No Cause for Giggles: Keeping Momentum on Women’s Support
Legal debates like Giggle and Tickle can easily become a smokescreen that slows the momentum of employers who are finally stepping up to support women at work. If organisations respond by retreating from menopause, reproductive health or women’s initiatives altogether, stigma wins twice: women lose vital support, and the message is sent that inclusion is too hard or too risky.
This case should not be an excuse to pause progress; it should be the catalyst to do it better. The law is not saying “stop supporting women”, it is saying “support all women, and do it in a way that respects gender identity and human rights”. Pulling back now would simply drive menopause and reproductive health struggles back into the shadows, undermining years of work to normalise these conversations and keep women in meaningful, healthy employment.
Why Giggle and Tickle matters to menopause‑friendly employers
The Giggle and Tickle litigation should be on the radar of every employer that has introduced menopause, menstrual and reproductive health leave or other potentially gendered wellbeing supports. The case confirms that under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), trans women are protected from discrimination, and that excluding someone from a women-only service based on perceived sex or gender identity can amount to unlawful discrimination. In 2026, the Full Federal Court upheld the case against Giggle and its CEO and found two acts of direct discrimination against Roxanne Tickle, a trans woman, strengthening the warning for organisations that rely on subjective views about who “counts” as a woman.
For employers, the key lesson is this: a well-intentioned policy is not enough. If an organisation has introduced menopause leave, reproductive health leave, women’s wellbeing initiatives or a women’s support network, but has not trained managers and decision-makers to apply those supports lawfully and consistently, it may be exposed to discrimination complaints if access is refused on the basis of a person’s perceived gender rather than their entitlement.
Why the case matters beyond apps and services
Giggle for Girls was a women-only social media platform that removed Ms Tickle after its founder concluded she was male and therefore not eligible to be there. The original 2024 judgment found unlawful indirect gender identity discrimination because the app’s gatekeeping effectively required a person to look “sufficiently female” according to the respondent’s own view.
That logic translates directly into workplaces. The same Sex Discrimination Act that applied to Giggle also governs employment, workplace benefits and the terms and conditions on which employees access support. If a manager decides an employee is not eligible for menopause or reproductive health leave because they are perceived as “really a man”, or do not conform to a manager’s personal idea of what a woman looks like, the employer may be walking into exactly the kind of claim that succeeded in Tickle v Giggle.
The risk for menopause and reproductive health leave
Many employers have implemented leave entitlements and support to address the disproportionate impact of menopause, menstruation, fertility treatment, pregnancy loss and other reproductive health issues on women in the workforce. That policy intent remains important. But the legal risk lies in how those policies are interpreted and administered. The risk arises at the point of decision‑making: who gets access, and on what basis.
A leave policy can be inclusive on paper and still be discriminatory in practice. For example, an employer may intend menopause leave to support women, but if a manager refuses a request because they believe a trans woman is not “really” a woman, that refusal could be framed as less favourable treatment on the basis of gender identity. Equally, if the manager demands different or more intrusive proof from some employees because of assumptions about sex, the issue is no longer just leave administration, it becomes a potential discrimination problem.
This can happen in subtle ways, including:
- Applying gendered leave generously to cis women, but questioning or denying requests from trans women or non‑binary employees with similar health needs.
- Requiring employees to “prove” their womanhood or medical history, in ways that go beyond what is asked of others.
In all of these scenarios, the employer’s policy may read well on paper, but a discrimination claim will focus on how it was applied in practice, just as occurred in Tickle v Giggle.
This same risk extends to broader “women-only” supports. If an employer has a women’s support group, women’s health forum, women’s leadership network or similar internal community, it should review both how that initiative is communicated and who is included or excluded. A poorly worded invitation, registration process or participation rule or leaves inclusion to a manager’s judgment could create the same kind of legal and cultural exposure seen in Giggle.
The WA government as a case study for reproductive health leave
In many states including Western Australia, reproductive health leave provisions are now appearing in industrial instruments and create practical questions for employers about notice, evidence and confidentiality.
In Western Australia, reproductive health leave provisions may require evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person, but unless managers are trained on what that means in practice and on the obligation to keep related information confidential and off personal files employers risk inconsistent and potentially discriminatory decision-making.”
Those protections are important, but the phrase “evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person” carries some ambiguity in practice because much depends on who the decision-maker is, what they regard as “reasonable”, and whether they allow personal assumptions about sex, gender or medical legitimacy to shape the request.
That ambiguity is where legal risk can start to build. If one manager accepts a basic medical certificate or statutory declaration, but another demands more detailed information because they are sceptical that the employee should qualify, there is a real inconsistency problem. If that scepticism is influenced by the employee’s gender identity, presentation or perceived sex, the employer may face arguments that its evidentiary process is being applied in a discriminatory way, even if the clause itself is neutral.
Where to from here?
If you are an HR leader, executive or board member who:
- has introduced menopause, menstrual or reproductive health leave or supports; or
- is thinking about doing so but is now nervous because of Giggle and Tickle,
this is the moment to move forward with confidence, not pull back.
At Menopause Friendly Australia, we work with organisations to:
- review and design inclusive menopause and reproductive health policies;
- train managers on legal obligations and real‑world conversations; and
- build cultures where people can talk openly about menopause and reproductive health without fear or stigma.
If you want to sense‑check your existing approach, or you’re ready to start but unsure how to proceed safely, reach out to us.
Why manager training is now essential
Tickle v Giggle shows how quickly a decision based on perception can become unlawful discrimination. In a workplace context, that means employers should not assume HR or line managers will instinctively know how to apply menopause or reproductive health supports lawfully, especially where policies are gendered or where evidence requirements require judgment.
Manager training should therefore cover:
- How sex, gender and gender identity are treated under Australian anti-discrimination law.
- How to assess leave requests by reference to the entitlement and the evidence provided, not personal beliefs.
- How to handle women’s groups, networks and support programs so that eligibility, language and participation are consistent with inclusive legal obligations.
- How to maintain confidentiality, including limiting collection, storage and disclosure of sensitive information.
We want to encourage open communication, evidence‑based education and practical support, and not allow legal ambiguity to slow the momentum on breaking down stigma around menopause and reproductive health at work.
Download our training brochures:
Menstruation Training portfolio
Reach out to our partnerships team: hello@menopausefriendly.com.au for more information.