Trans-Identified Male Sues Women-Only Dance Studio After Being Denied Membership, Seeking $30k

The owner of a women-only pole dancing studio in Australia’s Gold Coast is facing litigation from a trans-identified male who claims he was discriminated against due to the facility’s single-sex policy. Nomes Witney, owner of Helensvale and Coomera-based business Queens of Pole, told The Australian that the man, who claims to be “female,” was denied membership in March, and subsequently lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission seeking $30,000 in damages.

The man, who has not been identified by Australian press, had attended a pole dancing class in February under the pretense of being a woman. In the middle of the class, Witney says, he disclosed that he “identified as a woman.” The knowledge that a man had been participating in the class, despite the studio’s promise to customers to provide a “female-only environment,” caused an immediate shift in the comfort levels of women in attendance.

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

The dance studio owner added that some of the attendees, which included a mother and her young adult daughter, became “visibly uncertain”.

In early March, the trans-identified male filed an incomplete membership application stating that his sex was female.

“I sent an email saying we were unable to accommodate the trans community at this time,” Witney told the outlet. Two days later, on March 12, he filed a formal complaint against her, though Witney wasn’t notified of the claim until April 22.

The Queensland Human Rights Commission sought mediation and sent Witney a letter from the trans-identified male that demanded an undisclosed payout. However, the conciliation meeting, held on July 13, was unsuccessful, and Witney refused to accept his request for membership and access to the female-only lessons.

Witney says that granting membership to the man in question is not a political move, but a choice she made to honor her commitment to providing a women-only space to her clients.

Queens of Pole has operated as a female-only studio for 9 years and accommodates women and girls of all ages, from children of 14 to women in their 60’s.

“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.”

“Having this women-only space to do that in isn’t saying all men are bad men,” Witney added. “It isn’t about politics or hostility against gender ideology, it’s about being able to let our hair down without the male gaze. The whole vibe shifts, even if that person identifies as female.”

As a result of the failed mediation conference, and Witney’s decision to deny membership to the male applicant, the case has been forwarded on to the Queensland Civil and ­Administrative Tribunal.

The Queensland Civil and ­Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) handles disputes and discrimination complaints involving issues of “gender identity,” in adherence with Australian law. In 2002, under the Labor government led by Premier Peter Beattie, the nation’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 was amended to add “gender identity” as a protected characteristic.

Section 7 of the Anti-Discrimination Act lists a series of attributes that are protected against discrimination under the law, including both sex and “gender identity,” which the Act defines as a “person’s internal and individual experience of gender, whether or not it corresponds with the sex assigned to the person at birth.”

Significantly, there are no administrative or medical requirements associated with the Anti-Discrimination Act’s definition of “gender identity,” meaning that an individual need not undergo any surgeries or hormone interventions. Neither is a person claiming discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” is required to formally alter their identifying documents.

There have been several lawsuits filed against women as a result of the amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act. At least three women are currently involved in costly litigation to defend themselves against accusations of discrimination, and all of the complaints have been lodged by men who claim to identify as transgender women.

One high-profile case, known in the courts as Tickle v Giggle, has dragged on for several years, and is expected to be debated in Australia’s Supreme Court. Entrepreneur and founder of a women’s-only networking application, Sall Grover was ordered to pay $20,000, with an additional maximum of $100,000 in court fees, to a trans-identified male after he was denied access to the platform. Grover, CEO of Giggle for Girls Proprietary Limited, was also found to have “discriminated” against Jason “Roxy” Tickle by recognizing him as a male in a selfie he submitted for on-boarding.

The ruling, handed down in May after more than four years of litigation, was a response to an appeal lodged by Tickle in August 2024 to a decision made by Justice Bromwich stating that Grover was guilty of “indirect discrimination.” At the time, Grover was ordered to pay $10,000 in compensation to Tickle and to pay his court costs up to $50,000. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Tickle further pursued litigation seeking a verdict of direct discrimination.

In the most recent ruling, Justice Melissa Perry sided with Tickle, doubled the compensation payout from $10,000 to $20,000, found Grover guilty of direct discrimination, and ordered her to pay court costs for Tickle up to $100,000. In her decision, Justice Perry cited the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, which was significantly amended in 2013 to include explicit protections for “gender identity.”

The May 15 ruling states that Grover discriminated against Tickle because she recognized him to be male, and in a bizarre reasoning, argued that having “male facial features” is a protected characteristic of “transgender women”.

In a similar case, a woman who criticized the inclusion of trans-identified men in female sports was ordered to pay out a combined total of $95,000 AUD to two male athletes participating in women’s soccer teams. Last December, Kirralie Smith was found guilty by a New South Wales court of “unlawfully vilifying” the two men for simply having referred to them as being males.

Smith was ordered to hand over $55,000 to Nicholas “Stephanie” Blanch, and another $40,000 to Justin “Riley” Dennis. Magistrate Freund also directed Smith to “refrain publishing anything that identifies the plaintiff or their football team,” and to “publish a public statement of apology.”

Somewhat confusingly, as Smith has pointed out, the public apology she has been ordered to issue is to be in the form of “a pinned post that must go on all my social media pages… [Yet] the pinned post I have been ordered to make names both of them… Make it make sense.”

Smith has filed an appeal, which is set to be heard tomorrow, July 24.

reduxx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *