I'm just reading the judgement and I'm baffled, I am legally trained but not in Australian law. My interpretation is that there can no longer be any kind of single sex spaces because it is indirectly discriminate, they didin't succeed on direct discrimination because they couldn't prove that Giggle knew Tickle was trans but excluding anyone from the service because they may have been trans was indirectly discriminate. To my mind it means there can be no single sex spaces in Australia which seems nuts, gender identity has completely rode roughshod over sex in Australian law and you can no longer exclude anyone from anything,there is no legitimate basis because of gender identity
"78 It is implicit in s 5B(1) that the discriminator actually be aware of a person’s gender identity, or the characteristic that generally appertains or is imputed to persons of the same gender identity. But that awareness is different from a requirement that a person have some additional belief about the legitimacy of that gender identity. In short, if it were established that the respondents had been aware of Ms Tickle’s gender identity, but dismissed its legitimacy and for that reason excluded her from the Giggle App, her case of direct discrimination would likely have succeeded. "
"80 Less attention was paid to s 5B(2) by both sides, despite it being the real thrust of Ms Tickle’s case. Section 5B(2) provides that indirect gender identity discrimination involves the imposition of a condition, practice or requirement that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons who have the same gender identity as the aggrieved person. The provision is largely directed to kinds of discrimination that are facially neutral, but have a discriminatory effect, intended or otherwise. It requires identification of a comparator group by which the disadvantage of persons who share a gender identity with the aggrieved person can be compared. In this case, the comparator is self-evident: cisgender women. That enables the treatment of transgender women to be compared to the treatment of cisgender women by the application of the imposed condition as to appearance."
So if a man with a male gender identity was excluded, then they could argue that they would be discriminated against and use a comparitor of a trans man who may be included because they look like a woman.
If there are any male only spaces in Australia, I hope women start demanding entry and waving this ruling around. If we're told gender identity trumps sex, what about religion, can a semenary say no women now? Can a mosque seperate based on sex etc?