Why gender-detection software is as morally dubious as it is dangerous
Using biometric technology for “gender verification” so that safe spaces for women exist online is not only transphobic — it is another example of how ‘female empowerment’ is being used to peddle unethical technology.

Giggle’s ‘safety’ measure.

Giggle, a “girls-only social media network” billed as a safe community for women, recently came under fire for using gender verification software based on biometric data, and for its exclusion of transgender women. Giggle’s sign-up process means that information on identifying physical attributes (in the form of 3D selfies), must be submitted in order for it to ‘verify’ that a user is female, and allow them to make an account. However, it discourages trans women from signing up, stating that “People who self ID as women are unable to become users of the Giggle app.” Giggle presents itself as a “special online space where [girls] can safely form groups with other like-minded girls, and be free from any nastiness”, but the technology it uses begs an interrogation of what the company understands to be safe. Gender identity and privacy under a culture of data-reaping are heavyweight issues of ethics and security and it is women and minority groups who are made disproportionately vulnerable by the disclosure of personal data, of biometrics, of algorithmic decision-making. So why is a company focused on female solidarity and security taking such a transphobic stance, and using such ethically-questionable tech?

Giggle uses their gender verification process to ensure that only women can use the platform. However, after initially circling around the issue of how accessible the app is for trans women, the company now openly dissuades trans women from signing up on their FAQ page. Their sign-up process has drawn criticism for both its transphobia and for the implication that gender can be determined by physiology — in this case, bone structure. It might seem curious that an app claiming support for people to “identify as their authentic self” is so committed to quantifying gender — especially as its use of verification software means it requires users to ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ as female — but this is just the beginning of Giggle’s crude understanding of modern-day gender politics. In fact, the whole precedent of the app seems to rest on the highly marketable, pseudo-feminist ‘girls are better than boys’ narrative, reminiscent of ‘male tears’ mugs. In line with this, Giggle’s CEO Sall Grover, has framed the backlash to Giggle as generic misogynistic bullying glosses over the fact that gender verification software itself is a feminist issue and a threat to equality; privacy, identity and surveillance are all feminist issues.

Giggle’s FAQ page earlier this year, pre-amendments.

The Twitter response focuses mainly on Giggle’s exclusion of trans people, to which Grover initially responded with repeated claims that trans women are not only welcome at Giggle — they were also part of the development process. The back-and-forth over how true and/or helpful this is is pointless, given Grover’s recent acceptance of her label as a TERF, and her addition of the following statement to Giggle’s FAQ page: “People who self ID as women are unable to become users of the Giggle app. Transgender women who have transitioned to the point of facial feminisation surgery may be able to become users of the Giggle app. We request respect for female-only spaces and Giggle users.” Giggle’s transphobia is now out in the open, but we should also remind ourselves: Giggle should not be using gender-recognition software on its users, full stop. Since efforts to detect and quantify gender and ‘transness’ using remote and de-personalised software is non-ethical and undermines the concept of gender fluidity. Perhaps a more comprehensive network moderation would be a progressive way forward instead. As no algorithm and no technology can pre-empt a person’s capacity to be cruel on social media, wouldn’t the challenging and banning of abusive individuals within the network be a fairer and more educational remedy for online harassment?

Back in early 2020, the first question on Giggle’s FAQ page was “Are trans-girls welcome on giggle?”, answered with “Yes! Trans-girls are 100% welcome on giggle. Giggle’s “gender verification” onboarding process is a gatekeeper to stop men from getting on to the platform, not girls or those who identity [sic] as girls. If you are at all concerned with the possibility of being misgendered, you are welcome to contact giggle HQ for manual onboarding. Giggle both fully supports and recognises gender identity and will never discriminate.” But being let into Giggle HQ through a separate back door is not inclusivity, and those who spend their lives experiencing ritual shaming and barriers because of their identity know this well. Perhaps it should have been obvious from this point, a few months back, that the company and its founder had little understanding and empathy towards the trans female experience. It was possibly inevitable that this perspective, fed on the (valid) trans backlash to Giggle and the ego-boost of social media recognition from JK Rowling and Baroness Nicholson would eventually balloon into active exclusion of trans women. Even before all of this, it didn’t seem to occur to Grover that if trans women have to undergo the indignity of a digital misgendering and get in touch with the company themselves, they are being given a sub-par (and potentially very painful) experience accessing Giggle compared to cis women — and that is not indicative of a “safe and secure platform for girls,” nor a “[recognition of] gender identity.”

