this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
372 points (93.3% liked)

World News

38741 readers
2925 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • 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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 99 points 5 months ago (55 children)

I don't understand.

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

[–] [email protected] 83 points 5 months ago (12 children)

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 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 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 21 points 5 months ago (6 children)

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)
[–] afraid_of_zombies 6 points 5 months ago

Seems like you do understand it.

But fear not, if you want a website full of only men there are plenty out there.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Does that include protected classes? For example: can they exclude minorities?

[–] Crashumbc 5 points 5 months ago

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 )

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your account is a day old so I’m thinking you’re arguing in bad faith and are likely transphobic.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (50 replies)