Two important legal cases, one in Australia and the other in the United Kingdom, may soon influence how American courts and policymakers address a central question in today’s culture war: What is a woman? Both cases examine whether women and girls have the legal right to female-only spaces. One involves a digital platform, while the other is a hospital changing room.
The question of what constitutes a woman continues to divide American college campuses, where controversies abound over whether a male who identifies as a woman (i.e., a transwoman) can join a sorority, compete on a women’s sports team, use women’s bathrooms, or otherwise test the boundaries of sex-based distinctions. At the heart of these debates lies the tension between gender identity and biological sex in defining legal access.
While decisions from foreign courts are not binding on U.S. courts, they may still carry persuasive weight, particularly in cases involving human rights, international norms, or comparative constitutional law. For instance, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court cited foreign and international law to support its ruling that executing juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment. Similarly, American judges and lawmakers may look to these Australian and British cases for guidance as they navigate the increasingly contested terrain of sex-based rights and protections.
Tickle v. Giggle
In Australia, Sall Grover founded a women-only social app called Giggle for Girls in 2020. The app uses artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition software to verify that users are biologically female. In late 2021, Roxanne Tickle, a male who identifies as a woman and holds a birth certificate legally changed to reflect this identity, was initially accepted onto the app but was later manually removed. Tickle filed a complaint under the Australian Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) in early 2022, and the case proceeded to the Federal Court in August 2024.
Tickle alleged that direct discrimination had occurred based on gender identity, and that indirect discrimination occurred because the requirement to “appear cisgender female” disproportionately excluded trans-identifying males.
On August 23, 2024, Justice Bromwich ruled that there was no direct discrimination because the decision to exclude Tickle was based on appearance, not on knowledge of Tickle’s transgender status. However, the court found that the appearance-based requirement constituted indirect discrimination and affirmed that under the SDA and Australian common law, sex can be changed and gender identity is a legally protected characteristic. Tickle was awarded $10,000 in damages plus legal costs. The court declined to order an apology or reinstate Tickle’s access to the app.
Grover has appealed the ruling to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, a body comparable to a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing is scheduled to begin on August 4, 2025.
[RELATED: UK Supreme Court Answers, ‘What Is a Woman?’—Colleges Should Pay Attention]
Peggie v. NHS Fife and Dr. Beth Upton
In the United Kingdom, this case concerns nurse Sandie Peggie, who was employed by a regional division of the National Health Service in Fife, Scotland (NHS Fife). On Christmas Eve 2023, nurse Sandie Peggie encountered Dr. Beth Upton, a male who identifies as a woman, in the women’s changing room at Victoria Hospital. Peggie objected to Upton’s presence, which led Upton to file a complaint of bullying and harassment, and Peggie was suspended soon afterwards. Peggie contends that her suspension violated her rights under the Equality Act 2010 and has brought claims of sexual harassment, harassment based on philosophical belief, and victimization.
The tribunal hearing began in February 2025, was paused, and resumed on July 16, 2025—likely concluded by the time of this publication.
This case gained new significance in April this year, however, when the UK Supreme Court ruled that the terms “man,” “woman,” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex, not self-declared gender identity. That ruling appears to provide strong legal support for Peggie’s position. Nonetheless, NHS Fife and Dr. Upton maintain that allowing individuals to use facilities aligned with their gender identity is consistent with institutional inclusion policies.
Why These Cases Matter in the United States
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear two cases, Hecox v. Little and BPJ v. West Virginia, which concern whether states may restrict participation in girls’ and women’s sports to biological females. Similar laws exist in 25 other states, many of which also prohibit males from accessing female-only bathrooms and locker rooms. Some of these laws are already facing legal challenges.
As American courts grapple with these issues, foreign legal decisions may offer persuasive guidance. The Tickle and Peggie cases provide international examples of how courts are attempting to balance transgender inclusion with women’s rights to privacy, safety, and freedom of belief. Both cases underscore a central legal divide: Should access to single-sex spaces be determined by self-declared gender identity or by biological sex?
The implications extend beyond athletics and restrooms. The outcomes of these cases will be especially relevant to U.S. universities, healthcare systems, and digital platforms, institutions that are increasingly entangled in disputes over employee rights, free speech, and access to sex-specific spaces.
In early 2025, President Trump issued a series of Executive Orders defining women and girls in federal policy as individuals whose biological sex is female, thereby influencing the allocation of federal funding for education, athletics, and research. In response, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee updated their policies to state that only biological females are eligible to compete in women’s sports. These directives, however, are now the subject of multiple lawsuits, many of which center on higher education funding and compliance with civil rights law.
As legal challenges unfold and public opinion continues to shift, international rulings such as Tickle and Peggie may provide persuasive guidance for how U.S. courts and policymakers define and defend sex-based rights in the years ahead.
Follow Gregory Brown on X and explore Minding the World for global higher ed news, op-eds, and analysis.
Image: “Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C” by Billy Wilson on Flickr
