372

Women-only social media app Giggle for Girls taken to court by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle after her account was restricted (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

233 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Bahalex@lemmy.world 177 points 4 months ago

I have nothing to add, just amused by the fact that a Tickle can’t get a giggle.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Sorgan71@lemmy.world 99 points 4 months ago

Wow an app based on gender descrimination is being sued for gender descrimination. I'm shocked

load more comments (29 replies)

[-] john89@lemmy.ca 99 points 4 months ago

I don't understand.

It's okay to discriminate against men but not transgender women?

[-] prof@infosec.pub 83 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] prof@infosec.pub 27 points 4 months ago

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.

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

More the reverse. If you say "Girls Only" and then exclude a girl, you've violated your own terms of service.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (57 replies)

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 60 points 4 months ago

Wanna know how I know y'all suck?

Tickle is taking on Giggle for Girls and not one witty joke?

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 46 points 4 months ago

There's low hanging fruit, and then there's the shit on the ground that wild animals eat to get drunk.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 55 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This thread was fated to be a dumpster fire from the instant it was created

Edit: 6 people dont seem to understand what an unholy combination it is to merge: Transphobia, Misandry, AI, and somewhat silly names on the internet

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] homura1650@lemm.ee 35 points 4 months ago

I'm not familiar with Australian law, but how do you get to "discrimination on the basis of gender identity" in this case. Wouldn't the case for that be a trans man trying to join or stay on the app? (Or a cis man for that matter).

It sounds like Tickle's position is that the app should be discriminating based on gender identity. Her complaint seems more like them discriminating on (vaguely defined policy ammounting to) assigned gender at birth.

Having said that, I suspect their tune will change if a trans man tried joining.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 38 points 4 months ago

Having said that, I suspect their tune will change if a trans man tried joining.

Exactly this. I fucking guarantee they wouldn't let a trans man join and actively contribute.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] mdwhite999 12 points 4 months ago

Discrimination based on gender identity is basically saying I have been treated differently due to being transgender. She is saying that she as a transgender woman is being treated differently to a cisgender woman. Or that is at least how it works in the UK. I would presume Australia is similar

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 29 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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…

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago

Apparently she defended trans people in a conversation, someone complained, and moderators got involved and manually overrode the ai. Paraphrased hearsay.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think she will win this. They didn't require a genital photo so what's even their proof? Arbitrary requirement anyways. Rules like that only leave people out. I understand the want for a space like that though. I hope this woman finds a space where she can feel safe.

load more comments (20 replies)

[-] butsbutts@lemmy.ml 13 points 4 months ago

you dont have to put on the red light

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024

372 points (93.3% liked)

World News

38126 readers

2692 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.