Tickle vs Giggle

[KCOZ]

For those of who are aware of the Tickle vs Giggle court case in Australia, Sall Grover is looking for some gardening to be done to support her defence. The deplorable response of politicians and the press in Australia to the Let Women Speak rallies, only emphasises how important this case will be.

Just search Giggle crowd fund - she has set up her own site to avoid any potential censorship by the established sites

I'm confused- the article states that Giggle is happy to accept self identifying women- so who has an issue? It's not a female only space, it's an anyone who wants to be a woman space, you juts need to manually apply. So not a safe space at all- what am I missing?

I am not sure what article you are looking at as the Spectator one at the start of the thread is behind a paywall so i can’t read it. The second article said Giggle set up as a “girl’s only space” now redefined to “female only” - presumably to legally clarify definition for “self identifying” girls.

I know from previous articles/podcasts it was women only from the outset, had an AI screening programme set at 94% accuracy to screen selfies from applicants and sift out males but not so high as reject the occasional female, which they felt would be hurtful. There was then a human check of dubious photos before any knock back issued. The app offered job boards, socials and rentals etc.

@redalex261

Trans-girls are 100% welcome on giggle. Giggle’s “gender verification” onboarding process is a gatekeeper to stop men from getting on to the platform, not girls or those who identity as girls. If you are at all concerned with the possibility of being misgendered, you are welcome to contact giggle HQ for manual onboarding. giggle both fully supports and recognises gender identity and will never discriminate.”

Near the end of the second article- all very 'inclusive' of anyone who wants to role play as a girl/woman- although on reading the article again, I think that they have now changed that policy?

I’ve been successfully frugal this month so I had a wee bit of dosh to make another contribution.

It looks like the fund has gone up by AUS $20,000 this week - I hope this growth continues.

Here’s another good discussion of the issues involved:

Edited to add URL

Good grief. What could possibly go wrong?!

Which article are you reading and where have you copied and pasted that from?

Giggle has never been for males.

@SD1978

Originally, Sall made the app women-only. She wasn’t aware of the issues around trans-identified males invading female spaces, and was (according to her) all for “being kind”.

At some point, her views changed. She became aware of the inherent problems with allowing males into a safe, female space. She updated the app and explicitly made a condition of membership that members were biological females only (however they identify - so transmen welcome).

Sall has been interviewed many times about the timeline and events leading to her development of, and subsequent tightening of the rules of the app. Available on YouTube (even a conversation with Glinner!).

@NotBadConsidering - it's in the second article, very clearly- if you read it all. Although someone else has written that they were trans woman inclusive and now are for women only. Don't make it up, juts read the article provided on here.

Thanks @DiabolicalFinial - appreciate the update and will look on you tube.

In most countries this is the case now.

No the reissued one does not state he is 'trans'.

In the UK there is even a 'trans' loophole in the DBS now where anyone, sex offenders included, can change their names and leave out their old names when applying for jobs that need a DBS as it relies on them calling a 'trans hotline' to report their old names. Because sex offenders are honest and true, right.

This has been the case for years.

Second article from where, this thread? This thread was started a year ago so it’s important to clarify where you’re quoting from.

Presumably this article (linked below) from 2020. Right at the outset the app was open to TW but due the abuse directed at Sall and the behaviour of the men using the app she made the decision to make the app female only. She went from “be kind” to a brilliant women’s rights campaigner in 3 very short months in a very public awakening.

https://4w.pub/giggle-founder-sall-grover-has-faced-misogyny-at-every-turn/amp/

“Although giggle has been very explicit that they welcome transgender women and are happy to manually approve them, this hasn’t prevented the trans community from waging a war against Grover and giggle.”

The giggle FAQ states:

“Trans-girls are 100% welcome on giggle. Giggle’s “gender verification” onboarding process is a gatekeeper to stop men from getting on to the platform, not girls or those who identity as girls. If you are at all concerned with the possibility of being misgendered, you are welcome to contact giggle HQ for manual onboarding. giggle both fully supports and recognises gender identity and will never discriminate.”

