tickle v Giggle appeal ruling is littered with examples of the judges imposing gender ideologyLast updated 17 hours ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Sall Grover, the founder and CEO of a female-only app named Giggle. HandoutIn 2020, Australia’s Sall Grover launched a female-only social app called Giggle for Girls. By summer 2022, the app was shut down as a precaution against further human rights complaints or litigation, and Grover found herself in federal court attempting to prove what a woman is.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorWhat a woman is not, as per Grover: the transgender-identified male, Roxy Tickle, who first took Grover to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and, later, federal court, for having been booted from the Giggle app for being a biological male. Australia’s court system disagrees, however.Grover lost an appeal on May 15 at the Federal Court of Australia, and was told that her jettisoning Tickle from Giggle not only constituted direct discrimination (a previous judge had ruled that it was a lesser, indirect discrimination) but that she, a single mother whose income source was taken from her, must pay Tickle double the damages, and twice the costs—for a grand, disgraceful total of AU$120,000 (C$ 118,680).This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againIt’s outrageously stupid. The type of stupid thing — á la my own, ongoing legal saga, or that of Barry Neufeld’s — that we should expect to continue occurring in Canada, unless and until we repeal the bad legislation that has baked the pseudo-religious belief system called gender ideology into our institutions, including our judiciary.Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) was amended in 2013 to include “gender identity” as a protected characteristic. The same amendment repealed the very definitions of “man” and “woman” in the SDA, previously defined as “members of the male (or female) sex,” to allow for persons to self-identify as either. But wait, there’s more: it also transposed all mentions of “opposite sex” with “different sex,” to enshrine the anti-scientific falsehood that human sex is some sort of non-binary spectrum into law.How can Australian women protect their rights when they are no longer defined in law? Clearly, they cannot.Canada’s laws are no better. Our Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, which received royal assent in 2017, similarly added “gender identity and expression” as a protected characteristic. This ensured that any provincial and territorial human rights code that didn’t already protect “gender identity” had to fall in line.These kinds of laws are incompatible with reality. They provide ideologically-captured judges and human rights commissioners with a means to dismantle women’s rights, while offering supremacy to the unfalsifiable idea of an innate gender soul.Australia’s SDA defines gender identity as “the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.” It further defines the concept as “elements that are intrinsic to the sense of self and outward social markers.” This loosely translates to: “whatever I say I am at any given moment is what I am, without question, or else.”As the world has seen, including in Tickle v Giggle, it is overwhelmingly persons of the male sex who benefit under an imposed hierarchy of protected characteristics that places “gender identity” above all else.The judge from the initial Tickle v Giggle ruling noted that he was “satisfied” that Grover, when she correctly referred to Tickle as a biological male, was expressing a “genuinely held belief,” before he rebuked her for “language that is unfortunate and unnecessary.” Meanwhile, the judges, including from the appeal, uncritically and falsely referred to Tickle as a female. It is the judges, not Grover, who were expressing an (apparently) genuinely held belief: the belief that one’s professed gender identity not just overrides but replaces one’s sex. It is the judges, not Grover, who deserve chiding for their unfortunate language. It is reckless to immediately accept and affirm a male-sexed person’s metaphysical claim to the female sex, a claim that suggests how one identifies outweighs biology.The Tickle v Giggle appeal ruling is littered with examples of the judges imposing gender ideology upon Grover, and the public, including via their usage of the term “cisgender” to describe non-transgender identifying persons. This would be akin to judges in a religious discrimination case uncritically referring to defendants as hell-bound heretics. They’ve adopted the belief system of a single protected group and decided that all other protected groups must obey.With zero regard for the safety or dignity of women, the appeal judges argued that Grover didn’t even have to know that Tickle identified as transgender in order to be found guilty of discrimination: it was discriminatory, they wrote, to exclude Tickle from her female-only app based on “visual perception that Ms Tickle was a man.” What this means, in practical terms, is that no woman in Australia should dare to question the presence of an obvious male in any of their intimate or other spaces, because, for all they (don’t) know, the male could identify differently, and they could be punished for questioning his presence. What a dream come true for predators!It should be plain, even to those who argue that genuinely trans-identifying males (however that could be defined) belong in women’s spaces, that enshrining “gender identity” into law utterly destroys women’s right to their safe, sex-segregated spaces and sports.Canadians who care about women’s rights — as we all should! — must fight to repeal our Bill C-16. Alternately, we need a ruling like the 2025 U.K. Supreme Court ruling that defines men and women according to their biological sex. There is no other way for women to win against misogynistic gender ideology.The unconscionable persecution of Sall Grover is further proof of how critical this battle is.National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.