Yeah, she’s a rapist with that lasso, but I’m sure she only rapes for good, not evil.
Anyway, I’m surprised anyone is defending this transphobic practice, or this transphobic company. Wait. No, I’m not. Policing what “woman” means is essential to making an event “women-only”, so the transphobia gets in free. It’s two-for-one night!
Whether this policy is transphobic depends on how the policy is enforced, which is never actually stated (at least, not anywhere in this thread). And the discussion in this thread is all on whether the policy is legal, not on whether it is morally right, so “defense” of it is largely irrelevant.
And who said anything about Wonder Woman raping anyone?
Now it appears people have taken legal action.
Why would you think this? I don’t see feminists as particularly shy about taking legal action when they see themselves discriminated against.
As to the event, I wonder if this would be a way to get around possible illegalities. would be to have Christies shoes pay to hire the theater for the night, and then have that organization decide to only sell tickets to women.
The theater could legitimately claim that it would be willing to hire its theater to any group regardless of gender, and Christies shoes as a private organization is allowed to sell tickets to whomever they want.
Does he even have standing? Does he need to in a case like this?
Wouldn’t that just shift the legal burden onto Christie’s? They’re still discriminating against a protecting class in a public accommodation. They’re no more or less “private” than the theater itself…?
My question as well. Can any of our Dope lawyers comment?
This sounds less like a lawsuit, and more like a mere whistle-blow/challenge, is the requirement for there to be standing, relaxed?
Especially since the theater broke the law by the mere act of announcing a no-men-allowed event. What plaintiff has legal standing in that situation?
How stupid. The guy says 'women who would like to go to this event with their gay man best friend and they can’t." Really, this is the only show? Just being screened one time? Really? I am sick of this whole “controversy”.
It’s just a prominent example of similar issues: Ladies’ nights in bars, men-only country clubs, women-only gyms, maybe even separate but equal bathrooms and lockers, etc.
Nobody in particular cares all that much about Wonder Woman, but the question of whether businesses should be allowed to favor protected classes is interesting.
I wouldn’t. I would concede that, if it is illegal, it may not be wise to do. But not that it is immoral.
Yes, the law is supposed to be just codifying what the populace think is so immoral it should be forced not to happen. But, in practice, there is a lot of moving parts. It is difficult to fix laws once they are enacted, for example. And they are always behind the times, by their very nature.
Especially in the case where some places make it illegal and others don’t, despite sharing a common culture, I don’t find the law all that useful in what people think is moral.
And, even then, it’s possible to think that the people are wrong. For example, a lot of people treat discriminating against the oppressed or minority class as exactly the same as discriminating against the majority or privileged class. I don’t. I am fine with “reverse racism” in some situations.
This one, I’m not sure about, however.
Those situations would be where there is a huge history of bigotry, and thus reverse bigotry may be, at certain levels, acceptable to fix the problem. This is why I’m okay with Black Entertainment Television or organizations that fight for the rights of minorities but ignore majorities. The issue is whether the ultimate goal (in theory and in practice) is equality.
I meant in this specific case (as I pointed out in an earlier follow-up to someone else making the same point). That is, if in THIS case (discrimination by gender) it is illegal (that is, it is actually actionable discrimination against males), would you not consider that immoral? Do you consider it ok to illegally discriminate on the basis of gender?
There are two showings in Austin, and also showings in Denver and New York City.
But again, it’s the legality that’s being debated here. Can anyone answer the issue of “standing;” whether for the sort of challenge that was filed by that law professor, one has to have actually been discriminated against personally, or whether merely belonging to the protected class that was discriminated against, suffices? (In order to be found to have standing)