Erasing Sex & Reality: The Tickle v Giggle Case
- jeanne7629
- Sep 1, 2025
- 2 min read
Updated: Sep 8, 2025
In this conversation, John chats with Giggle for Girls founder Sall Grover about her recent high-stakes Federal Court appeal concerning the right to operate a women-only social networking app.
I found this conversation really challenging to listen to. Not because I disagreed with the cause but because so much of the argument rested on exaggerated claims and logical fallacies that, in my view, weakened rather than strengthened the case. Which ones specifically annoyed me most? Glad you asked!
Framing it as either women keep their rights or they lose everything. Real life is rarely so binary, there are more nuanced ways to balance rights and protections without assuming one group must be erased for another to exist. (FYI this is called the False Dilemma)
The idea that letting trans women into certain spaces will inevitably lead to harm, summed up in the phrase “little girls in change rooms with boys.” That leap isn’t based on evidence, it’s an appeal to fear rather than a reasoned argument. (FYI this is called the Slippery slope)
The fact that Trans identities were reduced to caricatures (“it’s a hoax” / “they change daily”), instead of engaging with the real complexity of people’s lived experiences. (FYI this is called the Strawman). This not only misrepresents the issue but risks hardening stereotypes.
And lastly emotionally charged images and worst-case scenarios used to create urgency, rather than to invite thoughtful dialogue. (FYI this is called the appeal to fear). Fear may win attention, but it doesn’t build understanding.
What upset me is that you don’t need these kinds of sweeping, oversimplified claims to make a strong case. If anything, they dilute the argument and push people away. I wish I had witnessed more empathy and curiosity, a willingness to pause and ask themselves, what is it like for the trans women themselves, or their parents? Without that, the conversation felt combative and one-sided.
Now just to be clear and to be fair, I need to add a couple of closing comments:
1.This woman is in a legal battle so I can't really blame her for feeling and talking the way she does (the host however...). 2. I am very happy to acknowledge that people on the trans side of the debate can also be very inflexible. But I think both sides would benefit from stepping back from fear-driven extremes. I actually agree with much of what was raised in the episode (freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of association) but unless those values are matched with empathy, the way we talk about these issues will only push us further apart.
Ok ok , you can listen now:
Comments