• 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.

  • zbyte64@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    “trans women are women” is pointing out this isn’t about men vs women but the given sex at birth.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      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?

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          So it’s okay to discriminate based on sex, but not gender? I don’t see how this really addresses the point.

          • zbyte64@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • zbyte64@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                It should be obvious that I don’t agree with the question because of what I perceive to be a categorical error.