- 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.
Welcome to 2024, women can’t have their own things anymore… (and I’m talking about REAL women, you know, the individuals have two X chromosomes).
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.
I’d love to know the story behind the manual overriding.
Apparently she defended trans people in a conversation, someone complained, and moderators got involved and manually overrode the ai. Paraphrased hearsay.
nah man, even the concept of self-segration by sex feels severely outdated in 2024.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.
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.
Wait. We’re unironically calling social media for women Giggle and then we’re surprised it might be sexist? April first was like a week ago…
you dont have to put on the red light
