Women-only social media app Giggle for Girls taken to court by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle after her account was restricted
Women-only social media app Giggle for Girls taken to court by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle after her account was restricted
Social media platform Giggle for Girls is being sued by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle after her access to the women-only app was revoked. The app's owner has denied Ms Tickle is a woman.
- 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.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't understand.
It's okay to discriminate against men but not transgender women?
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.
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.
The group I referenced had a paid membership. Scale that up and make it digital and you may end up with a gender exclusive social media app.
I get what you mean though, but I feel there's a bit more nuance than what you imply.
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.
In pretty confident this person would agree with you. They'd also say women shouldn't be allowed there. They don't want the boys club to go away and think it's being threatened because women are allowed in the workplace or whatever.
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.
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.
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
You a guy?
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?
The men. I'm a woman.
Oh, so was your entire story a lie too?
It's not a male safe space if the purpose is to learn. No one gets to have a "safe space" to gain advantage over others. That's not what female safe spaces do.
I mean... safe from what? What did the women do that changed the dynamic?
More the reverse. If you say "Girls Only" and then exclude a girl, you've violated your own terms of service.
It depends on the definition of "girl." Which is the age old debate, right? I define female as one who has a uterus....
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.
it comes across as semantics at best cuz they want people to stfu. Like some people you will not convince them that someone born with a penis and testicles is a woman. Like you can reduce it to only some with xx chromasome but people are gonna go into like the xxy or whatever like the disorders.
Everyone hear that? Once you get a hysterectomy, you're not female any more!
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.
Removed, transphobia.
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?
A "private" club can exclude protected classes. Like the other poster mentioned, what constitutes "private" is a grey area.
Back in the 90s Augusta National Golf Club was still excluding blacks even though they hosted the Masters... ( They finally gave in )
I believe so, but I'd have to do a little more research to say with certainty. There is a particular supreme court case that serves as an example. See Tillman v Wheaton-Haven Recreation Association.
Seems like you do understand it.
But fear not, if you want a website full of only men there are plenty out there.
Your account is a day old so I’m thinking you’re arguing in bad faith and are likely transphobic.
🥱
Trans women are 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?
Another question for you all, why as cis men do you want inclusion in these spaces?
Strawman. I've seen noone in this chain that says they want access to the space, and I certainly don't. I get why they want this space, and I get why she, as a trans woman, wants access to this space.
I just don't believe I'm in a position to tell these women/girls what they should be comfortable with, and who they have to allow into their club. You're the one dictating what they should and should not be comfortable with. So I find your question to be a projection.
I just think the poster pointing out that this is an argument over why some sexual discrimination is good, while others is bad, is a good point. And this I was pointing out how your post just ignored what I believe to be what is obviously their point.
You're talking about gender expression as opposed to biology.
As a cis man the only point of wanting inclusion is to either A demonstrate how gender identity being subjective is an easy way to exploit systems, or B to be one of few men smart enough to have access to a bunch of women in a female safe space. One of these is informative, the other is predatory.
Why do you want to take away a safe space from cis women?
Same reason, you feel entitled to not be discriminated against.
So, what about those who are born with a uterus? Where can they go? What if they decide, only those who were born with a vagina at birth, are women and we want only those to be part of our organization? I mean, are they wrong?
What if they decide, only those who were born with a vagina at birth, are women and we want only those to be part of our organization?
I mean it'd be like barring someone for having only one kidney, or barring people who have an extra toe, or barring people who are a certain skin color. It's a seemingly random thought pattern and generally makes you a dick. Discrimination based on organs/body parts is wrong. What if they decide that having a big nose makes you not a woman? What if they decide having big ears or short legs or being too tall makes you not a woman? Better yet, what if a trans woman gets a uterus transplant and now has a uterus? Is that when they change the rules to still somehow exclude trans women? Because that's what usually happens.
Trans women still face the discrimination that women face, many of the same problems that many women face, and identify as women, so they shouldn't be excluded from a safe space for their group on the basis of one of their organs not being typical. When you get to the point of going out of your way to remove trans women who have already been accepted into the community, established themselves in the community, and fit in with the community, where other members of the community interacted with them like they would any other woman and viewed and accepted them as women, you're not concerned about "women", you're concerned about your own personal insecurities and taking it out on others. That's the point where you're just trying to pick the specific criteria that excludes the group that you don't like.
Plus many cis women have no uterus, some weren't even born with a uterus, so you're excluding a large portion of the people you're claiming to provide a safe space for.
They bar people who are missing limbs from sports. You can't get on the football team or basketball team if you missing an arm, the reasons why should be obvious.
People missing limbs are not barred from sports. Wtf are you talking about
Alright find me a one armed or legged nba player. I think semantics arguments are absolute filth but lets play this out for posterity.
They're not barred. They simply can't compete. What is the competition that having a vagina at birth? What's the competition? What are the rules?
Or is it arbitrary barring of people from spaces based on characteristics that have absolutely nothing to do with ability.