Giggle’s current stance on trans access.

Giggle’s trans exclusion is now overt. Grover, like many other self-proclaimed feminists who do not seem to acknowledge the similarities between the suffering of trans people and the suffering of victims of misogyny, is using her transphobic views to leverage social media clout and publicity for Giggle. She is seemingly unaware that the biological-essentialist rhetoric she and others used is being weaponised by the very men in power she so despises. Authority figures are using language that appeals to the protection of women to restrict the rights of trans and non-binary people, and of cis women. It is also worth being aware that it is patriarchal authorities that will benefit the most from the biometric data gathered by companies such as Grover’s. There’s a lot more to say about today’s relationship between feminism and transphobia, and Laurie Penny does a great job of discussing it here.

The fact that Giggle used to accept non-3D selfies from trans women as a sort of hasty accessibility add-on also indicates that their app-based gender verification process is not necessary, nor is the requirement of data on user bone structure. It is important to note that Giggle’s privacy policy states that the company may share data with third party service providers, business partners and sponsors among others, which undermines the company’s goal of female security. Here’s what Giggle said about the verification process in early 2020:

“Why is bio-metric gender verification software used to access giggle?

“The aim is to create a safe and secure platform for girls. Bio-metric gender verification software ensures that those within the platform are verified as girls. In biometric systems, the goal of liveness testing is to determine if the biometric being captured is an actual measurement from the authorised, live person who is present at the time of capture.This involves a 3D selfie that performs a quick study of the person’s bone structure to determine the female gender. It’s Bio-Science, not pseudo-science like phrenology. Our process determines both male and female genders and does not discriminate by race or age. Unfortunately, it doesn’t verify trans-girls. But we can help you at giggle HQ!”

The text was then changed to this:

“Why is bio-metric gender verification software used to access giggle?

The aim is to create a safe and secure platform for girls. Bio-metric gender recognition software ensures that those within the platform are verified as girls. In biometric systems, the goal of liveness testing is to determine if the biometric being captured is an actual measurement from the authorised, live person who is present at the time of capture.This involves taking a selfie and the gender recognition software produces a result. This process is closely monitored by real girls. Bio-Science, not pseudo-science like phrenology, is behind this process. It determines both male and female genders and does not discriminate by race or age. Gender Identity is a separate issue. If you are experiencing any difficulty, real girls and members of the LGBTQ community can help you at giggle HQ! AI and real people working together to make the final decision.”

Disturbingly, since February the original mention of using bone structure to determine gender has been deleted, meaning new readers aren’t really told how their gender is going to be determined. Meanwhile, Giggle and its founder have yet to address concern at the social dangers of their software, or of using physical characteristics to sort people. In a piece for Wear Your Voice Mag, Alex V. Green regards “brain sex studies as a dangerous extension of an already troubling liberal practice. At best, [their] logical conclusion would only serve to restrict access to transition-related care for already marginalised trans people. At worst, [they] turns back the clock on decades of trans activism, feminist organising, and anti-racism work, empowering the darkest discourses among the reactionary right and liberal centre.” Physiology-based categorising is never going to make us more free, or more safe.

The Giggle FAQ page’s attempted consolation “this process is closely monitored by real girls” (since updated yet again to “girls behind the screens”) only unsettles, insinuating the inherent safety of female governance — but does submitting your biometric data become a less dangerous act simply because it’s a woman who is overseeing the process? Prejudice and ignorance are not traits limited to men. Also, what does Grover mean by “real girls”? If Giggle is invested in providing women with a safe online space free from harassment, why does it require the submission of any personal data, which then has the potential to be shared with other parties? If the sign-up process for trans women is to email the company directly and be let in using “just a photo that needs to be sent of you, to ensure that your identity is not being hacked” without the need for a 3D photograph, then the software is not needed, and is a non-ethical piece of technology.

