Campaigners Urge Labor to Restore Definition of Man and Woman to Sex Discrimination Act

ADELAIDE, Australia—Politicians, campaigners and supporters gathered on the steps of South Australia’s Parliament House over the weekend, calling on the Albanese government to amend the Sex Discrimination Act.The “Fix the Sex Discrimination Act” rally, organised by Women’s Forum Australia, coincided with the Australian Labor Party’s National Conference, a three-day event held a short distance away at the Adelaide Convention Centre.Throughout the rally, speakers urged the federal government to restore biological definitions of “man” and “woman” in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, arguing that amendments made by the Gillard government in 2013 eroded basic rights for women and girls.The amendment also repealed explicit definitions of “man” and “woman” and legally recognised same sex de facto couples.Opening the rally, Women’s Forum Australia Head of Advocacy Stephanie Bastiaan argued that the law fundamentally changed women’s legal protections.“The 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, which removed the definition of male and female and pitted gender ideology against biological sex, has had devastating ramifications for women and girls in South Australia,” Bastiaan said.She spoke against transgenders entering female prisons or women’s sport, while also calling on attendees to make enough noise for Labor delegates attending the nearby conference to hear.Politicians Call for Legislative ChangeSeveral federal and state parliamentarians addressed the crowd, arguing common sense and biological reality should be reinstated into the law.Liberal Senator Leah Blyth said South Australia had historically led the world on women’s rights but argued those gains were now under threat.“It breaks my heart that we need to come out and we’ve got to start fighting for women’s rights all over again,” she said.“I thought that was done in the 1800s, but clearly we’ve got to come back and we’ve got to fight for common sense again.”Blyth criticised Labor for voting against recent Coalition amendments introduced by Senator Michaelia Cash that sought to restore biological definitions to the Sex Discrimination Act.“Labor have the ability to fix the Sex Discrimination Act,” she said.“They could have done this. They could have cleaned this up four weeks ago in the Senate.”One Nation Member of the Legislative Council, Rebecca Hewett criticised the current legislation, saying biological sex should underpin legal definitions and that the government has allowed common sense to be “hijacked been a militant minority.”“Trans rights should never come at the expense of the rights of our women and girls to feel safe in their own spaces,” she said.“It is not discrimination for biological women to have their own toilets, change rooms, sports, specialised services, or online chat groups.”Tickle vs Giggle: The Centrepiece of the RallySpeakers at the event rallied behind Giggle for Girls founder Sall Grover, whose legal battle has become a focal point for campaigners.Grover founded Giggle for Girls as a social networking app exclusively for women. To join the platform, users were required to submit a photograph, which was reviewed to determine whether they appeared to be female.In 2021, transgender woman Roxanne Tickle joined the app but was later removed after Grover reviewed her profile.After Tickle’s request to rejoin was refused, she lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission, claiming unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity.Sall Grover, founder of Giggle for Girls, speaks at CPAC Australia in Brisbane on Sept. 21, 2025. Melanie Sun/The Epoch TimesThe dispute ultimately reached the Federal Court, which in 2024 found that Grover had unlawfully discriminated against Tickle under the Sex Discrimination Act. In May 2026, the Full Federal Court dismissed Grover’s appeal and increased the damages awarded to Tickle to $20,000 (US$14,000).Speaking to The Epoch Times, Grover said she was left surprised.“Oh, I was in such shock when I first heard it because I really did think that the full Federal Court would be reasonable,” she said.“I thought that common sense would step in, so I was completely shocked.“And when you actually read the decision, you can see that for large portions of it, they’re actually in agreement with us. And then when they do conclusions, they’re completely against us. So it’s a very muddled, bizarre decision.”Grover argued the Sex Discrimination Act was intended to protect both sex-based rights and protections against gender identity discrimination, but said the legislation was interpreted differently by the courts.“When you actually think about that, what the Australian Human Rights Commission and the judiciary is doing is they are going so far to give these men a status in law … at the expense of protections we do need.”Yang Lu contributed to this article.