At CPAC Australia 2025 in Brisbane, Australian women’s rights campaigner Sall Grover delivered a fiery and deeply personal speech that immediately ignited debate across the political and cultural landscape. Speaking to loud applause from the audience, Grover opened with the blunt declaration that “men are not women,” setting the tone for a speech centered on gender identity laws, freedom of speech, and the legal battle that has transformed her into one of the most controversial public figures in Australia.

Grover explained that she is the founder of Giggle, a social networking platform created exclusively for women. According to her, the app was originally designed as a safe online space where women could connect for housing, work opportunities, dating, and discussions without male intrusion. She said the project was initially intended as a response to misogyny online, not as a political statement about gender ideology.

However, shortly after the platform launched, Grover said thousands of biological males joined the app and accused her of discrimination after being removed. She recalled receiving floods of negative reviews and insults online, adding that she had never even heard the term “TERF” before the controversy erupted. The backlash, she said, forced her to educate herself about the rapidly expanding global debate surrounding gender identity policies.

The dispute eventually escalated into what became known internationally as the “Giggle v Tickle” case — described by Grover as the first legal battle in the world focused specifically on sex versus gender identity discrimination. She argued that Australia had an opportunity to defend biological reality in law but instead moved in the opposite direction.

According to Grover, the conflict intensified in 2022 when she received a complaint through the Australian Human Rights Commission from a man identifying as a woman who had been removed from the platform. She claimed the complaint demanded that she allow biological males identifying as women onto the app, undergo “sex and gender education,” issue an apology, pay compensation, and moderate all content to avoid offending transgender users.

Grover told the CPAC audience that accepting those demands would effectively destroy the original purpose of the platform. In one of the most applauded moments of the speech, she remarked that she had spent years trying to create something exclusively for women, only to end up spending most of her time talking about men.

The entrepreneur also accused the Australian Human Rights Commission and Sex Discrimination Commission of failing to consider the rights of women. She claimed the institutions had become ideologically aligned with gender identity activism and were prioritizing the demands of transgender individuals over the rights of biological females.

Adding a deeply personal dimension to the speech, Grover revealed that she was pregnant during the early stages of the legal dispute. She said the experience strengthened her determination to continue fighting the case because she wanted to one day teach her daughter the importance of standing up for herself even under intense pressure.

Grover said she ultimately refused to settle the complaint, despite being warned by her legal team that the case could escalate through the federal court system and potentially all the way to the High Court of Australia. She argued that many people had previously chosen settlements simply to avoid crippling legal expenses and public intimidation.

A major focus of her speech was criticism of amendments made to Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act in 2013. Grover argued that replacing references to biological sex with “gender identity” created the legal framework that allowed the current dispute to emerge. She accused government institutions of interpreting the law through an ideological lens rather than prioritizing biological reality.

Grover also criticized a federal court ruling that reportedly recognized sex as legally changeable. She insisted that no human being can actually change sex biologically and argued that legal documents cannot alter physical reality.

The speech became increasingly charged as Grover described Australian state laws allowing individuals to alter the sex marker on birth certificates. She mocked the idea that a person could legally redefine their sex through administrative paperwork and argued that the legal system had detached itself from objective reality.

Despite the legal setbacks, Grover expressed optimism about the future of the case. She pointed to political and legal developments in both the United States and the United Kingdom, claiming there had been a major international shift against gender ideology in recent years.

One of the strongest themes throughout the speech was freedom of speech. Grover warned that legal decisions surrounding gender identity could eventually criminalize ordinary political discussion. She referenced the case of activist Kirralie Smith, arguing that Australians were now at risk of punishment simply for expressing views about biological sex and women’s sports.

Grover insisted the issue extends far beyond women’s rights alone. She argued that gender ideology affects freedom of belief, freedom of association, and the right of citizens to speak honestly about biological reality without fear of punishment or social exclusion.

The financial burden of the legal battle was another major point of discussion. Grover told the audience that the first stage of the court case cost more than half a million dollars in legal fees and claimed future appeals could push the total into the millions. She said her campaign had survived largely through small donations from ordinary supporters rather than wealthy backers.

During the speech, Grover also criticized Australian politicians for failing to intervene legislatively. She argued that lawmakers could resolve the issue quickly if they chose to act, accusing political leaders of avoiding the controversy instead of confronting it directly.

In one particularly controversial section, Grover referenced reports about a convicted male offender allegedly being housed in a women’s prison after identifying as female. She condemned the situation and demanded answers from political leaders and government agencies responsible for prison policy.

The CPAC audience repeatedly interrupted the speech with applause and cheers, particularly when Grover framed the issue as a battle over truth, reality, and free expression. Her remarks reflected the growing visibility of gender identity debates within conservative political movements across Australia and internationally.

Grover concluded by urging supporters not to remain silent out of fear. She acknowledged that many people are reluctant to speak publicly because of professional and personal risks but argued that cultural change depends on individuals being willing to act despite those pressures.

Ending the speech with the same uncompromising tone that defined the entire address, Grover declared once again that “men can never be women” and warned that a society unable to say so openly could no longer consider itself truly free. The speech immediately sparked fierce reactions online, with supporters praising her courage while critics condemned the remarks as divisive — and across social media, the debate was absolutely exploding.