At 34 years old, Sall Grover thought she was creating a simple solution to a common problem. After years of sexual harassment as a screenwriter in Hollywood, she and her parents developed Giggle—a women-only app for roommates, freelance work, and lesbian dating. Using facial recognition technology, the app verified users were female before granting access. Apple and Google approved every build throughout 2019 without question. Then came February 7th, 2020, and Sall’s life became a legal nightmare that would span five years and counting.
About Sall
Sall Grover is an Australian businesswoman and former screenwriter who spent nearly a decade in Hollywood before returning home to Australia. Born in 1984, she channeled her traumatic experiences in the film industry into creating what she hoped would be a safe digital space for women.
The Hidden Cost of Fighting Back
What happened next reveals the devastating personal toll of standing up to gender ideology. Sall’s social media presence projected confidence and wit, but this public persona masked a private hell. She was having panic attacks up to 100 times per day, her hair was falling out, and she had developed such severe driving anxiety that she would grip the steering wheel with white knuckles, convinced she was about to crash. Having been told by the government that she had “done something wrong” by not believing men can be women, her brain began applying this hypervigilance to every aspect of life. If they would punish her for refusing biological reality, surely they would punish her for any minor mistake.
The Coordinated Attack
Thousands of men flooded Giggle with one-star reviews, calling Sall and her family “transphobic TERFs.” Many were visibly teenage boys in gaming headsets, orchestrating Discord raids while writing fake reviews claiming to be “black women who got denied.” Every media outlet that had agreed to help launch Giggle suddenly went silent after the “transphobic” label was attached. Initially trying liberal appeasement with tweets like “of course trans women are women,” Sall was forced into an education she’d never sought, discovering feminists like Helen Joyce and Julie Bindel who had been documenting gender ideology’s assault on women’s rights.
The Legal Machine Activates
The man who would drag Sall through years of court proceedings had blocked her on Twitter after a polite exchange about women-only swimming areas. “Roxy Tickle” then somehow obtained her personal phone number and began harassing her. When she blocked his number after finding his removed male profile in her system, he filed an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint. Their settlement demands revealed totalitarian ambitions: $20,000 payment, public apology, “gender education,” allowing all men who identify as women onto the app, and content moderation to prevent offending male users. When Sall refused, Tickle filed the federal court case that became “Tickle v. Giggle”—a name so absurd Sall notes she would have rejected it as “too on the nose” in a screenplay.
Courtroom Absurdities and Dangerous Precedents
The federal court case descended into Alice in Wonderland territory. Tickle’s team argued Sall should have known he identified as a woman because he wore a V-neck t-shirt and had long hair—while Sall looked over at her father wearing the same style shirt. The judge ultimately ruled that sex is “changeable” and found Sall guilty of indirect discrimination. But the most shocking moment came when Sall involuntarily laughed during cross-examination at evidence about a “sweaty balls” candle created by a supporter. For this natural human reaction, she was fined $10,000 in damages, creating a precedent that threatens every witness who might react to absurd claims in court.
Most disturbing is the Australian Human Rights Commission’s argument that men who identify as women deserve pregnancy protections because they could theoretically be “perceived to be pregnant.” This transforms legislation designed to protect women’s biological capacity to bear children into validation for male gender identities, representing complete institutional capture of women’s rights organizations.
The Stakes and the Fight Ahead
The legal costs have exceeded $1.2 million, with more required regardless of outcome as either side will appeal to Australia’s High Court. Sall’s husband left in 2023 under the pressure. But she continues fighting not just for herself but for every woman who might want to create female-only spaces. The case demonstrates how gender ideology operates through legal intimidation, using process as punishment to exhaust opponents financially and psychologically.
Tickle v. Giggle represents Australia’s first major court case pitting women’s sex-based rights against gender identity claims. The precedents being set will determine whether women can maintain any legal recognition as a distinct class. At stake are the legal definition of sex, the right to single-sex spaces, free speech protections, and the basic principle that courts should deal in facts rather than feelings. The court’s demand that Sall use preferred pronouns amounts to mandated perjury, requiring her to knowingly lie under oath about biological reality.
As Sall waits for the Federal Court appeal decision expected by Christmas, she draws parallels to the suffragette movement, noting that both “TERF” and “suffragette” began as slurs created by opponents. Like the suffragettes, women have reclaimed and embraced what was meant to belittle them. Every woman who stands up to this movement, despite the personal cost, makes it easier for the next woman to do the same. Support Sall’s ongoing legal battle at gigglecrowdfund.com.
If you’ve ever felt like something bigger is happening but struggled to make sense of it, Beyond Gender is for you. This podcast cuts through the noise with honest, thoughtful discussions about one of the most pressing topics of our time.
🎧 Watch & Listen
New episodes every Thursday on:
