- In short: Transgender woman Roxanne Tickle is suing social media platform Giggle for Girls after she was excluded from the women-only app.
- She is alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity while the app’s founder has denied she is a woman.
- What’s next? The hearing is expected to run for four days.
A transgender woman who was excluded from a women-only social media app should be awarded damages because the app’s founder has persistently denied she is a woman, a Sydney court has heard.
In February 2021, Roxanne Tickle downloaded the Giggle for Girls social networking app, which was marketed as a platform exclusively for women to share experiences and speak freely.
Users needed to provide a selfie, which was assessed by artificial intelligence software to determine if they were a woman or man.
Ms Tickle’s photograph was determined to be a woman and she used the app’s full features until September that year, when the account became restricted because the AI decision was manually overridden.
What’s the point of a woman’s only app (or any women’s only space) if they let anyone in simply based on them saying ‘I’m a woman’?
The question you have to ask here is “if anyone can just sign up then how was she noticed, and if they spend any time verifying then how did they not realize she was very serious about her womanhood?”. She’s had gender-affirming surgery and you’re really out here saying “if they let anyone in simply based on them saying ‘I’m a woman’?”.
They’re clearly doing some work here and not doing it very well. And you’re missing very important facts.
Maybe because everything about the space still caters to women’s concerns, and the presumption for a random-ass social media app should be that your appearance doesn’t determine your intent? If somebody’s daily life is being a woman, then why the fuck should it matter which parts they have? Are you also going to exclude gay women, or women who cut their hair short, or women who choose not to have kids? After all, they’re not having all the same issues that long-haired cis-het mothers have.
Not to mention it’s a technologically stupid gate to keep. In what fucking world does it deter anyone who is willing to be dishonest?
A waste of everyone’s time. Sounds like entitlement.
This is funny when you just look at your profile’s first page and see you’ve made comments like these:
I hate this rhetoric. It implies that this a refular occurence. It is just a man hating comment. If this is happening to you frequently, maybe you are the problem. I am tired of being assumed an asshole just because I am a man. It is sexist. Plain and simple.
So you deny “unproblematic” women regularly experiencing unsafe behavior from men who are entitled and you’re also denying people’s gender identity - otherwise, why would it be a waste of time for a woman’s fight for her right to access women’s spaces? So you’re hateful towards people you perceive to be “men” while complaining about “man haters” elsewhere. Logical inconsistencies in favor of hate is a hallmark sign of right wing extremist views.
That is some fancy mental gymnastics you came up with there. My comment before has absolutely nothing to do with this article. The fact that you went through my comment history to find a marginal strawman just goes to show you are trying to be argumentative. You can disagree with me all you want, it doesn’t mean you’re correct. In fact, nobody’s opinion can be correct.
Or, we can recognize all the reasons that women (cis and trans) want and need women’s-only spaces. This site was claiming to be a space for women — not just cis women. According to the article, the site restricted Tickle’s account after some person there reviewed Tickle’s photo and determined that — because she didn’t look feminine enough — that she was not a woman. That, as well as using AI to determine gender or sex, are both deeply sexist and unacceptable.
Not letting someone be part of a women’s space because they don’t meet someone’s standards of what a woman should look like? That’s bad. That’s wrong. That’s illegally discriminatory. That ends up hurting both cis and trans women, just like bathroom bills do.
That’s illegally discriminatory.
Under what law? I’m not familiar with Australia, but here the the US, transfolk are just piggybacking off of legal protections against gender discrimination; which were never actually intended to protect trans people.
In most cases, that actually works out fine. If you discriminate against a transwomen, it’s because you think they are a man presenting as a women. However, you have no problem with a women presenting as a women, so you are running afoul of gender discrimination laws. Legally speaking, your problem was discriminating against her for being a man.
In instances like this though, that argument doesn’t apply. Once you get to the “you are discriminating against her for being a man” stage of the analysis, the response is simply “yes, and I’m allowed to discriminate against men”.
It seems like Australia would need to have a law that specifically protects trans people for her to prevail here.
I don’t understand.
It’s okay to discriminate against men but not transgender women?
