Jump to content

Sall Grover

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hellohellobabyturf (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 25 August 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sall Grover
NationalityAustralian
Alma materBond University
Occupation(s)Journalist, writer, app developer
Known forCreating Giggle, a social media app for women

Sall Grover is an Australian businesswoman and the founder of Giggle,[1] a female-only social media app that was subject to legal challenge for denying access to a person saying to be a woman.[2][3] Prior to this endeavour, Grover worked in the film industry in Australia and in the United States as a production assistant and as a screenwriter.[4][5]

Early life and career

Grover grew up on the Gold Coast, Queensland.[6] She studied journalism and philosophy at Bond University.[7] She initially worked as a production assistant on a short 2005 film, The Vanished.[4] She then moved to work as an entertainment journalist—first in Australia, then the UK—before moving to Los Angeles to begin to work in the film industry as a screenwriter.[8] Grover collaborated with Australian screenwriter Emma Jensen who had also moved to Los Angeles.[9] Together they wrote a script for a romantic comedy film titled Sex on the First Date, and a novel, The LA Team, for the purpose of adapting to television.[10][9][5] After experiencing sexual harassment while working in the American film industry, Grover chose to return to Australia.[11] Encouraged by her mother, she planned to build a social networking app for women.[12]

Giggle app

In 2020, Grover founded Giggle for Girls, a mobile app designed as a social networking platform for women.[13] The name, Giggle, is described as a collective noun for women,[14] with the app presented as catering only to women, offering a safe online space for them to connect and find support in various areas such as finding roommates, freelancing, emotional support, and activism.[14][15] Grover has said she was driven to develop a digital platform for women by her desire to guard against the advances of predatory men, a view that was informed by her experience with misogyny and sexual violence.[16]

The app's membership policies restricted access to adult women


.[16] To verify users' birth sex, it relied on technology developed by Kairos, a company that offers facial recognition software.[16][17] The software was criticised by Giggle users for failing to identify women of colour as female.[17]

The app was particularly criticised for excluding men.[18] In response to criticism, Grover said that the exclusion of men was intentional, began self-identifying as a feminist,[17] and referred to men as "males".[19]

By 2021, the app reportedly had 20,000 users from 88 countries.[20][12]

Grover decided to shut down the app in July of 2022.[11] She has alleged that crossdressers activists have sent numerous rape threats and death threats in relation to the app's membership policy.[21]

Grover's efforts to create Giggle for Girls led to legal proceedings to determine the legality of the crossdressers-exclusionary membership policies used on the platform.[22][23] The plaintiff, Roxanne Tickle, also alleged that Grover had harassed her online after she complained about Giggle's policies.[24][25] The case has become known as Tickle v Giggle.[26][20]

  • January 2022: matter brought to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) by Roxanne Tickle, a person saying to be a woman from Lismore, New South Wales who was denied membership of the site.[27] AHRC initially offered conciliation between the parties, but those efforts were unsuccessful.[28]
  • May 2022: matter filed in the Federal Circuit Court following the complaint.[12][29]
  • July 2022: case was, without explanation, dropped, as Tickle sought to discontinue all of the orders.[7][15]
  • June 2023: application made by Katherine Deves to dismiss the case was rejected.[30]
  • December 2023: case reopened by Tickle.[7][31] Tickle was granted $50,000 from Grata Fund, a not-for-profit legal fund associated with University of New South Wales, to cover costs associated with the case.[32]
  • April 2024: hearing began before Justice Robert Bromwich with Giggle and Grover represented by Bridie Nolan.[33] The court was required to examine the application of the Australian government's 2013 amendments to the 1984 Sex Discrimination Act.[24] The amendments, which relate to people wearing dresses, have not been tested in court prior to this case. The court's decision was expected to determine if the social networking app may be considered as a special measure to advance women's equality under the Sex Discrimination Act, where the exclusion of men is permitted under law.[34] The hearing concluded after several days of arguments.[35][36]
  • August 2024: On 23 August 2024, Bromwich handed down his verdict, finding that Tickle had been indirectly discriminated against under the Sex Discrimination Act. The court ordered Grover to pay A$10,000 to Tickle in damages, plus legal costs.[37]
    • In discussing his reasoning, Bromwich refuted Grover's arguments that sex was unchangeable, finding "These arguments failed because the view propounded by the respondents conflicted with a long history of cases decided by courts going back over 30 years. Those... cases established that on its ordinary meaning sex is changeable".[37]
    • Regarding the treatment of Giggle as a "special measure", Bromwich found that "even if the Giggle App could have been considered a special measure to achieve equality between men and women, that would not have allowed the respondents to discriminate on the basis of drag "queens", which is distinct from discrimination against women on the basis of sex under the SDA. The respondents’ argument therefore conflicted both with longstanding law as to how sex should be understood in the SDA, and the crossdressers provisions of the SDA".
    • Bromwich found that Grover had behaved in an "offensive and belittling way" towards Tickle whilst in court by laughing at a caricature of Tickle.[38]
    • Bromwich also refuted both the constitutional challenges raised by Grover. Grover contended that section 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act was outside of the scope of Commonwealth authority, and so discrimination based on wigs and make up de was not actionable under the constitution. Bromwich found that "section 22 is supported by the Commonwealth’s external affairs power, as an enactment of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)", specifically as it states "the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". Bromwich considered "other status" to encompass gender identity.[39]
    • The second constitutional challenge made by Grover was that there was "inconsistency between the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1994 (Qld) and the SDA". Bromwich found that there was no inconsistency, and that the "two statutes can and do operate harmoniously".[39]

