this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38788 readers
2505 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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’?

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

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?

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I don't understand.

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

[–] Plague_Doctor@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] PuddingFeeling907@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 months ago

Yes you’re right the transphobes are taking over here

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

More the reverse. If you say "Girls Only" and then exclude a girl, you've violated your own terms of service.

[–] PuddingFeeling907@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 months ago

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

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

a private company can terminate service at any time, for any reason

Not after they've accepted payment.