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)
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 09 Apr 2024 12:01
https://lemmy.world/post/14083921
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 09 Apr 2024 12:01
https://lemmy.world/post/14083921
- 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.
#world
threaded - newest
I have nothing to add, just amused by the fact that a Tickle can’t get a giggle.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/aeb80c26-e8c4-4d6d-b6f4-e57775b438b2.png">
Hahah beat me to it, that scene played in my head as soon as I read the name.
She had GRS, it's just transphobia in pun form
“Hey fuck you for correctly pointing out transphobia, downvote”
What the fuck lemmy, we’re really making “pickle” jokes about a trans woman? Are we fucking chrischan? Grow up.
Stick out of ass, remove it. Everything can be joked about, deal with it.
Likewise anyone is free to say “that joke isn’t funny”, you deal with it. Fucking snowflake lmao
Still laughing at you though.
Meanwhile the jokes you’re defending have already been removed.
Y’know, for the transphobia.
Have fun laughing tho 💖
Will do ta, everything is a joke.
I still see it just fine
I bet you have at least one thing you'd turn into the biggest snowflake about if ridiculed for/laughed at. Bigots always do.
Is that even a sentence that proves anything? You state " One thing would make you a snowflake if ridiculed"
I mean what are you even trying to say? That trans people are snow flakes for being upset? That’s pretty shitty of you.
Take a look around. See how often it is lemmy.world accounts making transphonic jokes like that and come to your own conslusion.
Yeah I thought my pickle joke was funny too. It rhymed for fuck sake.
youtu.be/KiTl4pOdPrg?si=pQ-gKlQWZ1f0mgKM
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/KiTl4pOdPrg?si=pQ-gKlQWZ1f0mgKM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
congratulations sir, you won this thread! :)
What’s the point of a woman’s only app (or any women’s only space) if they let anyone in simply based on them saying ‘I’m a woman’?
The question you have to ask here is “if anyone can just sign up then how was she noticed, and if they spend any time verifying then how did they not realize she was very serious about her womanhood?”. She’s had gender-affirming surgery and you’re really out here saying “if they let anyone in simply based on them saying ‘I’m a woman’?”.
They’re clearly doing some work here and not doing it very well. And you’re missing very important facts.
Dude, there’s like four sentences and they’re all on this page and it says it takes an AI assessed picture of your face to determine if you’re a woman. Why are people so fucking lazy and snarky?
Because she is a woman. It’s really that simple.
trans woman*
Trans woman = woman, I fail to see your point.
They are saying that all women — cis and trans — are women. It doesn’t mean or imply that trans women and cis women have no differences.
I must be confused about what an equal sign means then.
Trans women = women
Cis women = women
Cis women ≠ trans women
I don’t mean to be a pedant but that math doesn’t make much sense.
Could you explain what part of it doesn’t make sense to you? (Or what part you disagree with) Maybe one of us can clarify better if we start there
They are trying to say that cis and trans women both fall under the larger group known as women, they just don’t understand math.
I know what they are trying to say, I just don’t think they realize that mathematically it doesn’t make sense.
Agreed.
Literally do not care I’m not in a math class I’m on Lemmy. I conveyed the point and you understood it so it did make sense. Learn how language and communication works.
transfone!
False, the ‘=’ is transitive, meaning:
A = B and B = C implies A = C
The symbol you meant to use is the implication arrow: =>
Trans women => women
Cis women => women
Black women => women
Lesbian women => women
This means: If the left statement is true, the right statement must also be true. If the left statement is false, you don’t know whether the right statement is true or false.
I would just use the subset symbol ⊆. I think it makes more sense here.
You’re right, I don’t have that on my keyboard though
Besides, a ∈ A ⊆ B => a ∈ B, so what I wrote is not THAT nonsensical
Did you understand what I was saying?
Yes?
Then it’s true. This isn’t a math class in university this is a conversation on Lemmy. You understood the point so my message was conveyed.
You’re being intentionally dense. Different adjectives can apply to the same noun without implying those adjectives are the same thing. It’s extremely basic grammar.
“X is Y” in English translates mathematically to “X is a subset of Y”
Here’s an example written out in plain English. You can do the exercise of translating it to math terms to see how it makes sense.
Am I the same as you absolutely? No? Ok but we are both humans, right?
When assigning things to categories we make lists of properties. So yes there are differences but those aren’t the criteria of assignment. A 90 year old cis woman and a 19 year old cis woman are both still woman despite them having differences.
Maybe because everything about the space still caters to women’s concerns, and the presumption for a random-ass social media app should be that your appearance doesn’t determine your intent? If somebody’s daily life is being a woman, then why the fuck should it matter which parts they have? Are you also going to exclude gay women, or women who cut their hair short, or women who choose not to have kids? After all, they’re not having all the same issues that long-haired cis-het mothers have.