I down voted, not because I disagree with the claim, but because it doesn’t make any sense in the context and just reads as a knee-jerk dismissive response of a valid point.
It’s true though. Gender is a performance, and as a woman your womanhood is always under scrutiny from everyone else. You can get your identity as woman taken from you if you don’t “look woman enough”. Which if you say have more masculine features, cut your hair short as a cis woman you become less woman. For example Butch lesbians are actually the most often de-womanized. Same goes for less masculine men. It’s a box no one fits into perfectly and having certain genitals doesn’t include or exclude you from either.
This person wanted a safe space where they wouldn’t have to deal with cis straight men. Which makes it that if men want inclusion in such spaces they need to be better.
Another question for you all, why as cis men do you want inclusion in these spaces?
“trans women are women” is pointing out this isn’t about men vs women but the given sex at birth.
Real /r/unpopularopinion moment.
I think the thing that the TERFs ultimately miss is that this person was initially welcomed in as a woman and treated as a woman by her peers. She did not disrupt the community or harass any of the participants, until she voiced support for Trans Rights.
It was at this point that a handful of moderators decided to interrogate her on her original gender and use that as an excuse to boot an active and in-good-standing member.
So she wasn’t removed for “not being a woman”. She was removed for “disagreeing with the political views of the admin”.
Anyone familiar with Reddit politics should be able to sympathize.
I don’t understand? Reddit politics is ultra liberal, they would eat this women’s app alive for discriminating against the trans.
Biological gender: A Person with two X-Chromosons
Social Gender: Anyone who wants to be a woman
Your account is a day old so I’m thinking you’re arguing in bad faith and are likely transphobic.
More the reverse. If you say “Girls Only” and then exclude a girl, you’ve violated your own terms of service.
I define female as one who has a uterus…
And that’s where you and literally anyone with any medical knowledge whatsoever disagree. There are plenty of people who are assigned as girls at birth who have no uterus – sex characteristics are far too complex for just a binary “boy/girl” label, and it’s not as simple as “no uterus = boy, uterus = girl”. sometimes, a baby can be labelled as any gender and it’s up to the parent to decide which. What a “woman” is is pretty arbitrary and the only accurate classification is entirely dependent on what the person identifies as.
And that’s just not even considering the fact that hysterectomies exist, meaning a lot of generically cis women also don’t have uteruses.
I would highly advise you to look into intersex people. There can be people you’d otherwise say are women who don’t have a uterus and people you’d otherwise say are men who do. You can have a penis and uterus, for example. “Basic biology” is a lie you were told because real human biology is complex and varied so its easier to teach a dumbed down version. Even if we assume trans people don’t exist your definition is massively flawed.
Anyone arguing your position hasn’t actually attempted to understand the other point of view and is arguing purely from ignorance, which isn’t a place you should choose to be.
While I certainly agree with you that discrimination based on sex is unacceptable im most contexts, I believe that gender exclusive spaces, unless they hinder people directly, sometimes are a good thing.
My dad is a mental health professional and founded a weekly ‘only-men’ self help group. He found that some things they talked about there wouldn’t have worked with women involved. That group existed for about 5 years or so and helped quite a few struggling men.
So yeah, unless there’s any maliciousness involved, I’d argue that gender exclusiity is not bad in every context.
I remember back in high school I had a teacher in an all male classroom because it was a stem field but for kids like an introductory course. A girl showed up in the 2nd year and he sort of joked about how it changes the dynamic cuz now all the guys will need to flex for her so the point of the class was sort of ruined. I remember that class was actually fucking amazing because you would make friends with guys regardless of your social circle or wealth background. Like I talked to multiple demographics and we all treated each other equally and we were all there to learn the trade. It was an amazing experience that I’ve never found anywhere else, especially not any circle where there were women. Hell even guys who were in that class there were a few if you met them outside the class it was just different. I made some close friends there where we kept spending time together outside the class that I otherwise would not have met but others when they got back to “the rest of the world” that hierarchy set back in and they couldn’t bring themselves to talk to you on that level anymore. Women invading male safe spaces under the guise of glass ceilings or whatever was extremely toxic for men, it’s as if men started barging into women’s bathrooms honestly saying it’s a glass ceiling to their right to stare at women in their own private moments. Stupid example but it’s all I could come up with.