Morally questionable practice under a woman-friendly flag is not a new thing. Following the reintroduction of feminism into mainstream discussion, the past few years have seen a flurry of self-lauded empowering, slightly patronising startups aimed specifically at women, whereby the ‘inclusive’ brand message feels at odds with the internal company culture and the external addressing of women as a badass, yet homogenous, group. Consider Thinx, the period proof underwear company lauded for its feminist solutions and eventually exposed for the abusive behaviour of its ‘She-E-O’, or Sophia Amoruso, the founder and ex-CEO of clothing company Nasty Gal and founder of Girlboss Media. Amoruso’s branding hinges on female success, despite being sued by ex-employees in 2015 who claimed they had been fired because they were pregnant or ill. With the praise we heap on shallow feminist virtue-signalling in the corporate world, it’s easy to see how these wolves in feminist sheep’s clothing come about. What is missing from many ‘women first’ enterprises is a thorough understanding of feminism (literary, historical and social) and a genuine care for the marginalised, resulting in a disconnect between the company ethos — female solidarity — and the company’s contemptuous, profit-led treatment of actual women. In this case, of the trans women it stigmatises, and of the users whose data is being unnecessarily gathered.

Giggle cites “Choice, control, consent and connection” as the aims of the safety-centric social network, yet the gender-determining entry process described on the site is exclusive by nature because it doesn’t recognise all women. Put aside for a moment Grover’s own opinions on trans women — there is still something inherently transphobic, something domineering and patriarchal, about gender verification software. In a world where we are increasingly fluid and instinctive with sexuality, gender and self expression — and increasingly aware of how painfully narrow our past determinations of gender and self are — gender verification limits us and sets us back in time. “Giggle is a place where girls can avoid the misogynistic harassment & abuse found on current popular platforms” reads one of the quotes on the Giggle homepage. But people of all genders can be misogynistic. Women-only spaces are valid and useful, but by no means are they inherently free of misogyny or oppression or even casual sexism, and this dependence on binary ideals — the idea that making a ‘girl version’ of something (say, a startup), makes it intrinsically more altruistic and empowering simply by dint of being female-led — undermines the values of intersectional feminism that recognise other aspects of oppression in ways beyond a one-size-fits-all sexism. The concept of fixing something by making it female-led, blights contemporary femtech start-ups. Terms like ‘shero’, ‘girlboss’ and ‘She-E-O’, unwittingly highlight the patriarchal implication that a woman can only ever be a version, a subcategory of what a man is and does. A new flavour of CEO, but a limited edition one.

This preoccupation with a singular, superficial feminine ‘power’ in the face of patriarchal challenge also ignores how race, class, sexuality and gender fluidity affect the experience of women within spaces both physical and digital, and forgets that women, too can wield traditionally patriarchal and oppressive means. We can see this at work with Giggle’s use of gender classification through the gathering of biometric data — it’s an invasive and hierarchical approach with a friendly female facade. It is possible that Grover and the others behind Giggle have just deeply misunderstood modern day identity politics like many before them, mistaking a movement dedicated to addressing mass inequality on an intersectional basis for a glittery, marketable strain of girl power. But the phrase “biometric gender verification software” staunches sympathy. The safety of girls on Giggle, gated against presumed male bullies and predators and general “nastiness”, and now also against transgender women, is the network’s goal. But there is nothing innocent about gathering ‘3D selfies’ of consumers and there certainly is something malevolent in technologically quantifying gender according to bone structure.

