Page:Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2).pdf/49

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

140 Dr Wright has a bachelor's degree in science, focussing on evolution, ecology and biodiversity from the University of California, Davis. Dr Wright also has a PhD in evolution, ecology and marine biology from the University of California, Santa Barbara and has served as a Postdoctoral Fellow at The Pennsylvania State University. At the time of making his report, Dr Wright had published 28 peer-reviewed scientific articles on animal behaviour and the biology of sex. A number of questions were addressed by Dr Wright in his expert report. Those included "what is biological sex?"; "how many biological sexes are there?"; "what is a biological male?"; and "what is a biological female?". Dr Wright also addressed questions regarding biological sex characteristics and their relationship to biological sex, whether humans can change biological sex, and how humans recognise biological sex in other humans. The final question Dr Wright addressed in his expert report was:

based on your specialised knowledge, in your opinion is there a scientific explanation as to why Sally Grover determined that the image … the Applicant uploaded at onboarding to the App was an image depicting a male person.

141 While I have read Dr Wright's report, it does not assist me in deciding this case. It is not my role in forming a judgement about the issues in dispute, and the relevant law, to have regard to the evolutionary or biological definitions or features of human sex. That is because, as I have already found, the legal definition of a woman (or man) is not so confined. It is therefore outside my purview to consider, far less determine, the general nature of biological sex. The science behind that evidence is not, as far as it goes, in dispute. It is just that the issues in this case involve wider issues than biology.

142 Ms Tickle is a legal female, as reflected in her updated birth certificate issued under Queensland law. The discrimination complained of by Ms Tickle is on the basis of gender identity and not sex. Dr Wright's report does not address, or attempt to address, the concept of human gender identity. Yet that is what this case is all about, having regard to the proscription on gender identity discrimination in the SDA, legislated by the Commonwealth parliament.

143 Dr Stock's report in large part answers the question posed by the respondents to her, namely:

from an ontological perspective, based on your specialised knowledge, in your opinion, is a woman a socially constitutive fact or convention into which any human can self-identify at their discretion?

144 I have read the report of Dr Stock, but again find it of no assistance in deciding this case, for much the same reasons as for Dr Wright's report. Ms Tickle has not only self-identified as a


Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960
42