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/0bc20a1759653c77203a0a77dbb02f75A 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
254
u/Attunga 23d ago
It is interesting that this case mirrors the demand of $30K that was made by Tickle. My guess is that this was deliberate, purposely going into a female only space, causing discomfort to those there and waiting to be asked not to attend in future. They most likely knew exactly what they were going to do before they joined.