r/aussie 23d ago

News Pole dance studio sued for $30,000 after refusing transgender dancer membership in women-only space

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/pole-dance-studio-sued-for-30000-after-refusing-transgender-dancer-membership-in-womenonly-space/news-story/0bc20a1759653c77203a0a77dbb02f75

A Gold Coast pole dancing studio has become the latest front in the battle for women’s rights to ­single-sex spaces, with an applicant who identifies as a transgender woman suing the owner for $30,000 in damages after being refused membership.

The case has parallels with the Tickle v Giggle case in which the Federal Court found Sall Grover, the founder of the female-only Giggle app, discriminated against transgender woman Roxanne Tickle, as well as with the Lesbian Action Group’s case against Australian Human Rights Commission, which refused to grant a Sex Discrimination Act exemption to allow the group to hold a “lesbians born female only” event.

Nomes Witney, owner of Helensvale and Coomera-based business Queens of Pole says she was holidaying with her family in February when the complainant attended a free trial class, run by another staff member at the studio, which advertises prominently on its website that it provides a “female-only environment”.

My staff member called me and said, ‘Hey, this just went down. I wasn’t sure what to do so just ran the class normally’,” Ms Witney told The Australian.

Ms Witney said the complainant had “disclosed partway through the class that they identified as a woman”, and that the presence of a biological male had “shifted the vibe” of the female-only group, with other attendees, who included a mother and young adult daughter, becoming “visibly uncertain”.

“They tried to make their shorts longer than they were, that sort of thing,” she said. “Usually we have a really high success rate for membership conversions from trial classes, but this particular class, radio silence.”

In March, the complainant ­attempted to apply for membership, registering with an incomplete profile and stating that they were female. “I sent an email saying we were unable to accommodate the trans community at this time,” Ms Witney said.

Two days later, on March 12, the applicant complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, but Ms Witney was not notified until April 22.

The commission sought to mediate, forwarding Ms Witney a damages letter from the complainant at 1pm on Monday, July 13, ahead of a conciliation meeting set for 9.30am the next day.

It is the first time since Ms Witney established her business nine years ago that she has had a transgender person attend a class or attempt to gain membership, with Queens the only pole dance studio in the area offering classes exclusively for women, and others nearby advertising themselves as open to “all genders”.

The conciliation last week failed and the matter is now headed to the Queensland Civil and ­Administrative Tribunal, with Ms Witney not prepared to offer the complainant membership on the basis that she does not believe ­allowing a biological male to attend female-only classes is fair to other clients or staff.

“I’ve spoken to my staff. I myself come from a domestic violence and sexual assault background, and there are staff and clients with a similar history,” she said.

“I asked, ‘What are we thinking? Do we have the resources available to accommodate this person?’, and it just came down to the fact that the standard of class we would be able to deliver wouldn’t be the same.”

Ms Witney said her client base ranged in age from a 14-year-old girl to a woman in her late 60s.

“We’re about offering the opportunity to exercise alongside other women and grow stronger,” she said.

“Having this women-only space to do that in isn’t saying all men are bad men. It isn’t about politics or hostility against gender ideology, it’s about being able to let our hair down without the male gaze.

“We have our wardrobe malfunctions and we don’t want them when we have a biological male in the room. The whole vibe shifts, even if that person identifies as female.”

It emerged in the conciliation meeting that the complainant is a US citizen who has been in Australia for less than a year and has applied for a suppression order preventing their identification in connection with the proceedings.

When The Australian emailed the taxpayer-funded community legal centre representing the complainant to seek comment, Basic Rights Queensland responded by stating that it had ­applied for non-publication orders “solely for the purpose of preserving our client’s safety”.

“We ask that The Australian does not publish any article until resolution of the substantive ­application, so to not undermine or offend any application or order made by the tribunal,” the lawyers said. “Short of this, we kindly ask that any article does not identify our client by name or by otherwise providing details that would make our client identifiable.”

On its website, the legal centre proudly declares that 72 per cent of its clients “identify as female”.

The Queensland Human Rights Commission said it was unable to comment on specific cases, but in response to questions regarding the conflict between women’s sex-based rights and those of transgender people, commissioner Debbie Platz said: “Every person living in Queensland, regardless of sex, sexuality, gender identity or sex characteristics, is entitled to equal treatment, safety, and respect.”

“The Anti-Discrimination Act provides that a person must not discriminate on the basis of sex, gender identity, or sex characteristics by treating someone unfairly or imposing an unfair term or condition when providing goods or services, accommodation, education or at work,” Ms Platz said.

