• 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.

    • Asafum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The thing to outlaw there is the doing business thing not the gathering thing.

          That would be an interesting fight though

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            People don’t like being vulnerable in front of everyone, that’s why we have group instead of “stand on the corner, revealing your vulnerability to everyone.

            • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              That has nothing to do with the current topic. You can still have groups of people with common interests and goals without segregating yourself by one variable 🙄

                • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Nah we know for a fact that self segregation has no value in a healthy society. Instead of applying this pointless bandaid it’s better to educate and raise up the society to a more healthy level.

                  • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I’ll tell you what, you go find a bunch of rape survivors and then tell them they have to accept anyone into their group and talk in front of them.

                    Lmk how that works

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Except they do have it to their own, including trans women. How is having trans women excluding women having it to their own?