Not to mention it’s a technologically stupid gate to keep. In what fucking world does it deter anyone who is willing to be dishonest?
Sexism.
You can still be sexist without an app. It is a great leveler in humanity. No effort at all to hate someone for whatever reason you want whenever you want.
A waste of everyone’s time. Sounds like entitlement.
It’s entitled to exclude.
This is funny when you just look at your profile’s first page and see you’ve made comments like these:
So you deny “unproblematic” women regularly experiencing unsafe behavior from men who are entitled and you’re also denying people’s gender identity - otherwise, why would it be a waste of time for a woman’s fight for her right to access women’s spaces? So you’re hateful towards people you perceive to be “men” while complaining about “man haters” elsewhere. Logical inconsistencies in favor of hate is a hallmark sign of right wing extremist views.
That is some fancy mental gymnastics you came up with there. My comment before has absolutely nothing to do with this article. The fact that you went through my comment history to find a marginal strawman just goes to show you are trying to be argumentative. You can disagree with me all you want, it doesn’t mean you’re correct. In fact, nobody’s opinion can be correct.
It’s not a “strawman” when it’s just quoting an actual comment you made - that’s called getting called out for your toxic bullshit
Or, we can recognize all the reasons that women (cis and trans) want and need women’s-only spaces. This site was claiming to be a space for women — not just cis women. According to the article, the site restricted Tickle’s account after some person there reviewed Tickle’s photo and determined that — because she didn’t look feminine enough — that she was not a woman. That, as well as using AI to determine gender or sex, are both deeply sexist and unacceptable.
Not letting someone be part of a women’s space because they don’t meet someone’s standards of what a woman should look like? That’s bad. That’s wrong. That’s illegally discriminatory. That ends up hurting both cis and trans women, just like bathroom bills do.
Under what law? I’m not familiar with Australia, but here the the US, transfolk are just piggybacking off of legal protections against gender discrimination; which were never actually intended to protect trans people.
In most cases, that actually works out fine. If you discriminate against a transwomen, it’s because you think they are a man presenting as a women. However, you have no problem with a women presenting as a women, so you are running afoul of gender discrimination laws. Legally speaking, your problem was discriminating against her for being a man.
In instances like this though, that argument doesn’t apply. Once you get to the “you are discriminating against her for being a man” stage of the analysis, the response is simply “yes, and I’m allowed to discriminate against men”.
It seems like Australia would need to have a law that specifically protects trans people for her to prevail here.
So you would see no issue if they had simply labeled the site as exclusive for cis women?
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.
Exactly this. I fucking guarantee they wouldn’t let a trans man join and actively contribute.
Idk. I think a big point of the app is to discuss growing up female. Nothing against trans women, and I Believe trans women are women, but as a cis woman, I think I’d have more in common talking about my past with a trans male than with a trans female. We’d have similar stories of being treated a certain way growing up.
I get that, but I bet the trans woman would feel much more in common with you in how she grew up than me. While you might not feel much in common with her, she would probably feel really comforted to hear your stories that align with what she was feeling.
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
You can get your sex changed on your birth certificate in NSW according to Wikipedia. Not a lawyer, but I’m gonna guess the app is shit-out-of-luck on this one if their birth certificate indicates they’re a woman.
people actually don’t have a job
It sounds like you’re trying to argue nobody should fight discrimination while there are still ditches to dig and toilets to scrub.
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
I’ll explain my down-vote as per your edit: people don’t like thread meta discussions. It’s unproductive, mean and frankly just lazy. Keep that on reddit.
Lmao nah, I think I’ll keep commenting according to my own values and you can keep commenting according to yours. Thank you for explaining your downvote though!
You’re free to do whatever you want just pointing out that down votes don’t necessarily mean you are being bullied by bigots or whatever you’re imagining so conclusively here. Your comment might just suck 🙄
Did I say I was being bullied? And tbh, if we’re gonna use up and downvotes to determine whether or not my comment sucks, it definitely doesnt look like it sucks
Edit: I imagine its one of my more upvoted comments because I’m not alone in entering this thread, seeing the dumpster fire the comment section was in, looking at the contents of the thread starter and then being like “Yeah, ok, that makes sense”
You’re conflating subjective and objective here my dude
I dont think those words mean what you think they do
I don’t think you think what you think you think
This back and forth has gotten so silly I cant even be defensive/annoyed anymore, this is legitimately funny now xD
Now make “Guffaw for Guys” lol
I don’t understand.
It’s okay to discriminate against men but not transgender women?
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?
Why do you want to take away a safe space from cis women?
Same reason, you feel entitled to not be discriminated against.
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.
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?
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 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gisborne_Gordon
Time to start an app for xx chromasome havers only
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.
“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.
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.
That’s literally how it always goes is if you don’t like x persons politics you are a bad person.
