Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

You are asking why setting up a yoga class which discriminates against women by excluding them because of their sex from attending the class is discrimination?

Do you understand why it is discriminatory for a person not to hire a woman because she's a woman? If so, you can apply that same logic to a person who does not allow a woman to attend a yoga class because she is a woman.

[Brian Peacock]

You are asking why setting up a yoga class which discriminates against women by excluding them because of their sex from attending the class is discrimination?

Not exactly.

I stated that the male equivalent of the yoga class in the article would be a men-only group with a male instructor.

To which you responded: "Which would, of course, itself be discrimination based on sex," and to which in turn I asked: "Why?"

If you're having trouble understanding the relevance of this unambiguous interrogative then perhaps I should be more explicit(?)

So the question is 'Why is a men-only or women-only yoga class (or men-only or women-only anything) necessarily discrimination? I know that you think that a men-only or women-only yoga class is discrimination because you've just stated that it is; that such a class is a discrimination against the other, non-participatory gender. Again, the question is 'Why?'

Now, I accept that you've also just stated that the exclusivity of single-sex yoga class (in the sense that it excludes) is problematic, but from this is one to assume that you think that anything which excludes one or other sex is necessarily discriminatory - or do you think that this kind of discrimination only applies to yoga classes?

If you think that's a bit of a leading question then I'm happy to agree that it is, but it's simply an attempt at drawing you into explaining your position in a little more detail.

Do you understand why it is discriminatory for a person not to hire a woman because she's a woman? If so, you can apply that same logic to a person who does not allow a woman to attend a yoga class because she is a woman.

This is a whole different issue and, if I may say, a bit of a gish-gallop. A single-sex yoga class is a voluntary event, attendance is wholly at the discretion of the attendees, and the class cited in the article concerned something particular to women only. Employment law has little relevance to this matter, and certainly carries no illuminating equivalence.

[JimC]

The basis of Forty Two's angst about this issue is that he seems to believe that, because of feminist politics, in the US today a female only class (of yoga or any other voluntary activity) would be regarded as perfectly acceptable, but a male only class would not. I doubt this is true, but if it was, it would be a form of sexual discrimination against men.

[pErvinalia]

fart

Spoiler that shit!!

[pErvinalia]

The basis of Forty Two's angst about this issue is that he seems to believe that, because of feminist politics, in the US today a female only class (of yoga or any other voluntary activity) would be regarded as perfectly acceptable, but a male only class would not. I doubt this is true, but if it was, it would be a form of sexual discrimination against men.

It might technically be, but in reality it's not as if there isn't another equivalent class available. Although, I guess there could be towns around where there is only one yoga class (or gym, as another common example) and it is single-sex, meaning that the excluded sex doesn't have equal opportunity to pursue their practice.

[Brian Peacock]

The basis of Forty Two's angst about this issue is that he seems to believe that, because of feminist politics, in the US today a female only class (of yoga or any other voluntary activity) would be regarded as perfectly acceptable, but a male only class would not. I doubt this is true, but if it was, it would be a form of sexual discrimination against men.

If that is his view, and I'm not sure that it is, then it's clearly bunkum - a form of special pleading. It would mean that, for example, classes which taught women how to examine their breasts for lumps, or a classes which taught men how to examine their balls for lumps, would fall foul of his definition of discrimination while, presumably, the women-only class would be considered perfectly acceptable (socially or culturally, thanks to feminism) and the men-only class would be considered unacceptable (socially or culturally, thanks to feminism). Services or products aimed towards a target gender are not necessarily discriminatory, but if and where they are or might be the charge should be justified rather than simply asserted.

[pErvinalia]

I suspect that there would be a tiny minority (or in 42's view a MASSIVE WORLD ENDING MAJJORITY!!) who would proclaim that as sexist. Think about men-only golf courses and clubs. They are considered discriminatory by a certain subset of people. Do you think those people would consider the reverse to be discriminatory?

[JimC]

There are fewer and fewer men-only or women-only social institutions as time goes on, with the exceptions being for rational reasons, such as the breast or bollocks examination classes someone mentioned.

An interesting example which has caused some angst was the decision (possibly since reversed) by a Melbourne council to set aside on morning at a local pool as a woman-only session, at the request of local muslims, who argued that their women were forbidden by their religion to swim with males present...

[pErvinalia]

Oh gawd, that's going to set 42 off!

But a more common one these days is female only gyms. And they are not getting fewer and fewer. The number is growing. And to be clear, I don't give a fuck. FortyTwo, of course, will consider this the end of the free world!

[Tero]

Just cut off all them penises and let the men in the class. It's just the penises they don't want in the class. They can keep the comical testicles.

[pErvinalia]

What if they tuck? That should be acceptable.

[JimC]

With a little training, blokes could do the sea-anemone thing at will...

[Brian Peacock]

An interesting example which has caused some angst was the decision (possibly since reversed) by a Melbourne council to set aside on morning at a local pool as a woman-only session, at the request of local muslims, who argued that there women were forbidden by their religion to swim with males present...

Would that raise the same concerns if the pool set aside a disabled-only session, or parent-and-toddler sessions? Would the childless non-disabled consider that an affront and a discrimination - unfair because childless non-disabled people would be being 'excluded' when they might want to swim at that time? And if so, would that say anything about Melbourne society or just those particularly annoyed childless non-disabled people?

[JimC]

An interesting example which has caused some angst was the decision (possibly since reversed) by a Melbourne council to set aside on morning at a local pool as a woman-only session, at the request of local muslims, who argued that there women were forbidden by their religion to swim with males present...

Would that raise the same concerns if the pool set aside a disabled-only session, or parent-and-toddler sessions? Would the childless non-disabled consider that an affront and a discrimination - unfair because childless non-disabled people would be being 'excluded' when they might want to swim at that time? And if so, what would that say about Melbourne society or those particularly annoyed childless non-disabled people?

Yeah, good points, Brian. I wasn't arguing for or against really, but there have always been times that pools have been closed for swim lessons, although quite often just half the pool, with the other half being lanes for regulars to train in. The islamic women would not see half a pool as acceptable, because all those dangerous males could see them in their neck to knee costumes...

[laklak]

I would do nothing to pander to their religious idiocy. But then again I'm an asshole who really enjoys passing off idiots.