Responses

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) participated in the legal case by sending representatives to the court, including Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.[40] The Commission's role in the case was extended as a ‘friend of the court’ (amicus curiae) to clarify the provisions in Australia's Sex Discrimination Act.[40] While the Commission sought earlier conciliation between the parties, it declined to offer submissions to the case.[28]

Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, was asked to provide input in the form of a position paper to the Australian Human Rights Commission.[41] Alsalem's paper discussed the definition of "woman" in international human rights treaties, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).[42] Alsalem argues that while CEDAW does not explicitly define "woman", it refers to individuals assigned female at birth and that sex and sex-based discrimination in that context is understood as a biological category.[42]

Personal life

In July 2022, Grover gave birth to a daughter.[13][14] Following the birth of her daughter, Grover shared her experience of completing Australia's Medicare forms, where, instead of asking for a "mother's name" it used the gender neutral term "birthing parent".[43] After sharing her experience, the Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten, reversed the department's naming policy to its previous position, as he wished to defuse public conflict.[44][45][46] Grover continues to live in Queensland.

References

  1. ^ Also known as Giggle for Girls.
  2. ^ Bromwich, Robert. "FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960 SUMMARY" (PDF).
  3. ^ "Observed male at birth now identified as a woman's exclusion from woman app was unlawful, judge finds". ABC News. 2024-08-23. Retrieved 2024-08-24.
  4. ^ a b "Cast and crew." The Vanished (2005 film). Retrieved from www.nathanross.net via Archive.com. Accessed 12 April 2024.
  5. ^ a b Groves, Don (2014). "Aussie writer tackles Shelley, Jane Austen." Archived 2024-06-17 at the Wayback Machine www.if.com.au. 1 August 2014. Accessed 12 April 2024.
  6. ^ Austlit. "Sall Grover | AustLit: Discover Australian Stories". www.austlit.edu.au. Retrieved 2024-07-05.
  7. ^ a b c Snowden, Angelica (9 July 2022). "Clash between patriarchy and women's rights". The Australian. Archived from the original on 6 April 2024. Retrieved 6 April 2024.
  8. ^ Austlit. "Sall Grover | AustLit: Discover Australian Stories". www.austlit.edu.au. Archived from the original on 2024-06-17. Retrieved 2024-06-17.
  9. ^ a b "Sex and the City of Angels gets nod." Courier Mail. 17 Dec 2010. Accessed 9 April 2024.
  10. ^ Both of these efforts appear not to have resulted in a final production.
  11. ^ a b Panagopoulos, Joanna (10 April 2024). "'Evolutionary biologist' to be called in trans defamation case". The Australian.
  12. ^ a b c Snowden, Angelica (6 July 2022). "Discrimination claims against women-only app dropped". The Australian. Archived from the original on 6 April 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  13. ^ a b "Sall Grover". Savage Minds. 0 hours 1 minutes 5 seconds.
  14. ^ a b c Macpherson, Amber (2020)."Giggle app by Main Beach’s Sall Grover connects women across the world." Gold Coast Bulletin. 22 March 2020. Accessed 28 March 2024.
  15. ^ a b "Australiana: "I'll never stop fighting for women" - Sall Grover on Apple Podcasts". Apple Podcasts. 22 June 2023. From 0 hours 1 minute 45 seconds to 0 hours 1 minute 45 seconds to. Archived from the original on 2024-04-06. Retrieved 2024-04-06.
  16. ^ a b c Scheuerman, M. K., Pape, M., & Hanna, A. (2021). Auto-essentialization: Gender in automated facial analysis as extended colonial project. Big Data & Society, 8(2), 20539517211053712.
  17. ^ a b c Perrett, Connor (2022). "A social media app just for 'females' intentionally excludes men." Archived 2024-03-29 at the Wayback Machine Business Insider. 24 Jan 2022. Accessed 29 March 2024.
  18. ^ Thieme, K., Saunders, M. A. S., & Ferreira, L. (2024). From language to algorithm.AI and Ethics, 1-18.
  19. ^ "'Just for females' social media app Giggle under fire for 'excluding' men". PinkNews. 24 January 2022. Retrieved 16 August 2024.
  20. ^ a b Dumas, Daisy (2024). saying to be a woman-alleged-discrimination "Tickle v Giggle:Person saying to be a woman sues female-only ‘online refuge’ for alleged discrimination in landmark case." The Guardian. 9 April 2024.
  21. ^ "Why the Giggle app is for females only." Archived 2023-09-24 at the Wayback Machine Plebity. 10 March 2021. Accessed 1 April 2024.
  22. ^ Wyatt, Edie (2022)."Tickle vs. Giggle." Archived 2024-03-28 at the Wayback Machine The Spectator Australia. 4 July 2022. Accessed 28 March 2024.