But to answer your question, here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gisborne_Gordon
Time to start an app for xx chromasome havers only
"trans women are women" is pointing out this isn't about men vs women but the given sex at birth.
We all accept that trans women are not cis women. The obvious point by the poster was why is it okay to discriminate against men but not trans women?
I'm just pointing out the obvious difference between the two categories: one is based on gender the other is based on sex. It's like asking: "if they're allowed to discriminate on gender, then why not this other instance (that is based on sex)?" But without making what is in the parenthesis explicit - when someone responds "trans women are women" they are saying what is in the parenthesis.
So it's okay to discriminate based on sex, but not gender? I don't see how this really addresses the point.
I'm not directly addressing whether it's okay but that there are categorical differences in the examples given. We might as well ask why we can't discriminate based on hair color, since that too is categorically different than gender. That being said, bathrooms discriminate based on gender and not sex, so maybe ask why people think that is okay.
I ultimately disagree, because one could easily argue that they are discriminating based on biological sex, so in both cases the discrimination is exactly the same, and the question remains consistent categorically as well.
But even if we disregard that point, then the answer should be easy "because they are categorically different and thus the reason discriminating against one category is okay and the other is not is xyz."
You haven't answered their question, you just shifted what you believe the question is precisely about, rather than actually address the question itself.
It should be obvious that I don't agree with the question because of what I perceive to be a categorical error.
Happens in sports all the time.
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.
That's literally how it always goes is if you don't like x persons politics you are a bad person.
I don't understand? Reddit politics is ultra liberal, they would eat this women's app alive for discriminating against the trans.
Nah cuz in practice a bunch of dudes will flood it with dick pics saying but I'm a woman too I identify as one.
Yes you’re right the transphobes are taking over here
Lol...what? I've read like 3 comments saying that the app is in the right, the overwhelmingly majority are siding with the trans...
I define a woman as a female who has a uterus, how should I define them?
I mean personally I figure some way that doesn't exclude anyone who's had a hysterectomy, but
So if a woman has a hysterectomy, she is no longer a woman? What is she?
That's silly and you know it. She still had one to begin with. That's like saying "if a dude cuts off his penis, he's no longer a dude!"
I define a woman as a female who has a uterus
Your definition. Has a uterus. You said nothing about a female who had a uterus.
And you haven't defined female.
Oh brother...
It's not my fault that your definition excluded women who had a uterus at one time but didn't later.
How about women who have two X chromosomes but were born without a uterus? Not women?
Oh brother...let's just agree to disagree...it's obvious what side of the issue you're on...
The side where scientific definitions of women include things like women with two X chromosomes but no uterus?
Biological gender: A Person with two X-Chromosons
Social Gender: Anyone who wants to be a woman
There's no such thing as biological gender
What about someone who has Swyer Syndrome? What is their "biological gender?"
Male
So you are male even if you have a complete set of female sex organs and no male sex organs?
Literally the only way to determine 'male' or 'female' is a DNA test?
We've never been able to determine that before Flemming discovered chromosomes in the late 19th century?
That's really weird, because the etymology of the word male traces it back to the 14th century.
Now I'm not math expert, but I'm pretty sure 14 comes before 18.
So you are male even if you have a complete set of female sex organs and no male sex organs?
Biologically yes. At least according to my definition, but thats a different discussion.
Literally the only way to determine 'male' or 'female' is a DNA test?
Biologically, yes.
We've never been able to determine that before Flemming discovered chromosomes in the late 19th century?
In the 19th century we assumed, that social and biological gender are the same and ignored, that basically every definition of „male“ or „female“ at the time had exceptions and wasn‘t applicable to everyone.
That's really weird, because the etymology of the word male traces it back to the 14th century.
I am surprised it doesn‘t traces back even further. People believed in all kind of shit back then. Thats no argument.
Now I'm not math expert, but I'm pretty sure 14 comes before 18.
That doesn‘t make sense in the slightest. By that logic the earth is flat, because the first models of a flat earth were published before the first models of a round earth.
Why do you get to unilaterally determine biological definitions when science is based on consensus?
Also, from where did you obtain your doctorate in genetics?
As you may have guessed I don‘t have a doctorate in genetics, just like you, I assume.
I don‘t get to determine biological definitions, but the definition of a biological sex, if such a thing exists, is still heavily debated in science. Therefore a consensus couldn‘t be reached so far. I just argued for the definition, that sounds the most logical to me. If you have other definitions or models I am open always open to learn.
but the definition of a biological sex, if such a thing exists, is still heavily debated in science.
Maybe so, but your definition has nothing to do with said debate, which has moved far beyond it in terms of the science of genetics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi1188
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/
That's a small sampling.
Incidentally, if you do base biological sex solely on chromosomes, birds have four sexes. What shall we call the other two?
Why not just create a "trans" app and make your own people happy too?
Not even a separate app, just add a tick box for people who are trans-inclusive.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Discriminating against men is based on gender, discriminating against trans women is based on sex (at birth).