The point is I would love to find another environment like that and even I wish I looked for more like that as a kid and to have appreciated it for what it was more at the time. Men need to learn to see each other as brothers and not as opposition, that’s the only way we get out of this mess is to unionize properly. I think we had it once but we lost it because of this fucking propaganda painting men as inherently predators.
Women invading male safe spaces under the guise of glass ceilings or whatever was extremely toxic for men, it’s as if men started barging into women’s bathrooms
So the class wasn’t a “men only” class, it just was a class women generally weren’t interested in. And a woman deciding she is interested was the same as men barging into women’s bathrooms.
Jfc, who are the snowflakes again?
So… Men act like dicks when there is a woman around or when they are back in “the rest of the world”? At which point their sense of brotherly love and cameraderie disappear? How is that a woman’s fault?
How is that the fault of, “fucking propaganda painting men as inherently predators”?
Sounds like a problem with that group of men…
I have tons of male friends who dont “flex” or act like dicks when they are outside of an all-male setting
I’m not against men’s clubs, btw… But the idea that men cant be toxic outside of a men’s club is a terrible premise for a men’s club
If women have gender exclusive spaces, men also should have them. Women have invaded male spaces for decades.
‘Invaded’ lol what. Dude the boys club is a real thing. And it’s everywhere.
There is a vast difference between men getting together to vent and talk, and men getting together to make decisions that affect everyone and preserve power amongst themselves.
The minute it is the latter, it no longer qualifies as a men’s space. Women don’t want to invade a genuine men’s space. And women don’t want to invade a men’s space in order to exploit and prey upon men.
That’s a bit different. A little private group is not a for-profit company. The difference between not being invited to a family only event when you aren’t family and not being allowed into a restaurant chain because of your race.
I’m not familiar with discrimination laws in Australia. In the US there are exceptions in the Civil Rights Act (1964) for “private clubs” though I don’t think courts have consistently defined what that means.
I’m very curious to hear how this case turns out under Australian law. Personally I think it’s counterproductive to exclude trans women from a women-only social club. But if a US court ruled this social club was in fact a “private club” then they could legally discriminate in whatever way they desire, be that by excluding men or trans women.
Does that include protected classes? For example: can they exclude minorities?
Maybe I’m not ultra liberal enough, but my hot take is the only one you can sue for that kind of discrimination is employers and the government itself.
They can choose to ban whoever they want, even other women if it’s a private business.
Edit: I’m also not ultra smart as I initially missed that this is in Australia. You know us US folks, there’s only the United States no other countries exist.
The problem with that stance is that you can’t refuse service based on protected characteristics, and afaik that includes access to a space, hence why the “gentlemen’s club” died but the country club did not.
I’m all for reintroducing these practices since the people clamouring for them are also going to be the ones fucked over in the end, but I am also white (by American standards anyway) and male, so there’s basically no downside for me.
It would be a monkey paw levels of funny to reintroduce the legal ability to self segregate as a means to “protect” women and minorities, only to see a complete shitshow as women executives are cut out of meetings taking place at men only spaces, and black people are even more segregated out, etc.
Obviously, it would be horrendous for the average sane person who doesn’t want any of this, but it would make for a really funny few years for the more brainrotted among us.
nah man, even the concept of self-segration by sex feels severely outdated in 2024. Just don’t do that, it’s not very hard.
Do you think that men and women don’t have their own unique set of problems and might want to speak just amongst themselves about it?
I am deliberately not picking a side on the trans thing because I don’t care what you call yourself: man, woman, pink and purple candystriping mud licker.
However to assume that cis and trans lives are the same is just incorrect.
Trans people have much different problems and so do cis people.
Everyone is looking at this the wrong way to me, the social groups really just seem like a form of group therapy to me.
You meet up and talk about problems that you are all experiencing.
Nothing in this implies that there are any benefits in segregation. In fact I’d argue that diverse groups are much more likely to solve problems successfully.
people actually don’t have a job
