Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

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?

Actually, there is a subgroup in society of childless people who DO rail against discrimination against them. I think the lesson from this is that there really are some uptight jerkwads in our societies.

[JimC]

I do see it as special pleading for religious body-phobia with no rational justification, I must admit...

[pErvinalia]

Definitely. Personally, I think the religious can go and get fucked. But the reality is that wider society and the state confers special status on religion, and while that is the case, they are going to get these sorts of concessions. In terms of religious fuckwittery, swimming is pretty low on my list. I really don't care if the Muslimas get to swim around in their tents without men for a half day every now and then.

[Hermit]

fart

Spoiler that shit!!

It's only shit if he follows through.

[Hermit]

Melbourne society

Oxymoron alert.

[JimC]

[pErvinalia]

Melbourne society

Oxymoron alert.

[Scot Dutchy]

Here it is illegal to have women or men only classes about anything. I go to spa/sauna which is connected which is here called a sports school but in the Anglo-Saxon world a gym. They give all different types of yoga's and wellness courses which are open to everyone. The sauna's are open to every one and are naked as swimwear is not allowed. We do get the odd transgender as well but nobody takes any notice. It is all very relaxed.

[pErvinalia]

This might be why they need separate classes...

uploadfromtaptalk1465551320916.jpg (61.1 KiB) Viewed 2944 times

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

That's definitely problematic..

[Forty Two]

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?

Actually, there is a subgroup in society of childless people who DO rail against discrimination against them. I think the lesson from this is that there really are some uptight jerkwads in our societies.

Leading the pack of uptight jerkwads are the social justice warriors. Not sure why anyone who sympathizes with one group of whining douches would be upset by another group of whining douches.

[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?

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?'

Because if you exclude someone from something, like employment, a club, a class, etc., based on their sex, you are discriminating against them based on their sex, by definition - making a distinction based on sex.

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?

Indeed, isn't excluding someone from walking into a room based on their sex the very definition of discriminating against them on the basis of their sex?

If I have two sidewalks, one for men to walk down, and the other for women, isn't that "discrimination based on sex?"

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.

The issue was with the question "why?" I mean, the "why" appears very clear on the face of it. An exclusion is being made based on sex. I read the definition of discrimination and it seems to cover it quite well. My question would be, how is it not discrimination? And, if it's not discrimination, then can the same be said of a coffee shop that won't serve men? Or, a cake maker who won't bake a cake for men? Or, an employer who won't hire men? What's the difference?

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.

Working for a yoga school is a voluntary event (nobody is forced to work there, or anywhere), and attendance at work is at the discretion of the employee (if he or she doesn't want to work, they don't have to go -- same as with the class - if you don't go you don't go). Employment is not mandatory.

But, take another example - a baker who won't male only bakery, or a female only bakery.

[Forty Two]

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 is absolutely true. If it's open to the public, and not in someone's home or a private club, then it would violate every state's nondiscrimination laws to exclude women. Exceptions have been made for women only clubs.

However, the tide will turn when trans women and female-identifying-male-body-persons claim the right to join the women-only gym. Women's discomfort apparently is only a good reason to discriminate against CIS men. If they want to discriminate against males who identify as gender-female, or who trans to a female body physically, then that won't fly anymore. I mean, women have to put up with men in the bathroom, if the men identify as female gender, so it's hard to rationalize not requiring them to put up with it at the gym or in the yoga class.

[Forty Two]

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.

Separate but equivalent?