Good. I think the other option - setting a precedent allowing businesses to skirt discrimination laws by claiming their behaviour was art - would have been a rather poor decision.
Mona: Court rules women’s-only exhibit must allow male visitors
Submitted 7 months ago by useless_modern_god@aussie.zone to australia@aussie.zone
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68770187
Comments
Tau@aussie.zone 7 months ago
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
I don’t really see it this way. Fernwood, a woman 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 protections. 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.
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 7 months ago
This is a win for Mona and the artist. So much publicity. I wouldn’t be surprised if they asked a friend to sue them for the publicity.
TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 7 months ago
down with gender but who is making a stink about women’s only spaces?
Zagorath@aussie.zone 7 months ago
Someone has messed up here, either in their understanding of Australian courts, or their application of English idioms. Unclear whether Kaechele or the BBC are to blame. “All the way to” implies there are numerous other layers to fight through before you get there. But the Tasmanian Supreme Court is the very first appellate court this case could go to. Then it could be appealed “all the way to” the High Court of Australia.