Before becoming vocal about Giggle’s intolerance of trans women, Grover released various Instagram videos following the early complaints about Giggle’s approach. Strangely these don’t discuss the issues publicly raised, (transphobia, gender categorisation and data harvesting) focusing instead on the general bleakness of misogyny and reiterating the ‘girls vs. boys’ debate. Grover does not mention transphobia or the moral dubiousness of gender verification software, focusing on the abuse she recieved rather than the valid criticisms, and sacrificing any useful or compassionate response for a now-deleted filmed chat with her mum where they frame the entire debacle as a misogynistic attack on Giggle, orchestrated by men. Grover reads out praise for Giggle, sent to her, we are told, by girls, whilst her mother reads out hate messages that we are told are all from boys. This binary narrative Grover falls back on is an irresponsible portrayal of “men and boys”, who are spoken of with exasperated pauses and ‘amirite ladies’ eye rolls, but also ignores the swathes of women, trans and non-binary people expressing worry online about her company. Again, we see this flashy, marketable dismissal of men as sub-human creeps that allows women to mark themselves as high-status and feel ‘feminist’ and progressive about it, without having to do any work in terms of addressing the root causes of gender, class, race and sexuality-based inequalities, or indeed understanding men who are hurt by patriarchy. Grover does not address the concerns women have expressed: that gender-identifying software is a flawed and exclusionary concept at its core, that it will reiterate traumatic experiences for trans people, and that girls trying to use this app are made not safer, but in fact more vulnerable by submitting biometric data to a company they know nothing about. We can not condone any of the abusive messages Grover has no doubt received amongst those expressing concern about her company, but it is easy to understand how the trans community and its allies have felt ignored, excluded and threatened.

There is a small but crucial revelation in the (now deleted) video where Grover and her mother read out messages. In response to a goading comment suggesting the app looks like it was coded by a woman, Grover says: “It was coded by a man in fact, lots of men, and it’s been a very long, frustrating process. We wish it was coded by women.” Her mother adds “Women coders are hard to find.” Grover agrees. It’s an insight into how much the people behind this app actually understand about their field and audience (women coders are absolutely not hard to find), and how much the branding and appeal of this company rests on the gender binary. Women coders also do not necessarily make your software inherently fairer in a way men cannot, and the need of Grover and her mother to lament their lack of female coders and vilify their “frustrating” male coders shows a lack of understanding that people of any gender can support women. Considering the performative demonisation of men that runs throughout Giggle’s online output and coverage, it’s strange that we’re now seeing more of a male presence behind Giggle. (A recent article covering the online backlash to Giggle runs the story as a misogynistic attack led by men, again denying airtime to the concerns of women over privacy and exclusion, and describing the trans community as “waging a war” rather than addressing their legitimate concerns of being excluded as women). Grover refers to her dad one moment in an instagram video as her “intern” and elsewhere captions an Instagram picture of her him and her working as “me being all girly & creative & visiony while he puts it all into bornig [sic] business language.” Based on the information given, we have woman-targeting gender-recognition software developed by men, with women providing the rosé-in-hand empowerment branding up front — and that is worth paying attention to as we learn more about how a world designed by and for straight white cis men repeatedly fails women.

In the most circulated promotional photo of Grover she is wearing a t-shirt bearing the names of ‘the Monterey Five’, the leading female characters from the HBO show Big Little Lies — yet there is a glaring typo in the first name on the shirt: Reese Witherspoon’s character’s name is spelled wrong. This would not usually be something worth nitpicking about, but it is fascinating that the rest of Grover’s entire venture wields the same slapdash lack of attention to detail when it comes to who women actually are, cisgender or not. It’s not productive to pointlessly criticise other people’s passion projects — even those exploiting misguided feminist branding. So often it feels like the people at the core of these projects have drunk the girlboss kool-aid themselves, and don’t understand the damage and trivialisation they do. More often than not, there are more important issues of oppression to discuss. Bone structure-based, binary-reinforcing gender-recognition software though? Trans exclusion and submitting biometric data for membership? These innovations are the type that decrease our privacy and freedom and make way for insidious human categorisation, hitting the already-marginalised the hardest. We know how Giggle and its founder feel specifically about oppressive male trolls. How they feel about the oppressive implications of their software, however, we will have to wait and see.
['Rhiannon Williams']
['Gender Verification', 'Technology', 'Feminism', 'Transphobia', 'Gender']