It’s the op-ed that was too ‘dangerous’ for the taxpayer-funded ‘national broadcaster’. The same broadcaster that openly provided platforms for self-described pederasts wrote glowing profiles of two men who were, in fact, pimping out their adopted son, and for the last two years a roster of antisemites, somehow decides that a fact-based piece asserting plain biological truths doesn’t ‘meet its editorial standards’. That is probably true, really, but not in the way they want us to think.
The piece was written by female entrepreneur who has been subject to years of relentless lawfare by a confused man who dresses up as, apparently, a bulldog in a wig. The case is now set to go all the way to the High Court. Guess whose side the ‘national broadcaster’ is clearly taking.
Sall Grover, founder of the women-only Giggle app, pitched an opinion piece to the ABC after losing her appeal in the Full Federal Court last month. The court effectively ruled that a woman is anyone who says they are. Grover’s piece laid out the obvious biological and legal consequences of that decision. After 37 emails, two full redrafts and more than three weeks of negotiation, the ABC still said no.
A senior editor had already described the draft as “very, very good”. That didn’t matter. The piece was rejected anyway. Grover called it exactly what it is: confirmation of ideological capture at the national broadcaster.
The ABC has refused to publish an opinion article by women’s sex-based rights campaigner Sall Grover, despite a senior editor describing the piece as “very, very good”, in what has been condemned by Grover as “confirmation of ideological capture” at the national broadcaster.
The ABC’s refusal is not about quality or balance. It is about protecting a narrative that collapses the moment basic biology is stated plainly. Grover’s argument was simple and evidence-based. She pointed out that the only prerequisite to being a ‘trans woman’ is to be male. Female-only spaces, services and sports exist because of observable, immutable differences in strength, violence patterns and sexual dimorphism. Expanding male access into those categories necessarily contracts women’s protections.
The court’s decision did not create new rights. It erased the meaning of existing ones. Once ‘woman’ is redefined to include men, single-sex provisions in prisons, shelters, sports and even female-only apps become meaningless by legal stealth. Survivors of male violence, teenage girls in change rooms, female athletes and religious women who require same-sex care are told their boundaries are bigotry. The ABC apparently agrees that stating this out loud fails its editorial standards.
Grover did not call for cruelty. She called for clarity, not to mention reality.
We are told trans rights are about compassion. But compassion that demands women absorb male bodies into every female category is not kindness, it is entitlement dressed in progressive clothing. Trans-identified people deserve dignity, mental health support and protection from violence.
The last is a bit rich: the reality, as clearly shown in crime data, is that it’s the rest of us, women especially, who need protection from the violence of deranged cross-dressing men. Just ask Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.
What trannies most certainly do not deserve is to rewrite material reality to suit their perversions, nor to override the hard-won sex-based rights of half the population, just to enable male predators in dresses. Accurate definitions are not hatred. They are the foundation of coherent law and functional single-sex provisions.
When even the UK is less misogynistically woke, Australia really ought to be embarrassed.
On 16 April 2025 the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling that the terms woman, man and sex in the Equality Act 2010 mean biological sex: the sex recorded at birth. A Gender Recognition Certificate does not rewrite that reality for the purposes of single-sex protections.
“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”
That single sentence restores coherence to equality law. It means female-only spaces, shelters, prisons, sports and services can lawfully remain female-only. Trans people retain protections against discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment, but they do not acquire the sex-based rights of the opposite sex. Biology is not bigotry: it is the factual foundation on which those protections were built.
Australia’s Full Federal Court took the opposite path in May 2026, and the ‘national broadcaster’ clearly is singing from the same demented hymn sheet.
And women – actual women – will continue to pay the price.