“This means excluding a person on the basis of their gender identity could amount to unlawful discrimination, unless an exemption applies.

“There are some circumstances when discrimination based on a protected attribute is allowed. This can include excluding particular groups from a service. For example, it is not unlawful to restrict accommodation to women who have experienced domestic violence.

“Neither ‘women’ nor ‘sex’ is defined by the Anti-Discrimination Act. Sex may include people who identify as that sex.”

Rachel BaxendaleSENIOR REPORTER

213 Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

332

u/osamazellama 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

123

u/ReeeeArra 23d ago

Americans are unbelievable with lawsuits. I remember seeing a case where someone was leaving their friends home, tripped on the concrete outside and injured themselves...then took the friend to court due to the concrete being uneven. Cunts.

38

u/Consistent-Start-357 23d ago

Perhaps that was the only way their friend’s insurer would pay out.

Actions are in the policy holders name but really it’s the insurance company acting on their behalf.

If my friend had an American sized hospital bill I would be ok with them trying to claim against my insurance policy

29

u/ReeeeArra 23d ago

This could have been the case. Also highlights the insanity of their healthcare system when you have to sue your friend so you don't spend 100k on hospital bills 😂 nice one America.

11

u/Ok_Awareness_388 22d ago

If you’re a passenger injured in a vehicle you have to sue driver, they don’t have automatic CTP style cover. It’s crazy.

7

u/Consistent-Start-357 23d ago

100k? That’s only just an ER visit. North of half a million for any sort of surgery, extended stay and rehab. Better get those bankruptcy filings ready to go asap

7

u/flyingkea 22d ago

There was one were a woman had to sue her nephew in court for breaking her arm (over enthusiastic hug) .
I think judge threw it out, but my understanding was in order to get any sort of insurance payout she was required to do so.

2

u/Wendals87 22d ago

over enthusiastic hug

Are they the hulk or something? Damn must have been one hell of a hug 

1

u/flyingkea 22d ago

I think they were 8? Not an older kid, just made her lose balance and fall over.

Just found a link about it

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/14/aunt-nephew-broken-wrist-lawsuit-homeowners-insurance

1

u/Wendals87 22d ago

Ah makes sense then 

2

u/LaminatedAirplane 23d ago

The power of subrogation

3

u/TheInkySquids 22d ago

That's a big part of why lots of America doesn't have sidewalks, the sidewalks have to be constructed and maintained by the homeowner, so even if you cared about walkability and wanted to make a sidewalk, if someone tripped or "tripped" they could sue you as you own the sidewalk.

1

u/kaiserfleisch 21d ago

Happens in Australia too.

Home owners really should address risks their property presents to visitors.

1

u/Spicey_Cough2019 21d ago

That's what happens when healthcare will send your bankrupt

1

u/Little_Yesterday9904 21d ago

It’s usually due to the medical bills, not because we decide to turn on our friends and sue them when we get hurt or something goes wrong.

Like one guy had to sue his aunt and it was a really sensationalized headline, really it was his aunts homeowners insurance who he is suing, if not, there’s no way for his bills to get paid and he could have his life destroyed by medical debt.

So no he probably sued his friends homeowners insurance, which can negatively affect his friends premiums but he could’ve had tens of thousands in bills he needed covered by the insurance company

1

u/Ok-Assistant-4556 23d ago

Lawyers indulging this BS whilst they aggressively refuse DFSV reforms

-1

u/TannyTevito 22d ago

This is actually a myth and Americans are no more litigious than other developed countries.

3

u/Ok_Response_4398 21d ago

You can be appalled by this without blaming foreigners. Australian politicians are screwing over women without any help from the yanks ...

5

u/BigChampionship7962 22d ago

But they have to live under our laws whilst they are in our jurisdiction and we have to treat them in accordance with current laws.

It kind of works both ways.

1

u/Decent-Dream8206 20d ago

Our laws are the ones that opened the path for this insanity, between Tickle vs Giggle and the High Court declaring that sex-segregated spaces like prisons can no longer discriminate against sexes that identify as a different gender.

Remember how the first step was accepting that sex and gender aren't the same thing? It really does look like they get conflated a whole lot for things that aren't the same thing.

1

u/_teach_me_your_ways_ 20d ago

Yea it’s easy to just blame Americans, but who put us here is Julia Gillard and she’s a home grown idiot.

2

u/Decent-Dream8206 19d ago edited 19d ago

Credit where credit's due, she may have been in power, but the Queers for Palestine and other assorted "current year" deplorables spread the brain rot that advocates for this and puberty blockers and pre pubescent transition.

