Transgender woman sues women-only social media platform she was excluded from
www.abc.net.au
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platform Giggle for Girls is being sued by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle after her access to the women-only app was revoked.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.

    • JojoEnglish
      10•3 months ago

      I mean personally I figure some way that doesn’t exclude anyone who’s had a hysterectomy, but

    • Flying SquidMEnglish
      6•3 months ago

      So if a woman has a hysterectomy, she is no longer a woman? What is she?

      • @ZK686@lemmy.worldEnglish
        -5•3 months ago

        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!”

        • Flying SquidMEnglish
          2•3 months ago

          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.

            • Flying SquidMEnglish
              3•3 months ago

              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?

              • @ZK686@lemmy.worldEnglish
                -5•3 months ago

                Oh brother…let’s just agree to disagree…it’s obvious what side of the issue you’re on…

                • Flying SquidMEnglish
                  3•2 months ago

                  The side where scientific definitions of women include things like women with two X chromosomes but no uterus?

          • Flying SquidMEnglish
            4•3 months ago

            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.

            • @Random_German_Name@feddit.deEnglish
              -2•3 months ago

              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.