Roxanne Tickle claims she was blocked from using the Giggle for Girls app because its CEO said she was a man
Archived version: https://archive.ph/QKxpo
You must log in or register to comment.
This has to be one of the best named cases. So memorable too.
I don’t understand why this is a complicated case that requires half a million in legal fees. Roxanne Tickle is legally a woman and has official documents to prove it. End of story.
I don’t understand Australian law either, but I would imagine all of these are relevant:
- Giggle was shut down in 2022, so there is no way to remedy Tickle having access to the app - in effect, Tickle currently enjoys the same access as the rest of the world, which is none.
- Giggle was a wholly private entity. This is where it becomes relevant that e.g. Tickle is legally female - presumably there are some legal guardrails in place against Giggle being forced to care what her legal gender is.
- The law referenced in the article makes all forms of gender discrimination illegal, so just like in line 2, that makes Tickle’s legal gender irrelevant - the only law the article mentions would, if applicable, ban Giggle from banning men, let alone women it claims are men.
Or the more important question, why would you WANT to enter a deliberately trans-exclusionary space?
JK Rowling leaping to the defense of Giggle For CIS Girls in 3…2…1… 😮💨
