Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman from New South Wales, alleged Giggle for Girls and its founder Sally Grover removed her from their social media platform as they "considered her to be male".
I guess there are different rules in different places and we should know what applies to us. Where I live it’s okay to clarify sex vs gender. So you could say she’s a woman but that her sex is biologically male. But Australia is saying she’s biologically female? Like I said, good to know.
According to the article, the owner who was sued stated in court:
when she was asked if she would accept a transgender woman as female if they had medically transitioned and were legally recognised as one, she “would not view that person as a woman”.
So it sounds like a case of the owner wanting to apply their own view without regard for how the law recognises gender in this day and age.
I don’t understand the relevance of what you’re saying. Do you mean that the platform should have the right to allow biological females only (following the definitions of your law system)? Do you think that that’s implied when a platform is female only and defensible in court? Not a snarky remark, just genuinely curious what you mean. This case was all about gender identity discrimination and I don’t see how biological sex fits into the picture.
She had sued the platform and its founder Sally Grover in 2022 for unlawful gender identity discrimination in its services, and claimed Ms Grover revoked her account after seeing her photo and “considered her to be male”.
Judge Robert Bromwich said in his ruling that while Ms Tickle was not directly discriminated against, her claim of indirect discrimination was successful as using the Giggle App required her “to have the appearance of a cisgender woman”.
Judge Bromwich said the evidence did not establish Ms Tickle was excluded from Giggle directly “by reason of her gender identity although it remains possible that this was the real but unproven reason”.
I think that’s the ambiguity. An AFAB only space is different to a women’ (and maybe other feminine identities I’m not aware of) space. The first, AFAB, is about the sex you were born into. The second is about your gender (and here we can even create different groups, but that’s beyond the point). The ambiguity comes because each of us uses “female” differently, sometimes to mean this or that. That’s the importance of specifying what we mean, especially when creating a club or something similar.
I guess there are different rules in different places and we should know what applies to us. Where I live it’s okay to clarify sex vs gender. So you could say she’s a woman but that her sex is biologically male. But Australia is saying she’s biologically female? Like I said, good to know.
According to the article, the owner who was sued stated in court:
So it sounds like a case of the owner wanting to apply their own view without regard for how the law recognises gender in this day and age.
I don’t understand the relevance of what you’re saying. Do you mean that the platform should have the right to allow biological females only (following the definitions of your law system)? Do you think that that’s implied when a platform is female only and defensible in court? Not a snarky remark, just genuinely curious what you mean. This case was all about gender identity discrimination and I don’t see how biological sex fits into the picture.
I think that’s the ambiguity. An AFAB only space is different to a women’ (and maybe other feminine identities I’m not aware of) space. The first, AFAB, is about the sex you were born into. The second is about your gender (and here we can even create different groups, but that’s beyond the point). The ambiguity comes because each of us uses “female” differently, sometimes to mean this or that. That’s the importance of specifying what we mean, especially when creating a club or something similar.
This person probably wouldn’t allow AFAB trans men either.