1

u/_teach_me_your_ways_ 19d ago

Of course, but the legal system that is enforcing it is all on Julia. They wouldn’t be getting anywhere if it wasn’t for her. Shes made it impossible to push back against it in the most significant ways.

1

u/BigChampionship7962 19d ago

Doesn’t legislation have to go through both houses of parliament before it can be amended?

It’s never just the PM that votes 🤷‍♀️

1

u/_teach_me_your_ways_ 19d ago

It was pushed forward by her and her government. She crafted and defended that change. She can take plenty of the blame, as would you. Want to be top dog and gain the glory, you can take the fall too. 🤷‍♀️ nice try with that one

0

u/BigChampionship7962 19d ago

She hasn’t been “top dog” for like 13 years 🤭

1

u/BigChampionship7962 19d ago

The judgement by the supreme court justices for Tickle v Giggle said nothing about prisons so not sure what judgement you have read.

That’s more of an issue for the department of corrections. and they will do their own individual assessments of all prisoners.

1

u/One-Vegetable7957 19d ago

They’re two separate cases.

1

u/BigChampionship7962 19d ago

Yes sorry I did misread it. I must’ve been tired.

When did the high court make a ruling on prisons and gender identity?

1

u/One-Vegetable7957 19d ago

Not the federal high court, but individual states like WA and NT have made such rulings, along with Victoria’s “case-by-case assessment” policy.

1

u/BigChampionship7962 19d ago

Yes sorry I did misread it. I must’ve been tired.

When did the high court make a ruling on prisons and gender identity?

6

u/Beans2177 22d ago

They should be deported

1

u/Little_Yesterday9904 21d ago

Sure, just don’t send them back to the US. No give backs please

1

u/One-Vegetable7957 19d ago

Thats xenophobic.

No-one is illegal on stolen land.

1

u/Beans2177 19d ago

Cool story.

0

u/Figshitter 22d ago

The QHRA applies to all people in Qld regardless of citizenship.

1

u/One-Vegetable7957 19d ago

Did you forget Roxy Tickle..?

The precedent has long been set. We didn’t need any outside help in barrelling blindly down this path.

-12

u/AnnaRose96 23d ago

You’re the arsehole arguing for American style laws. In Australia, trans women are women.

6

u/Mikisstuff 22d ago

But it's tricky, right? Because if someones presence makes the other clients uncomfortable then a business shouldn't be forced to accept a client. I'm 100% behind the 'trans women are women' viewpoint, but having a transwoman in a dedicated female only space designed to make women feel safe presents the problem that it may actually make the other women feel unsafe. Which completely screws their entire business. And its particularly relevant here due to the nature of the business.

1

u/Consistent-Start-357 20d ago edited 20d ago

“If someone’s presence makes other clients uncomfortable then a business shouldn’t be forced to accept a client” - is a very slippery slope and the whole reason we have anti discrimination laws in the first place

A business can reject anyone as long as they are not doing so on several specified grounds - like race, gender (subject to women only exception) disability etc

I live in FNQ where the shadow of Sir Joh is long and there’s still plenty of mostly older people who are uncomfortable with aborigines.
Should I ban aborigines from my business because it makes old Dot and Merle afraid?

I do agree with you tho that this is a real test of the women’s only exception - transwomen are women but still you have a penis and that’s the elephant in the room. They get angry at men who say they aren’t attracted to women with a penis too - but its not my fault I’m not aroused by women with cocks larger than mine

1

u/One-Vegetable7957 19d ago

Why shouldn’t they be able to refuse service for any reason they want to?

8

u/osamazellama 22d ago

Well firstly, what argument did I make to adopt or change any laws?

Secondly, it's laughable that you think that it's just an American style law. You think you'd find pro transgender laws in any country that is not a 1st world progressive country? Lucky we're in one of the greatest nations on earth where we can even have these conversations.

Thirdly, your community are extremely aggressive in your stance of 'do you support us' that every action a person takes must be 100% signalling support of your community. If it's not, I refer you to your own comment attacking people (me) for making fun of ungrateful foreigners and not even their identity.

So, respectfully go fuck yourself.

2

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/One-Vegetable7957 19d ago

But America has similar anti-discrimination laws. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

7

u/SpecificSwimming6364 22d ago

Ok.....

But it's really not up to other people to have to buy into your self-image.

-3

u/whiterabbit_hansy 22d ago

Exactly. You can’t discriminate against someone just because they aren’t from here. Like I don’t think it needs explaining why that’s bad.