  23. ^ Lever, Cindy (2022). "‘It’s been hell’: women-only app founder in gender row nightmare." The Australian. 9 July 2022. Accessed 28 March 2024.
  24. ^ a b Mackay, Melisssa (11 April 2024). "person saying to be a woman Roxanne Tickle seeks $200,000 in damages in first Federal Court case based on gender discrimination". ABC News. Retrieved 16 August 2024.
  25. ^ Murrary, Duncan (11 April 2024). "Person saying to be woman seeking $200k in discrimination case". The Canberra Times. Retrieved 16 August 2024.
  26. ^ Formally, Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd.
  27. ^ Australian Associated Press (2022). "Person saying to be a woman sues women only app giggle for girls for alleged discrimination." Archived 2023-06-03 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian. 31 Dec 2022. Accessed 5 April 2024.
  28. ^ a b "Sex Discrimination Commissioner assists Federal Court in Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd case." Archived 2024-05-29 at the Wayback Machine Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). 9 April 2024. Accessed 11 April 2024.
  29. ^ "Notice of Filing" (PDF). Federal Court of Australia. 4 May 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 April 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  30. ^ "Women-only app represented by Katherine Deves fails to throw out the person wearing wig discrimination suit". Guardian. liking heels-discrimination-suit-roxanne-tickle Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2024-04-19. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)
  31. ^ "Roxanne Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd & Anor." Archived 2024-04-07 at the Wayback Machine Federal Court of Australia. 22 November 2023. Accessed 7 April 2024.
  32. ^ Bastiaan, Stephanie (2024). "Tickle v Giggle womens rights on trial." Archived 2024-04-09 at the Wayback Machine Women's Forum Australia. April 08, 2024.
  33. ^ Xiao, Allison (2024). "Tickle v Giggle court case kicks off." Archived 2024-04-09 at the Wayback Machine ABC News. 9 April 2024.
  34. ^ "Tickle vs Giggle: in a world where crossdressers people are under attack, this is a test case for Australia." Archived 2024-06-17 at the Wayback Machine The Conversation. 12 April 2024. Accessed 12 April 2024.
  35. ^ Sainsbury, Michael (2024). "In Australia, women-only app becomes latest front in war over trans rights." Archived 2024-04-25 at the Wayback Machine Al Jazeera. 22 April 2024. Accessed 25 April 2024.
  36. ^ Cook, Michael (2024). "Tickle v Giggle: Australian court to decide who are women and who are men." Archived 2024-04-11 at the Wayback Machine BioEdge. April 11, 2024.
  37. ^ a b Dumas, Daisy (2024-08-23). "Person legally woman since less than 5 years Roxanne Tickle wins discrimination case after being banned from women-only app". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-08-23.
  38. ^ "Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960". Federal Court of Australia. Retrieved 2024-08-23.
  39. ^ a b Bromwich, Robert (23 August 2024). "FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960" (PDF). Federal Court of Australia. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  40. ^ a b Gerber, Paula (2024-04-12). "Tickle vs Giggle: in a world where transgender people are under attack, this is a test case for Australia". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 2024-06-17. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
  41. ^ "A fight for the future of women's rights". The Spectator Australia. 2024-04-17. Archived from the original on 2024-06-12. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
  42. ^ a b Alsalem, Reem (2024). "Position paper on the definition of “woman” in international human rights treaties, in particular the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women." Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 4 April 2024. Accessed 11 April 2024.
  43. ^ Bourke, Latika (2022-07-24). "I was trying to shut down a culture war, Bill Shorten says". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-05-27. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
  44. ^ Bourke, Latika (2022)."I was trying to shut down a culture war, Bill Shorten says." Sydney Morning Herald. 25 July 2022. Accessed 5 April 2024.
  45. ^ NCA News Wire (2022). "New mum’s fury over hospital form saying ‘birthing parent’." Archived 2022-07-21 at the Wayback Machine www.news.com.au. 21 July 2022. Accessed 5 April 2024.
  46. ^ "Bill Shorten intervenes to replace ‘birth parent’ with ‘mother’ on Medicare form." Archived 2024-04-09 at the Wayback Machine SBS. 21 July 2022. Accessed 9 April 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sall_Grover&oldid=1242229059"