• Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      The case is slightly more complicated than the comments indicate. The lawsuit hinged on the women only space being one exhibit in a general admission event; basically someone is making a stink because they paid full price and then were denied access to one thing in it.

      I’m not commenting at all here about my feelings on the topic, just trying to relay facts.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        I wonder if they think it would be ok for the women to be in the men’s bathrooms at the same museum? Sure there are separatel women’s bathrooms, but do the women’s bathrooms have urinals for them to use if they wanted to?

        I don’t think there should be a women only space in a general museum, except to make a point, but the cost of admission is not the argument to win that fight. If it’s to make a point, it shouldn’t be enforced.

        • Nate Cox@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Nah, I can’t get behind that as an argument.

          The restrooms aren’t an exhibit that you pay for, and it’s common knowledge when you buy a ticket that you won’t be able to use the restroom of the opposite gender as a general rule. Seems a bit hyperbolic.

          My personal take: just disclose this at the time of purchase. A simple asterisk on the general admission info noting that some exhibits will be [insert blocking restriction] would make the problem go away.

          • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Restrooms that are past the ticket barrier require a ticket. The ticket/museum discloses the fact that its female only prior to purchase, so common knowledge doesn’t play a part.

            I agree, its a poor argument, but its the same argument about something different on offer, that is accepted to discriminate.

            The fact that there is an exemption in the law to allow for things like this bit they deem it doesn’t seems wrong to me.

            However, the point of the piece seems to be to highlight discrimination and get people to think about it, so its achieved its purpose, if arts purpose can be measured.