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
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?”
medlineplus.gov/genetics/…/swyer-syndrome/
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.
Biologically yes. At least according to my definition, but thats a different discussion.
Biologically, yes.
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.
I am surprised it doesn‘t traces back even further. People believed in all kind of shit back then. Thats no argument.
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.
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.
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
sapiens.org/…/biological-science-rejects-the-sex-…
medicaldaily.com/challenging-gender-identity-biol…
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi1188
sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biologica…
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?
Thanks for the sources.
The first article doesn‘t invalidate my thesis. It explains the difference between sex and gender.
The second article argues against the sex binary, which I never defended. I view „male“ and „female“ (in the context of the biological sex) as terms for a combination of chromosomes. The article still was absolutely worth reading, thanks.
The third article actually lists a bunch of stuff I didn‘t know about. I‘m going to look into that.
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!”
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Seems like you do understand it.
But fear not, if you want a website full of only men there are plenty out there.
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?
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.
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 )
Discriminating against men is based on gender, discriminating against trans women is based on sex (at birth).
More the reverse. If you say “Girls Only” and then exclude a girl, you’ve violated your own terms of service.
Everyone hear that? Once you get a hysterectomy, you’re not female any more!
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.
Removed, transphobia.
Your account is a day old so I’m thinking you’re arguing in bad faith and are likely transphobic.
🥱
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.
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.
I think she’ll lose. Because regardless of the issue, a private company can terminate service at any time, for any reason.
It’s also been upheld that a graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. What this means is, again, a company can pick and choose who to serve.
The case in the OP is in Australia. Your story is from the US and has absolutely zero bearing on any likely outcome.
What I found most interesting about that case is she was arguing that Christianity was homophobic and got the Supreme Court to agree with her.
It was a bit of a floor dropping out from underneath me moment when I figured that out. How many years have I pointed out that being LGBT and a follower of Christ are inconsistent, and if you are LGBT with Christian friends you are their project? No one listens to me. And here one of them goes, spends all this effort and time, and manages to convince the court system that yes being a religious Christian means that you hate gay people.
I doubt I have convinced anyone of this in my entire life, she made it an officially recognized fact. And this event will never be untrue since it did happen! For as long as records exist we will have a record of the moment where the US government agreed with me about what Christianity believes.
Cool, now do the rest of the religions. Is there a religion that isn’t either homophobic, transphobic or misogynistic?
UU is consider a religion at least for tax purposes.
The Satanic Temple.
FSM?
This case is being heard in Sydney, Australia not the US so a case from the US is not relevant in determining the outcome
That’s a US Supreme Court case. The OP case is in Australia.
Oh, I didn’t even realize lol. Oops.
I mean, given what’s happening with the women’s only art exhibit at the MONA right now, this woman definitely has a legal leg to stand on even with this being a private company.
Even if it’s just a matter of false advertising (if the app means cis women they should say cis women, not say “women” and then go out of their to exclude an entire group of women) or compensation for being given access then having access removed.
Fair enough. Just making a prediction. It’s a weird subject imo like, can you make a black only site? Can you make a white only site? Kind of the same territory, you know?
If you’re a private entity and there is a specific reason that having non-black people in the group would be detrimental to the purpose of the group, yes, in Australia you can make a black only space.
For example, if you want to create a support group for POC to discuss trauma around being subjected to racism, to ensure you create a safe space, making the space POC only is not only legal, but often the more ethical choice for this group.
Want to create a social and dating app for queer women to meet other queer women? What purpose would it serve to let straight people into that group?
There is difference between public spaces, that must allow access and entry to all, and a private organisation that caters to specific demographics, and being freely open would completely defeat the purpose of the private organisations goals.
I’m not an alcoholic, I don’t personally know anyone who has struggled with alcoholism. Why can’t I go to an AA meeting to talk about my feelings on alcoholism? Obviously, Because that’s not helpful, it has the potential to be harmful to the people who attend because they have lived experiences with alcoholism. I could argue I’m being discriminated against because of my medical history, but I’m not being discriminated against, I’m just not being catered to, because I don’t have an unmet need in this specific situation.
Good example. Now what if someone identifies as a POC? Example
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Example
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Again, it depends on the purpose of the group you’re creating, does this person in question face discrimination for their perceived race? Then a support group for people who have faced discrimination for their race may be the right place for them, assuming the intersection of having “chosen” to present as a race they’re not doesn’t create an unsafe space for the other group participants.
However if your group is for people who have grown up POC or been raised in a non-dominant cultural group to discuss shared experiences, then obviously someone who identifies as POC later in life would not be served by that group, so would not be eligibile to join that group.
There are circumstances when even if you fit the criteria of the group, you may still be excluded due to the way various identities and experiences intersect, or because your personal actions are not serving the group.
