this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
152 points (89.2% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2407 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I guess there are different rules in different places and we should know what applies to us. Where I live it's okay to clarify sex vs gender. So you could say she's a woman but that her sex is biologically male. But Australia is saying she's biologically female? Like I said, good to know.

[–] g0nz0li0@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

According to the article, the owner who was sued stated in court:

when she was asked if she would accept a transgender woman as female if they had medically transitioned and were legally recognised as one, she "would not view that person as a woman".

So it sounds like a case of the owner wanting to apply their own view without regard for how the law recognises gender in this day and age.

[–] oktoberpaard@feddit.nl 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t understand the relevance of what you’re saying. Do you mean that the platform should have the right to allow biological females only (following the definitions of your law system)? Do you think that that’s implied when a platform is female only and defensible in court? Not a snarky remark, just genuinely curious what you mean. This case was all about gender identity discrimination and I don’t see how biological sex fits into the picture.

She had sued the platform and its founder Sally Grover in 2022 for unlawful gender identity discrimination in its services, and claimed Ms Grover revoked her account after seeing her photo and "considered her to be male".

Judge Robert Bromwich said in his ruling that while Ms Tickle was not directly discriminated against, her claim of indirect discrimination was successful as using the Giggle App required her "to have the appearance of a cisgender woman".

Judge Bromwich said the evidence did not establish Ms Tickle was excluded from Giggle directly "by reason of her gender identity although it remains possible that this was the real but unproven reason".

[–] Katrisia@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that's the ambiguity. An AFAB only space is different to a women' (and maybe other feminine identities I'm not aware of) space. The first, AFAB, is about the sex you were born into. The second is about your gender (and here we can even create different groups, but that's beyond the point). The ambiguity comes because each of us uses "female" differently, sometimes to mean this or that. That's the importance of specifying what we mean, especially when creating a club or something similar.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

This person probably wouldn't allow AFAB trans men either.