Roxanne Tickle Gets $10k -

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/roxanne-tickle-v-giggle-for-girls

However, I was not satisfied that the kind of gender identity discrimination alleged by
Ms Tickle under s 22 would be supported as an enactment of the Convention for the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) (CEDAW). The
respondents contended that this was because CEDAW grants protections only to women, and
the word “women” in CEDAW only means adults who were female sex at birth. I do not need
to decide whether that is correct or not, because the way in which the term “discrimination
against women” is defined in CEDAW means it refers only to discrimination that places
women in a less favourable position than men. It therefore does not cover the kind of
discrimination that Ms Tickle alleges in this case, which is discrimination that placed her in the
same position as men.

I have found that Ms Tickle’s claim of direct gender identity discrimination fails, but that her
claim of indirect gender identity discrimination succeeds.
I will make a declaration of contravention by way of unlawful indirect gender identity
discrimination against the respondents, subject to input from the parties as to the form of that
declaration. I will also order the respondents to pay Ms Tickle compensation in the sum of
$10,000 and to pay her costs, with a cap in respect of costs to do with the constitutional validity
and statutory construction issues