A Christian Reflection on the Lesbian Action Group Judgment: When Courts Grapple with Biology, Identity, and God’s Created Order

Screenshot portion of Federal Court of Australia Lesbian Action Group Inc v Australian Human Rights Commission [2026] FCA 432 Judgment

As a Christian living in Australia, I’ve been watching the recent Federal Court case involving the Lesbian Action Group with interest.

The Lesbian Action Group Judgment handed down by Justice Mark Moshinsky ([2026] FCA 432) represents one small but significant moment in the wider cultural conversation about what it means to be male and female in God’s good creation.

From the beginning, my support for the Lesbian Action Group has not been about endorsing every aspect of their worldview. As I’ve written before, I hold firmly to the Scriptures: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). The complementarity of male and female, ordered toward the one-flesh union of marriage that can bring forth new life, is not merely a cultural construct, it is the Creator’s design.

At the same time, I recognise the real desire of same-sex attracted women to gather in spaces defined by shared experience and a sense of safety and dignity. And I grieve for every person caught in the confusion of gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction. Research suggests these struggles are often linked to higher rates of childhood trauma, abuse, or painful experiences with the opposite sex in youth or beyond, wounds that are frequently deepened by powerful activists and lobbyists who treat our bodies as raw material to be remade rather than fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14).

While Scripture provides a framework for understanding human nature, individual stories are often more intricate than any single explanation.

This case is not abstract. The Lesbian Action Group, a Victorian organisation of same-sex attracted women, sought a five-year exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act to hold events for “lesbians born female only.” They argued that including biological males who identify as women would undermine the purpose of their single-sex spaces.

The Australian Human Rights Commission refused that application, and the Administrative Review Tribunal upheld the refusal. The Group then appealed to the Federal Court on questions of law.

As I understand the judgment, Justice Moshinsky allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s decision, and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal to be decided according to law. Importantly, the Court did not determine whether the exemption should ultimately be granted. Rather, it found that the Tribunal had approached its task too narrowly, effectively treating any form of discrimination as inconsistent with the Act’s purposes, without properly engaging with the statutory power to grant exemptions in appropriate cases.

The judgment serves as a reminder that the Sex Discrimination Act itself contains mechanisms designed to balance competing interests. Provisions relating to single-sex spaces, sport, religious bodies, and other contexts recognise that distinctions based on sex may sometimes be justified. Cases like this are difficult precisely because the law is attempting to reconcile multiple protected attributes, including sex and gender identity, which can come into conflict in practice.

The Court’s decision does not hand the Lesbian Action Group a final victory. But it does reopen the door. It requires the Tribunal to properly consider whether a limited exemption is justified, taking into account not only anti-discrimination principles but also freedom of association and the practical realities that may arise in sex-based spaces.

The judgment also sits alongside ongoing litigation such as the Tickle v Giggle case, which has raised related questions about whether “woman” in Australian law can be defined by gender identity alone. While that matter remains on appeal, it highlights the broader legal uncertainty in this area.

From a Christian perspective, these developments matter deeply. The question of whether identity can be detached from the reality of the body is not only a legal issue but a theological one. Scripture teaches that our bodies are not incidental to who we are, they are part of God’s intentional creation (Psalm 139:14).

I know from my own life how sin and brokenness tangle every one of us, including me. I am not qualified to weigh others’ sins against my own, yet I cannot call good what Scripture clearly presents as a distortion of God’s design. At the same time, Christians are called to approach every person with humility, recognising our shared brokenness and need for grace.

That is why my prayer remains twofold. First, that the remitted decision is approached with clarity and care, and that the law continues to recognise the significance of biological sex where it is relevant.

Second, and far more importantly, that every person wrestling with questions of identity finds not only answers, but hope.

While courts must resolve legal questions, they cannot ultimately provide the foundation for identity or restoration. Christians believe that this is found in Jesus Christ, who offers grace, truth, and transformation to all who come to Him.

As this story continues to unfold, my encouragement to fellow believers is simple: remain faithful, speak truthfully, and love your neighbour, even where there is deep disagreement.

The cross calls us to hold together both grace and truth in a world that often pulls them apart.

I will continue praying for the Lesbian Action Group, for those they seek to serve, and for all who are navigating these difficult and deeply personal issues. May God grant wisdom to our courts, and, above all, lead many to find their true identity in Christ. As the apostle Paul reminds us, ‘Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!’ (2 Corinthians 5:17).