It’s not discrimination to be told you can’t use a private service because the service can’t serve your specific needs, and your personal circumstances reduce the groups ability to serve its other members.
Citing the most egregiously frivolous case imaginable to make this point…
I’m not agreeing with the verdict, just making a prediction.
Not after they’ve accepted payment.
Why not create an app for trans women?
Wow an app based on gender descrimination is being sued for gender descrimination. I’m shocked
You know what this means though? It means that no one ever needed to push back against it at all just not engage in it themselves. Cuz they just eat each other in a vacuum. Without some enemy to band together against like the boogeyman of boogeymen whitey, their inner chaos is all they’re left with with no enemy to project it on, so they eat each other and everything just crashes and falls apart. No one needed to do anything, not even complain, just look at it in amusement and take another sip of their coffee and go about their day thanking god that’s not you.
You are arguing that communities can’t exist unless they unite against a foe?
Ozymandias moment
His community can’t and if he was capable of imagining other people’s lives, he wouldn’t be far-right in the first place.
Growing up means recognizing someone can understand someone without empathizing.
Their name checks out though.
No my argument is some people all they have in them is “fight against a foe”. It means if you don’t present yourself as a foe they’ll walk right past you, it’s like a trex. It’ll only chase something that moves, so because they are always in fighting even with no opponent they will make one within themselves because those are the only people looking for a fight.
Like they have 0 interaction with people who aren’t interested in a fight. Take note that some random accused me of being far righter hoping I would take their bait. It’s pathetic at best. It’s truly an example of the snake eating its own tail.
T-Rex damnit. Hyphens are important
Did you forget you’re not in your sleazy little far-right bubble?
I’m not a right winger. I just see an ouroboros when I see it, it’s the snake eating itself.
Bit redundant, no?
Blantant lie.
Epic name
But they’re right though. Trans women aren’t women.
Trans women are women if people understand the word women to include trans women. More than that, unless you want to lift everyone’s skirt before adressing them then you might as well just call the people that look like women women and the people that look like men.
Listen, mate, threatening to kill people is a pretty shit way to interact with anyone. If you don’t want to date someone with a penis, maybe say so up front. No one is trying to trick you, and no one is trying to lie to you. They’re just trying to live life, same as anyone.
“If I found out a woman I dated was trans i’d probably kill her”
What the fuck is wrong with you? People like you need to be put in a mental asylum. You are not fit to be in society and your mental instability is a threat to the public. Your kind are the type that shoot up a mall when your crush rejects you.
Guy thinks there are Shi Pei Pu walking around everywhere.
Woah. I see where you’re coming from with this one but abhorrent behaviours/speech does not mean someone is mentally unwell. Please reach for insults that don’t punch down on another group.
It doesn’t mean they’re not mentally unwell.
Also, where was OC ‘punching down’ on the ‘mentally unwell community’?
What does that even mean?
It means one should call someone a dickhead with shit posturing and abhorrent morals without saying they need to “be put in a mental asylum”.
The idea that people who act or think in ways that are disgusting or violent are “mentally ill” and not just wrong is a large facet of the stigma attached to being mentally ill.
Surprised at the downvotes. Which bit of not attacking a minority while defending a different minority is the problem?
Removed, transphobia, threats of violence. Temp ban.
And sometimes even if you do.
Nobody’s going that far just to get one over on your stupid fucking app.
Yawn
Words have meaning as defined by people. They are subject to change.
Wanna know how I know y’all suck?
Tickle is taking on Giggle for Girls and not one witty joke?
Something something tickle my pickle while I giggle.
well shit maybe making a good joke about this is harder than we first assumed
There’s low hanging fruit, and then there’s the shit on the ground that wild animals eat to get drunk.
Which is still a good time for us animals. :P
You misspelled “dog eating its own poop”
Time to identify as a cis lesbian and not as a trans woman.
How does that even work?
I mean, to be a cis lesbian also implies being a cis woman…
I just call you a bigot if you deny me my identity and treating me properly as if I was that identity. I am a cis woman. You will treat me like one because I will not be misgendered or treated with misogynistic bullshit.
I’m not trying to be rude, I’m trying to understand.
As far as the language is concerned, I’m just trying to understand how a trans woman could be a cis lesbian, when my understanding is that being cis and being trans are mutually exclusive.
Am I missing something?
There’s nothing to understand, they’re just talking bullshit.
you dont have to put on the red light
those days are over
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…
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.
You, I like you
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.
The thing to outlaw there is the doing business thing not the gathering thing.
That would be an interesting fight though
Except they do have it to their own, including trans women. How is having trans women excluding women having it to their own?
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.
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.
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 🙄
Sometimes that one variable is important.
Who are you to tell other people who they have to be vulnerable about
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.
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
Sexism is rife in incel communities.
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.
If the AI is the good guy in a situation, you gotta be doing something very wrong.
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).