Tickle vs Giggle: Australia through the looking glass
A recent ruling by the Australian Federal Court has sparked controversy over the definition of womanhood in law. The case involved a transgender individual, Roxanne Tickle, who claimed discrimination after being barred from a female-only online platform. The court's decision emphasizes evolving cultural norms over biological definitions, raising concerns about the implications for women's rights and legal clarity.
- ▪The Australian Federal Court ruled that the definition of womanhood is based on gender identity rather than biological sex.
- ▪Roxanne Tickle, born male, alleged discrimination after being excluded from a female-only platform.
- ▪The ruling has been criticized for prioritizing transgender rights over the rights of biological women.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Tickle vs Giggle: Australia through the looking glass It’s official – there is now no such thing as a woman in Australian law. dataLayer.push({ event: 'author', author: "Nick Cater" }) Nick Cater Columnist 19th May 2026 Share Topics Feminism World Want unlimited, ad-free access? Become a spiked supporter. 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’.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Spiked.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Spiked
