Women-only social media app Giggle for Girls taken to court by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle after her account was restricted
abc.net.au
- 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
Male
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.
Biologically yes. At least according to my definition, but thats a different discussion.
Biologically, yes.
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.
I am surprised it doesn‘t traces back even further. People believed in all kind of shit back then. Thats no argument.
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.
Why do you get to unilaterally determine biological definitions when science is based on consensus?
Also, from where did you obtain your doctorate in genetics?
As you may have guessed I don‘t have a doctorate in genetics, just like you, I assume.
I don‘t get to determine biological definitions, but the definition of a biological sex, if such a thing exists, is still heavily debated in science. Therefore a consensus couldn‘t be reached so far. I just argued for the definition, that sounds the most logical to me. If you have other definitions or models I am open always open to learn.
Maybe so, but your definition has nothing to do with said debate, which has moved far beyond it in terms of the science of genetics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/biological-science-rejects-the-sex-binary-and-thats-good-for-humanity/
https://www.medicaldaily.com/challenging-gender-identity-biologists-say-gender-expands-across-spectrum-rather-323956
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi1188
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/
That's a small sampling.
Incidentally, if you do base biological sex solely on chromosomes, birds have four sexes. What shall we call the other two?
Thanks for the sources.
The first article doesn‘t invalidate my thesis. It explains the difference between sex and gender.
The second article argues against the sex binary, which I never defended. I view „male“ and „female“ (in the context of the biological sex) as terms for a combination of chromosomes. The article still was absolutely worth reading, thanks.
The third article actually lists a bunch of stuff I didn‘t know about. I‘m going to look into that.