After a years-long legal battle, the Federal Court of Australia has handed down a judgment in a landmark case about gender discrimination law. It found a transgender woman was directly discriminated against on the basis of gender by being refused access to a women-only social media app.The case, Giggle for Girls v Tickle, has mobilised special interest and lobby groups and garnered intense media attention. Today’s unanimous decision by three judges affirms the rights of transgender people across the country.The matter has been long and winding, involving appeals from both sides. Here’s how we got to this point and what the judgment means.The original caseIn August 2024, the Federal Court of Australia made a landmark decision. A female-only social media app, Giggle for Girls, and its chief executive, Sally Grover, were found to have discriminated against Roxanne Tickle, who is a transgender woman. Grover removed Tickle from the app after looking at Tickle’s selfie and deciding Tickle was a man. Justice Robert Bromwich said this was indirect discrimination based on gender identity, and ordered Grover to pay Tickle $10,000. Both sides appealed the decision. Read more: Roxanne Tickle’s win in the federal court is a historic victory for transgender women The appealsIn August 2025, the full Federal Court, consisting of Justice Melissa Perry, Justice Wendy Abraham and Justice Geoffrey Kennett, heard the appeal and cross appeal.In Grover’s appeal, she argued she and Giggle for Girls did not break anti-discrimination laws. In her cross appeal, Tickle argued she wasn’t indirectly discriminated against, but directly so. She asked for $40,000 in compensation. The picture grew more complicated when three other parties became involved in the case, having been granted “intervener status”. They each joined the case because these proceedings had the power to decide how the Sex Discrimination Act can be used to protect others in the community.The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Anna Cody, who oversees the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act, gave submissions to the court as part of the case. The submissions provided guidance on the legislation, such as the definition of “women”, but did not make any arguments on whether there was discrimination in this specific case. The Lesbian Action Group, a “lesbian, born female” group in Melbourne, also gave submissions, as did Equality Australia, a national organisation dedicated to equality for LGBTQIA+ people.The legal issuesThe court looked at many complicated issues, including whether the social media app was a “special measure”. Special measures are actions that might seem discriminatory but are allowed because they promote equality. Grover claimed the app was designed to achieve equality between men and women. She and the Lesbian Action Group argued that “men” and “women” are defined by sex assigned at birth. Tickle, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Equality Australia argued that the definition of men and women is broader, not limited by biological sex characteristics, and as Justice Bromwich found in 2024, sex is “changeable and not necessarily binary”. The definition is important because it determines whether “women” includes transgender women. Also, Tickle, Equality Australia and the commissioner argued a “special measure” to promote equality for one group could not discriminate against another. This means special measures designed to help women would not allow different treatment on the basis of other aspects like gender, marital status or sexuality. If this were the case, a transgender woman cannot be excluded from things made to help women. The court was also asked to consider whether someone must know about a person’s attribute (such as being transgender) for their actions to count as direct discrimination.Finally, the court had to consider compensation: how much money should Giggle have to pay Tickle? How should it be worked out? Does the court need to consider community standards? Should Grover’s later offensive conduct and consistent misgendering of Tickle mean she should pay more money?The judgmentThe Federal Court of Appeal found in favour of Roxanne Tickle. In dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross appeal, the court found excluding Tickle from the app on the basis of Tickle’s gender-related appearance from her selfie amounted to direct discrimination on the basis of being a transgender woman.This overturned the previous court finding that Tickle had been subject to indirect discrimination.The finding confirmed direct discrimination on the basis of gender identity does not require the discriminator to know that someone is transgender. The court also confirmed a “special measure” to promote equality for one group does not protect discrimination on another basis.The court ordered Grover to pay Tickle $20,000 in compensation (doubling the original 2024 order), which took into account the aggravated conduct of offensive and consistent misgendering. The significanceThis case is not just about the parties directly involved. It reconfirmed it’s unlawful to treat transgender women differently from cisgender women simply because of their gender identity, which includes their gender-related appearance. It can also affect many others as it helps decide how the Sex Discrimination Act protects people from discrimination, particularly transgender people, LGBTQIA+ people, people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, and people with family responsibilities. But it may not be the end of it. Because of how important this is, the case is likely to go to the High Court. Grover had said prior to the judgment being handed down that if she were to lose, she planned to appeal again.All humans have the right to not be discriminated against. Australia does not have a comprehensive national human rights act, so laws like the Sex Discrimination Act are necessary to protect everyone’s right to be treated fairly.Bethany Butchers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.