I recall some of the discussions, with Sall asking for advice on Reddit's r/GenderCritical. She'd never even really thought about the issue - I suspect that FAQ element was added by some staff member without her being involved, or at least with her applying any more thought to it than "oh, the occasional harmless homosexual transsexual".

She became aware that there was starting to be a problem with males on the app who'd come in as "trans", and was left trying to figure out what to do - women weren't happy with them there, and she was hoping there was some sort of compromise. The advice from r/GC were a bit blunt that no compromise was possible - the males would not countenance being given any sort of restricted access. She didn't quite fully take it on board on the first visit, but a couple of months, in a later r/GC discussion, she clearly had seen for herself how toxic they were and decided that she had to be hard-line, and it had to be strictly female-only.

The Tickle exclusion post-dated that, so when they were explicitly female-only.

This is the CEO of a company that had a clearly-flawed "women only" policy, that saw the problems, asked advice from a radfem Subreddit, and performed a firm reversal.

If you're going to carp at them years later for having ever had a flawed policy, and won't support them now they've fixed it, what incentive would there ever be for anyone to fix a policy?

This is a really important case. Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Of Discrimination Against Women CEDAW http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1983/9.html**. If the case goes the way it ought to, it can then be cited by other cases in countries who are also signatories.

There's already case law on this. In For Women Scotland's first judicial review they argued the 'woman = anyone living as a woman' definition in the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act was a breach of CEDAW. They initially lost in the lower court where the judge said there was no inconsistency between the Act and CEDAW, but this decision was overturned in its entirety with the FWS win at appeal. I have no idea if this will be a persuasive legal authority in other countries.

Details of the FWS case re CEDAW is here: https://forwomen.scot/28/09/2023/cedaw-a-case-study-in-the-scottish-courts/

I can understand how CEDAW might influence Giggle v Tickle but not how the outcome of GvT might affect CEDAW. Surely this can only have a one direction impact. Can anyone cleverer than me explain?

@SD1978 The second linked article posted at the start of the thread is lifted from 4W a transgender MtF website. Think it is a scam one written to mislead supporters of the case. person who posted it may not have realised. The giggle app always excluded natal males.

@Signalbox on Youtube in The Queens Speech, Sall and Dennis explain it quite well - you can take Dennis out of barristering but you can’t take the barrister out of Dennis.

I doubt if I am cleverer than you, but my guess is that it would be persuasive - it would nudge Supreme Courts in signatory countries to interpret their CEDAW obligations in similar disputes on the same legal principles.

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Yes that makes sense.

When I donated a few carrots just now the fund had crept up to just over AUS$300k so that’s pretty good going. But it seems like such a battle ahead! Sal seems pretty awesome so I really hope things go her way.

@SD1978 - apologies, reread article and noted the passage you highlighted - if this is accurate I’ve never heard it on any of any podcasts with Sal I’ve listened to; or any other articles I’ve read.

Looked again at 4W.pub and read some of the content there - it is not a publication aimed at trans readers but for fourth wave feminists! 🤦‍♀️ I was swayed by quick look this morning and first article that came up was about a misgendering case and I made an assumption, (as I had been reading other stuff about false reporting to spread misinformation) Sorry for confusion. Like you I am none the wiser regarding the accuracy of that passage in the article as every conversation I have heard between Sal and various interviewers she has clearly said the app was strictly female only from outset. Hope someone posting here can clear it up.

Sall describes the upcoming case:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pbMYNcI2mtY

I am sure all the stuff I had read said something like she said the app was for anyone who identified as a woman at the start but she had the face filter on to help manage members and found she got hideous abuse from male people so she rethought and made it female only. That was ages ago so I don’t have links to hand.

I followed the whole thing online. The App started off inclusive of TW. There are threads on here about it. Sall came under a lot of criticism from feminists and a lot of abuse from trans activists. She clearly was completely unaware of the situation she had waded into. I’ve seen interviews where she has described her peaking process. I’ll see if I can dig one out.