Roxanne Tickle has won a landmark case which questioned who can legally claim to be a woman.

A transgender woman from Australia has won a discrimination case against a women-only social media app, after she was denied access on the basis of being male.

The Federal Court found that although Roxanne Tickle had not been directly discriminated against, she was a victim of indirect discrimination - which refers to when a decision disadvantages a person with a particular attribute - and ordered the app to pay her A$10,000 ($6,700; £5,100) plus costs.

It’s a landmark ruling when it comes to gender identity, and at the very heart of the case was the ever more contentious question: what is a woman?

In 2021, Tickle downloaded “Giggle for Girls”, an app marketed as an online refuge where women could share their experiences in a safe space, and where men were not allowed.

  • ryannathans@aussie.zoneEnglish
    1515·
    4 months ago

    Wouldn’t this apply to dating sites/apps in the same way too?

    Dating is literally discrimination, you are picking a partner by discriminating.

    Would this ruling not mean you can’t filter out (either by registration or search) people with certain traits?

    • kboy101222@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      201·
      4 months ago

      I’d think no. This is barring someone from using an app entirely. But when it comes to dating, everyone has a preference of gender, even if that preference is “no preference”.

      And dating isn’t discrimination. It’s picking a person that you want to spend extra, and frequently intimate, time with. It’s a billion subconscious factors that your brain interprets as love, affection, or whatever other emotion your brain wants. Can some of those factors be discriminatory? Sure.

      I like men and women and everything in-between and around, and I’m sure I have plenty of biases and discriminations of my own, but that’s not enough to outright call all dating discrimination

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      4 months ago

      I think you asked a good question, but I also think the answer is no. As I understand this situation, the platform in this case did the discrimination. So in a dating app the user simply specified preferences on an individual basis. It might mean that certain selectors become an issue… can you offer a racial filter???.. But this is for another lawsuit I guess.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOPEnglish
      327·
      4 months ago

      Please show me where in the article it says it was a dating website.

      I’ll wait.

      • ryannathans@aussie.zoneEnglish
        134·
        4 months ago

        I’m not saying it was a dating website? I’m saying wouldn’t the exact same thing apply to dating sites??

        • Dkarma@lemmy.worldEnglish
          35·
          4 months ago

          Not even remotely. Are dating sites for men or women only?

          Did u even think this thru? Lol

          • ryannathans@aussie.zoneEnglish
            72·
            4 months ago

            Some are, yes.

            Here are some dating apps run by Match Group that you could call discriminatory (owners of tinder, okcupid and hinge):

            • Asian People Meet
            • Black Christian People Meet
            • GenX People Meet
            • Black Professional People Meet
            • Little People Meet
            • Chinese People Meet
          • ryannathans@aussie.zoneEnglish
            113·
            4 months ago

            What are you talking about? You realise case law has far reaching implications right?

            • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOPEnglish
              321·
              4 months ago

              Well obviously you weren’t the judge so maybe you don’t know all the facts that were presented in court.

              Besides, a dating website is much different than a website one goes to find friends of the same gender.

              • ryannathans@aussie.zoneEnglish
                111·
                4 months ago

                Are you not capable of reading your own article?

                Australia’s interpretation of the law in a case that got this level of media attention is likely to have global repercussions.