I don’t really see it this way. Fernwood, a women only gym, is allowed to exist. I don’t really see it as problematic for a discriminated class to seek to foster a space free from those who perpetuate that discrimination. Men-only spaces have existed for quite literally most of civilised history. I don’t think it sets a precedent for protected classes to be discriminated against as “art” because men aren’t a class that needs protecting (from discrimination about their status as men). This whole case just feels like a hissy fit.
Note for any other trans women in the audience: Fernwood as a company is trans-inclusive.
Because there are sections of the law which allow exemption from the gender discrimination section for various reasons, and they have successfully argued that there are benefits to having a women only gym which are important enough to deserve an exemption (to provide substantive equality). They also only allow women patrons, so men are not charged for a service that is not equally provided.
I don’t really see it as problematic for a discriminated class to seek to foster a space free from those who perpetuate that discrimination
Neither do many other people, which is why such examples as Fernwood have received exemptions from the law and why there is a specific exemption in the laws for both female and male only clubs.
I don’t think it sets a precedent for protected classes to be discriminated against as “art” because men aren’t a class that needs protecting
Allowing discrimination based on gender without substantiating the businesses eligibility for an exemption under the law absolutely would set a precedent for the courts. While you may agree with this particular case of discrimination it is not a good idea to open an opportunity for more discrimination in the future - keep in mind it may not always be the type you agree with.
While you may agree with this particular case of discrimination it is not a good idea to open an opportunity for more discrimination in the future - keep in mind it may not always be the type you agree with.
I think this sort of slippery slope argument is a cop out. I agree, there are plenty of situations where discrimination based on gender would not provide a substantive benefit to society. For example, a women’s only supermarket would be ridiculous. This conversation, and the article, is specifically discussing the realm of art exhibitions, and a marginalised groups right to have an exhibit be an exclusive place. I am a woman, and you’re right that it does give me a bias here. As an example though, I’m white, and I would be perfectly okay being excluded from an exhibit that was set aside for Indigenous Australians. I think the cultural significance of art can be really important, while also generally not causing a person harm to miss out on.
They also only allow women patrons, so men are not charged for a service that is not equally provided.
In the example I just gave I’d personally be fine paying regardless for say, the admission to a whole gallery with just one exhibit inaccessible to me. I do see how this could be a problem though. Would it be a good enough resolution then, if that was a seperate ticket than the general admission? What if that exhibit ticket was then free though? Free as in, for anyone of that group even without a gallery ticket.
I don’t really see it this way. Fernwood, a women only gym, is allowed to exist. I don’t really see it as problematic for a discriminated class to seek to foster a space free from those who perpetuate that discrimination. Men-only spaces have existed for quite literally most of civilised history. I don’t think it sets a precedent for protected classes to be discriminated against as “art” because men aren’t a class that needs protecting (from discrimination about their status as men). This whole case just feels like a hissy fit.
Note for any other trans women in the audience: Fernwood as a company is trans-inclusive.
Because there are sections of the law which allow exemption from the gender discrimination section for various reasons, and they have successfully argued that there are benefits to having a women only gym which are important enough to deserve an exemption (to provide substantive equality). They also only allow women patrons, so men are not charged for a service that is not equally provided.
Neither do many other people, which is why such examples as Fernwood have received exemptions from the law and why there is a specific exemption in the laws for both female and male only clubs.
Allowing discrimination based on gender without substantiating the businesses eligibility for an exemption under the law absolutely would set a precedent for the courts. While you may agree with this particular case of discrimination it is not a good idea to open an opportunity for more discrimination in the future - keep in mind it may not always be the type you agree with.
I think this sort of slippery slope argument is a cop out. I agree, there are plenty of situations where discrimination based on gender would not provide a substantive benefit to society. For example, a women’s only supermarket would be ridiculous. This conversation, and the article, is specifically discussing the realm of art exhibitions, and a marginalised groups right to have an exhibit be an exclusive place. I am a woman, and you’re right that it does give me a bias here. As an example though, I’m white, and I would be perfectly okay being excluded from an exhibit that was set aside for Indigenous Australians. I think the cultural significance of art can be really important, while also generally not causing a person harm to miss out on.
In the example I just gave I’d personally be fine paying regardless for say, the admission to a whole gallery with just one exhibit inaccessible to me. I do see how this could be a problem though. Would it be a good enough resolution then, if that was a seperate ticket than the general admission? What if that exhibit ticket was then free though? Free as in, for anyone of that group even without a gallery ticket.