Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#11

Post by eesmith »

like_any_other wrote: post #9
sim7c00 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply because its 'public'. A straight man or woman can go to a gay club or bar, and they can't block or ban you. since it's a public place. If you want to restrict access, you need to make it private. - this is sensible and not weird. It's weird people claim something to be 'public' but then want to restrict access. And for the record, it can be alot of fun going to a lesbian or gay event or club or bar or…

> If you want to restrict access, you need to make it private. - this is sensible and not weird. It's weird people claim something to be 'public' but then want to restrict access. Why is it "weird" to want to restrict an event to only lesbians? It only seems to be "weird" if you impose a false public/private dichotomy on it. But, presumably, the lesbian group doesn't care about "public" or "private", only "lesbian" o…

In the US you cannot exclude people from a public event based on sex, race, national origin, and a few other characteristics. (The full list depends on the location.)

On the other hand, if you want a white-only private club, that's well within your right.

As I read it, the Australian law is similar. From https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#sda :

> The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 protects people from unfair treatment on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Would it be weird to want to exclude pregnant women from a public event?

What about preventing unmarried people?

Friends of mine organized a Valentine's Day party that was only for single people. That's a private event, so legal. As I read understand it, an Australian bar couldn't have a public Valentine's Day party with the same restrictions.

The same law, it would seem, prohibits banning bisexual women from a public event organized by a lesbian group.

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#12

Post by like_any_other »

eesmith wrote: post #11
like_any_other wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to restrict access, you need to make it private. - this is sensible and not weird. It's weird people claim something to be 'public' but then want to restrict access. Why is it "weird" to want to restrict an event to only lesbians? It only seems to be "weird" if you impose a false public/private dichotomy on it. But, presumably, the lesbian group doesn't care about "public" or "private", only "lesbian" o…

In the US you cannot exclude people from a public event based on sex, race, national origin, and a few other characteristics. (The full list depends on the location.) On the other hand, if you want a white-only private club, that's well within your right. As I read it, the Australian law is similar. From https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#sda : > The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 protects people from…

That's "legal" vs. "illegal", not "weird" vs. "normal". It does seem like Australian law forbids such "public" events, I agree with you there.

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#13

Post by [deleted] »

eesmith wrote: post #10
bedlamb wrote: post #8

> Anna Brown, the CEO of Equality Australia, welcomed the tribunal’s finding "which recognises discrimination laws exist to protect all of us, especially communities that have experienced historical discrimination and marginalisation". Does that description not include those who are female and homosexual? > The commission argued that granting the LAG an exemption from usual gender discrimination laws could contribute…

You are, I think, too focused on the transwoman part of it, and leaving how how the group also wants to exclude bisexual women (including non-transwomen) from public events. Why should an anti-discrimination law allow a lesbian group to exclude bisexual women (trans or otherwise) from a public event? If you think that's okay, then you are fine with gender discrimination. If you think that's an issue, then apply the s…

[deleted]

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#14

Post by bedlamb »

eesmith wrote: post #10
bedlamb wrote: post #8

> Anna Brown, the CEO of Equality Australia, welcomed the tribunal’s finding "which recognises discrimination laws exist to protect all of us, especially communities that have experienced historical discrimination and marginalisation". Does that description not include those who are female and homosexual? > The commission argued that granting the LAG an exemption from usual gender discrimination laws could contribute…

You are, I think, too focused on the transwoman part of it, and leaving how how the group also wants to exclude bisexual women (including non-transwomen) from public events. Why should an anti-discrimination law allow a lesbian group to exclude bisexual women (trans or otherwise) from a public event? If you think that's okay, then you are fine with gender discrimination. If you think that's an issue, then apply the s…

There is precedent for this, in that a chain of pubs for gay men was granted permission to discriminate, by the same governmental commission that refused this for the lesbian organization.

From htps://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/lesbian_rights_australia_submission_1.pdf:

> On that note, I would also like to once again point out the comparatively preferential treatment that men have received when they apply for exemptions to protect their spaces on the basis of sex, sexuality and gender identity. Often little more than anecdotal evidence has been considered compelling enough to support such applications for men. The Peel, The Laird and The Sircuit Bar operate venues and events where they can rightfully exclude would-be patrons on the basis of sex, sexuality and gender identity. The Peel, a venue exclusively for gay men, even happily advertises itself as "exempt from anti-discrimination laws". Meanwhile, in regards to the Lesbian Action Group’s application (and other similar applications in regards to lesbian-only events), dozens of submissions from experts, containing tomes of studies and references on the subject, are apparently not compelling enough to the Commission. The irony is not lost on me that the Commission's sexist double standards will be a primary reason for refusing this exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act.

So on the same basis, why should an organisation set up for the benefit of those who are both female and homosexual not be permitted a similar exemption from anti-discrimination laws, so they can legally exclude from their own public events all others who are not both female and homosexual?

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#15

Post by sim7c00 »

like_any_other wrote: post #12
eesmith wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US you cannot exclude people from a public event based on sex, race, national origin, and a few other characteristics. (The full list depends on the location.) On the other hand, if you want a white-only private club, that's well within your right. As I read it, the Australian law is similar. From https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#sda : > The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 protects people from…

That's "legal" vs. "illegal", not "weird" vs. "normal". It does seem like Australian law forbids such "public" events, I agree with you there.

if you call something 'public' then it should be public... it's weird to then not have it be public. All definitions of the word 'public' seem to agree with me. But you know... i guess meaning changes with the times?? I guess i called it 'weird' because it defies the meaning of the word. that's weird _to me_.

adjective 1. of or concerning the people as a whole. "public concern"

noun 1. ordinary people in general; the community.

