• 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.

  • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • CileTheSane
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 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 )

      • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 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.