Giggle being sued … again.

[WarningToTheCurious]

As reported in The Guardian:

www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/31/transgender-woman-sues-female-only-app-giggle-for-girls-for-alleged-discrimination

[Roxanne] Tickle’s access was revoked despite her selfie being approved by artificial intelligence in February 2021, giving her full access to the site, she said.

I‘m not surprised the AI was fooled into thinking this person was female given the ridiculous levels of photo filtering employed by this person.

Hope Sall continues to hold her line.

'The activist is seeking damages, a written apology and complete access to the platform.'

Money, subjugation, and access to women. How surprising.

These males just cannot handle being told no.

….but they are so vulnerable, so marginalised…

’Complete access to the site’…creepy as fuck, and we don’t even need to see a picture to understand those demands, are the demands of a bloke. I wonder if he’ll sue the women individually for not dating him?

An Australian transgender woman who says she was barred from using the female-only platform Giggle for Girls has sued the social media site for alleged discrimination.

????? So much sorting and cleaning to be done around here at the moment, words left lying around all over the place, wrong ones shoved in where they aren't wanted.

lets tidy that up

An Australian MAN who says HE was barred from using the female-only platform Giggle for Girls has sued the social media site for alleged discrimination.

much better.

God 2023 can't come quick enough, 2022 had been a shitter.

Venn diagram men who don't like being told no v TW who don't like being told no:

O

Next step then suing the individual women who don't accept his date requests?......

“The app provider appears not to recognise transgender women as female. I am legally permitted to identify as female.”

AND? His point is what?? He can identify as Elvis Bloody Presley if he wants doesn't mean someone would give him the keys to Graceland.

I think I need more tea and another joint . I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to be mellow and relaxed today.

He can identify as whatever he likes. He's still a man

An image search of the Roxy in question throws up some interesting photos.

Also Glinner wrote about the earlier case back in March:

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-e17

man claims to be discriminated against because some women have something he doesn't

men REALLY don't like women having anything for themselves do they? what a loser

Put "Roxy Tickle" into an image search.

On a more positive note, it was my DH who binged me the Grauniad article. He has well and truly reached the summit of Kilimanjaro on this topic this year.

I do sense a gap in the market for a publication that is able to translate newspeak into plain english!!

I just searched and its pretty obvious they are male.

What's the law in Australia?

If this happened here in the UK then it would be a great example of the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act, which allow a provider to exclude males - and the clause in the Gender Recognition Act saying that a GRC doesn't change that. Ie the complainant would lose.

But it presumably depends on the law in Australia as to whether this is legal or not.

They don't like women to have sports teams free of male people:

twitter.com/okbiology/status/1311354881123459074

Good point. Anybody UK based not signed the petition to clarify what sex means yet?

crikey

the image that fooled the AI must have been heavily doctored

so person actively subverts the joining criteria for the site, then complains when they're kicked out? seems like the right thing happened to me,

I'm picky about crowdfunders, but I'd donate to this one if giggle needs help (even though they have a stupid name)

“The app provider appears not to recognise transgender women as female. I am legally permitted to identify as female.”

Female or a woman? Big difference since the latter term has lost all meaning. Female still means "of the class that produces large immobile gametes".

After initially suing Giggle and Grover in the federal circuit and family court in July this year, Tickle dropped the case, afraid of the legal costs after hearing the firm’s CEO would take the matter all the way to the high court if she had to.

Saying she now had “limited funding” to pursue the lawsuit, she is asking the federal court for approval to launch her case out of time.

I wonder who the financial backer is for Tickle bringing this case?

Does "out of time" mean some sort of statute of limitations has been reached and Tackle needs federal court approval to proceed? It will be interesting to see if the federal court thinks setting a precedent by indulging a mantrum is worth the potential consequences in other areas of law.

@FOJN was that a typo or deliberate misspelling? 🤣

@BernardBlacksMolluscs your 'crikey' was very restrained! Had heard of RT re the hockey debacle before, but crikey indeed!!

Like those books you used to get "how to speak Scouse" with a nice little English sentence and then the Liverpudlian version.

Do I really really want to? Do I need to use my private browser?

The law In Australia is the Sex Discrimination Act I think. It states both sex and gender identity, and it’s never been challenged to see what trumps what. This case was going to be the first to test it. The deadline set by the Federal Court passed, so hopefully the judge will not allow it for that reason. It’s malicious.

Sall talks about it an interview on Terf Talk Down Under (highly recommend, two women who give zero fucks!)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NxekXTLjetI