Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#2I couldn't care less about this festival. Let them do what they want to do.
Anyway, from what i understood, "cis-men" was allowed, they needed to be due to construction, technicians etc, but they where "held" in what by the organizeres was called a "man-pen".
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#3> The DO said that no individuals had been discriminated against, and noted that the festival had not in practice enforced the ban on cisgender men
Alrighty then.
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#4I couldn't care less about this festival. Let them do what they want to do. Anyway, from what i understood, "cis-men" was allowed, they needed to be due to construction, technicians etc, but they where "held" in what by the organizeres was called a "man-pen".
They were allowed, but clearly discouraged, and that's enough to be in breach of the law. From the article:
> "No differentiation based on sex was made between visitors at entry," the ruling said. However, it added that "public statements which clearly discourage" a certain group from attending an event amounts to discrimination, and therefore the festival was in breach of the law prohibiting gender-based discrimination.
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#5> The DO said that no individuals had been discriminated against, and noted that the festival had not in practice enforced the ban on cisgender men Alrighty then.
Meaning what? The law extends to public statements which clearly discourage, even if they aren't enforced by denial of entry on the day.
Seems clear enough why this is the case: advertising with, say, No blacks allowed is prohibited, even if you don't enforce this policy on the day.
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#6I am curious, aren't we allowed to identify as whatever we want these days? As a male what would happen if I went up and told them I identify as a female?
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#7I am curious, aren't we allowed to identify as whatever we want these days? As a male what would happen if I went up and told them I identify as a female?
Yes, but once you start toggling your "identity" for whatever suits the occasion, it's not really an identity anymore.
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#8I am curious, aren't we allowed to identify as whatever we want these days? As a male what would happen if I went up and told them I identify as a female?
Yes, but once you start toggling your "identity" for whatever suits the occasion, it's not really an identity anymore.
What if that is my identity?
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#9I am curious, aren't we allowed to identify as whatever we want these days? As a male what would happen if I went up and told them I identify as a female?
Yes, but once you start toggling your "identity" for whatever suits the occasion, it's not really an identity anymore.
So, are you saying that the identity of gender benders is invalid?
Re: Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman
#10> The DO said that no individuals had been discriminated against, and noted that the festival had not in practice enforced the ban on cisgender men Alrighty then.
Meaning what? The law extends to public statements which clearly discourage , even if they aren't enforced by denial of entry on the day. Seems clear enough why this is the case: advertising with, say, No blacks allowed is prohibited, even if you don't enforce this policy on the day.
Meaning what you’ve pointed out is clear; the problem was the statement and not material discrimination. “No blacks allowed”, in America at least, was no idle threat.