Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner Dr Anna Cody has been grilled in a fiery Senate estimates hearing over the definition of a woman. The tense exchange unfolded amid growing political clashes over gender, following the landmark Full Federal Court ruling in Tickle v Giggle.
Background of the Dispute
The case began in 2021 when Giggle for Girls founder Sall Grover removed Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman, from the women-only app. Tickle took legal action, claiming the removal breached protections under the Sex Discrimination Act, which was amended in 2013 under Prime Minister Julia Gillard to cover gender identity. The Federal Court found Giggle and Ms Grover had unlawfully discriminated against Tickle.
The Senate Estimates Hearing
Liberal Senate Leader Michaelia Cash pressed Dr Cody throughout Tuesday's session with the Australian Human Rights Commission, demanding clarity on how the Sex Discrimination Act addresses sex and gender in light of the court's decision. 'For the purposes again of this estimates hearing… what is a woman?' Cash asked.
Dr Cody responded that while biology is a factor, it is not conclusive under the law. She said that there were 'three aspects' to being legally considered a woman. Dr Cody argued that 'in terms of protection from discrimination' the definition is broader. 'Biology is not the only part of what defines a man or a woman. It is also defined by how that person identifies themselves as well as how they are socially recognised.'
That rationale became the focal point for repeated questions from Senator Cash, who pushed for a straightforward definition. The exchange grew increasingly pointed as Cash set out a hypothetical scenario: 'So for example, can a man put on a dress and call himself a woman… and then for the purposes of the Sex Discrimination Act… they are a woman?' she asked.
Dr Cody said it involved 'biology and physical characteristics as well as how they present themselves and how they are recognised'. Asked whether all elements must be met, Dr Cody answered: 'The full federal court… referred to those three aspects. So all three must be satisfied.'
Cash disputed that, highlighting the Act's definition of gender identity. 'A man can put on a dress and call himself a woman. And the answer is actually yes… for the gender-related appearance, absolutely, and you can be therefore a transgender woman for the purposes of the act,' Cash said. 'So any bloke can put on a dress, walk into a girl's change room, and I'm allowed to be there because I actually identify as a woman, that is correct, isn't it?'
Dr Cody rejected the simplification, emphasising the legal distinction between sex and gender identity. 'Sex has three aspects. It includes biology and physical characteristics, it includes how the person presents themselves and how they are recognised socially,' she said. She clarified further that surgical transition is not required.
Dr Cody's Role in the Case
Dr Cody assisted the Full Federal Court as amicus curiae in the Giggle appeal, providing an impartial interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act. She was not a party to the case.
Political Aftermath
The Coalition has pledged to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to guarantee legal protections for women and girls based on biological sex, with a bill introduced into the House of Representatives by Nationals MP Alison Penfold this week. The debate over sex-based rights has intensified following Roxanne Tickle's legal win.