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#16

Post by eesmith »

like_any_other wrote: post #12
eesmith wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US you cannot exclude people from a public event based on sex, race, national origin, and a few other characteristics. (The full list depends on the location.) On the other hand, if you want a white-only private club, that's well within your right. As I read it, the Australian law is similar. From https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#sda : > The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 protects people from…

That's "legal" vs. "illegal", not "weird" vs. "normal". It does seem like Australian law forbids such "public" events, I agree with you there.

I think you should read "If you want to restrict access, you need to make it private. - this is sensible and not weird." as "If you want to restrict access [based on legally protected characteristics], you need to make it private. - this is sensible and not weird."

It is not weird to follow the law, and the public/private distinction has been around for a couple of generations.

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#17

Post by like_any_other »

sim7c00 wrote: post #15
like_any_other wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's "legal" vs. "illegal", not "weird" vs. "normal". It does seem like Australian law forbids such "public" events, I agree with you there.

if you call something 'public' then it should be public... it's weird to then not have it be public. All definitions of the word 'public' seem to agree with me. But you know... i guess meaning changes with the times?? I guess i called it 'weird' because it defies the meaning of the word. that's weird _to me_. adjective 1. of or concerning the people as a whole. "public concern" noun 1. ordinary people in general; the…

> if you call something 'public'

It doesn't matter what they call it, the law itself determines what counts as "private" and what "public". Unfortunately I can't find the exact definition that the law uses, but I'm reasonably confident that a "lesbians with XX chromosomes only" event, even if it never used the word "public" in its marketing, would be illegal - nothing in the article suggests otherwise.

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#18

Post by eesmith »

bedlamb wrote: post #14
eesmith wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are, I think, too focused on the transwoman part of it, and leaving how how the group also wants to exclude bisexual women (including non-transwomen) from public events. Why should an anti-discrimination law allow a lesbian group to exclude bisexual women (trans or otherwise) from a public event? If you think that's okay, then you are fine with gender discrimination. If you think that's an issue, then apply the s…

There is precedent for this, in that a chain of pubs for gay men was granted permission to discriminate, by the same governmental commission that refused this for the lesbian organization. From htps://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/lesbian_rights_australia_submission_1.pdf: > On that note, I would also like to once again point out the comparatively preferential treatment that men have received when they apply…

Because as the linked-to article says 'Exemptions carved into the SDA allow for discrimination in certain cases', and in its previous reporting at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/sep/... :

> But a lawyer for the Australian Human Rights Commission said the Peel hotel’s exemption had been granted under Victorian state law to help gay men achieve equality, unlike the Lesbian Action Group’s application, which discriminates against transgender women. ...

> The organization 'maintains that transgender women are men and seeks to discriminate against them under provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) that carve out space for lawful discrimination for the purpose of achieving equality.'

I am a programmer with no experience in Australian law. Find and read the decision yourself rather than caring about my ill-informed views.

Re: Australian lesbian group cannot exclude males and bisexuals, tribunal rules

#19

Post by sim7c00 »

like_any_other wrote: post #17
sim7c00 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you call something 'public' then it should be public... it's weird to then not have it be public. All definitions of the word 'public' seem to agree with me. But you know... i guess meaning changes with the times?? I guess i called it 'weird' because it defies the meaning of the word. that's weird _to me_. adjective 1. of or concerning the people as a whole. "public concern" noun 1. ordinary people in general; the…

> if you call something 'public' It doesn't matter what they call it, the law itself determines what counts as "private" and what "public". Unfortunately I can't find the exact definition that the law uses, but I'm reasonably confident that a "lesbians with XX chromosomes only" event, even if it never used the word "public" in its marketing, would be illegal - nothing in the article suggests otherwise.

laws differ between countries, so that's likely hard to find a general case for. I do mean by 'calling something public', that it would adhere to a formal definition of that word in the area where it's being used.

As far as I can tell, the consideration is mostly the venue. if its on public grounds or property, or if its on a private property.

it depends on various things. venue type (private or public proprty), advertising - where are the adverts posted, in public or private platforms / view / reach, purpose of the event (commercial / promotional goals) and 'access controls'.

so in essence i dont think i am wrong - if you want to restrict access to only a certain group of people, you'd need to do it on private property, and only advertise it to that group of people and make clear its a private event at a private venue.

all in all, it's not only the 'wording' public or private, but several other factors that litterally revolve around 'the general public knowing about it and having access to it' e.g. via ticket sales, guest access to the event or otherwise.

this also says nothing about 'discrimination' ofcourse. - i'd expect there'd be resistance to 'private events on public property' - like a private club night or something, if the descrimitory factor is race, sexe, dna based or other things that can be coined as negative discrimination of groups of people. - you'd need to do it on a private venue, and ensure your advertising and access controls aligns with that.

I think as an event organizer (gonna use the word again) its weird if you don't take into account all such factors if you know you are discriminating people based on sexual preferences and DNA. its 2025 - sadly even the woke people seem asleep at the wheel!

it's not hard to figure these things out!

Post reply on HN