Lesbian Action Group wins Federal Court appeal over trans exclusion.

The Lesbian Action Group (LAG) has pulled off an important victory in the Federal Court. When they first applied for an exemption under anti-discrimination laws to exclude males from their meetings, the Australian Human Rights Commission said no. The AHRC felt it was more important to protect the feelings of men who wish they were women than the actual women who wanted to meet together.

LAG tried to appeal that decision but was unsuccessful. But their third attempt to appeal, this time in the federal court, has been successful.

Judge Mark Moshinsky said the AHRC has misinterpreted the law and that LAG can appeal the decision in the Administrative Review Tribunal. 

LAG spokeswoman Nicole Mowbray hailed the verdict as upholding women’s “right to say no to forcing males into female and lesbian spaces”, after Judge Moshinsky ordered the Administrative Review Tribunal to set aside its dismissal of the group’s appeal, and a “differently constituted” tribunal to reconsider the matter.

In October 2023, the AHRC refused LAG’s request for a five-year exemption to the Sex Discrimination Act to enable them to hold “lesbians born female only” public events, arguing it was not appropriate or reasonable to exclude transgender lesbians from such events, and doing so may lead to more exclusion or discrimination.

LAG unsuccessfully appealed the decision in the ART, with Wednesday’s Federal Court verdict the result of a third attempt to secure the exemption.

So to be clear, the exemption itself has not yet been granted, but LAG can now fight the decision and will have the law on its side. The judge made it clear it is in fact lawful to argue that biological sex should not be automatically disregarded for the sake of gender identity ideology.

The decision could have very positive implications for cases like Sall Grover, who is still waiting for a decision on whether excluding males from her female-only app, Giggle for Girls, was discrimination.

Her response to the news was published as an opinion piece in the Australian. 

Let’s state the obvious: a man who identifies as a woman and calls himself a lesbian is, quite simply, a heterosexual man. Once that basic biological fact is accepted, everything snaps into focus. Heterosexual men have zero place at a lesbian event. Excluding them is not discrimination, it is basic pattern recognition and the defence of same-sex attraction. No man is a lesbian. Full stop. Any man who insists on forcing his way into lesbian spaces is waving a massive red flag.

The AHRC’s ideological approach has been consistent and troubling. We saw it clearly in Giggle v Tickle, where the commission backed the idea that a man could simply declare himself a woman and demand access to a woman-only app.

That first-instance decision is now under appeal to the Full Federal Court. As the founder of Giggle, I have lived this fight for years, watching the AHRC and courts twist the plain meaning of “woman” and “sex” in ways that erode biological reality, women’s rights and the integrity of same-sex attraction.

Women and lesbians should never have to beg the government for exemptions just to associate on the basis of their sex and sexual orientation.

Until the AHRC began reinterpreting the Sex Discrimination Act through the lens of gender ideology, single-sex spaces and lesbian-only events were normal and uncontroversial. Instead of protecting those rights, the commission has too often acted as one of the biggest obstacles in the way.

The AHRC now has an opportunity – and a duty – to remember it exists for all Australians, including those who never accepted the claim that men can be women or lesbians. Australian women and lesbians have waited long enough.

Whether or not it will have any bearing on my vilification cases is unclear. The reality, regardless of the law, is that men cannot be women or lesbians. No one should be penalised for stating the obvious and making decisions accordingly.