4 ms·

Are non-inclusive safe spaces legal? It seems that in residences that it would be sanctionable to deny housing based on assigned sex or gender identity, and in

Are non-inclusive safe spaces legal? It seems that in residences that it would be sanctionable to deny housing based on assigned sex or gender identity, and in education it would be sanctionable to have admissions based on that as well. I was curious about this with Hackbright too, but I wasn't interested in this cause enough to see what legal counsel thought of it (it was the closest coding academy to me at one point). The California regulator ended up slapping them with other violations, and the sanctions seem fairly toothless. I don't really think the various Civil Rights Acts support the bay area's rebranding of separate but equal.

dlgeek 6y ago
I think the residence non-discrimination requirements don't apply if it's a shared space, only if it's a multi-family dwelling over a certain number of units.
- vmception 6y ago
  Ah possibly, thats how employment works too, some anti-discrimination statutes coming into play after a certain number of employees.
MyHypatia 6y ago
Yes, non-inclusive spaces are legal. There are still golf clubs in the US that don't allow women. Just last week the top golf club in the US voted to allow women for the first time in its 108 year history. If these male-only spaces are legal I don't see how these female-only spaces would be illegal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/31372032/top-ranked-pine-valley-golf-course-allow-women-members%3fplatform=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/31...
- vmception 6y ago
  Just because something hasn't been challenged doesn't mean it is legal and the ongoing existence of a counterpoint is not a strong argument regarding legal review. And the more obvious difference to me is that your example is not providing housing and is not providing education. There are really two questions here, the first being is it legal, and the second being is this what we want whether it is currently legal or currently illegal? If the answer to the second question is "yes" then carry on. To me it currently seems incompatible, and I am still trying to understand what the current consensus is. I don't have strong opinions on it, or much of anything, which is why I gravitate towards the legal field because - like lawyers - I can compartmentalize anything. So I am aiming to also understand the consensus on what people desire and if "safe spaces" are the most productive approach to getting there.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    People have the freedom to hang out with who they want?
    - vmception 6y ago
      With some limitations on housing, education, and employment. The question is whether those limitations apply here.
      - mensetmanusman 6y ago
        People have the freedom to sleep, learn, and work with who they want? (It’s interesting to consider when this isn’t true in the US from a philosophical point of view)
  - MyHypatia 6y ago
    Ok, some other examples include: -Seminaries and monasteries that only house and educate men. -Women's colleges that only house and educate women. -Homeless and domestic violence shelters that only house men or women. -All-boys and all-girls schools that only educate boys or girls. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is "good" or "bad". I'm just pointing out that there are many examples though out the United States. So your statement that "the bay area is rebranding separate but equal" just doesn't make any sense when this is common in various forms throughout the entire United States.
- ummonk 6y ago
  That golf club is not in California.
Barrin92 6y ago
>I don't really think the various Civil Rights Acts support the bay area's rebranding of separate but equal. that is an incredible bad faith characterization. In informal 'frat house' style settings that don't have many rules women often face incredible amounts of harassment because mostly men don't respect boundaries. It's why there is such a stereotypical bro-culture in SV, it's enabled by the laissez-faire attitude. In settings with rules and where people expect professionalism it doesn't tend to be as much of an issue, but in some house where people even mix drinking and work it tends to go bad really quick.
- vmception 6y ago
  It's supposed to be provocative to potentially stoke introspection. I understand the rationale behind "safe spaces", that wasn't my question.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    well it's not provocative, it's just stupid. The whole "oh safe spaces? See you're the real racist!" thing you can find in the youtube comment section of Ben Shapiro videos. You're not making some genius point here, you're just not familiar with the kind of experiences women face in these environments or lack the social intelligence to imagine it, like 95% of the HN audience.
    - vmception 6y ago
      your words and I’m not familiar with those influencers Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws? Do you see how easy that is for me to have zero emotion on this, your turn. Think of it as a standardized test question, you have to answer those based on accuracy.
      - Barrin92 6y ago
        >Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws? Obviously. Private, gender separated clubs exist everywhere in the United States. Ever been to a sports club or a fraternity? Civil rights legislation addresses employment and 'spaces of public accommodation'. You're obviously JAQing off because you know this
javagram 6y ago
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview#_What_Types_of https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f... “ The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In very limited circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family houses sold or rented by the owner without the use of an agent, and housing operated by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.” So, they may be able to get by legally under the private club/member exemption.
- vmception 6y ago
  Thanks! The California version can be stricter too with fair housing and employment being under one agency Education under another though
klyrs 6y ago
I'm still waiting to see a lawsuit forcing strip clubs to hire equal proportions of male and female dancers
- vmception 6y ago
  In California they only recently got reclassified as employees and the club as employer, so you were waiting for that first and now you might be able to get the challenge you desired.
- staticman2 6y ago
  I know there are first amendment exceptions that would, for example, not require a movie to consider male actors for the role of Juliet or woman actors for the role of Romeo.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  That would almost certainly fall under the "bona fide occupational qualification"[1] exception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
  - vmception 6y ago
    Oh that's interesting, so the strip club featuring women could have to just have other positions like bouncers, doormen, cooks etc that were fillable by both men and women, which they already do. I didn't even think of that in the prior person's example.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      That's because I specified "dancers". But... as the gay cakes case shows, bisexuals probably won't be able to compel strip clubs to cater to them.
ummonk 6y ago
Not in California, no. This house would not be allowed to exclude men.

dlgeek 6y ago

I think the residence non-discrimination requirements don't apply if it's a shared space, only if it's a multi-family dwelling over a certain number of units.

vmception 6y ago
Ah possibly, thats how employment works too, some anti-discrimination statutes coming into play after a certain number of employees.

MyHypatia 6y ago

Yes, non-inclusive spaces are legal. There are still golf clubs in the US that don't allow women. Just last week the top golf club in the US voted to allow women for the first time in its 108 year history. If these male-only spaces are legal I don't see how these female-only spaces would be illegal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/31372032/top-ranked-pine-valley-golf-course-allow-women-members%3fplatform=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/31...

vmception 6y ago
Just because something hasn't been challenged doesn't mean it is legal and the ongoing existence of a counterpoint is not a strong argument regarding legal review. And the more obvious difference to me is that your example is not providing housing and is not providing education. There are really two questions here, the first being is it legal, and the second being is this what we want whether it is currently legal or currently illegal? If the answer to the second question is "yes" then carry on. To me it currently seems incompatible, and I am still trying to understand what the current consensus is. I don't have strong opinions on it, or much of anything, which is why I gravitate towards the legal field because - like lawyers - I can compartmentalize anything. So I am aiming to also understand the consensus on what people desire and if "safe spaces" are the most productive approach to getting there.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  People have the freedom to hang out with who they want?
  - vmception 6y ago
    With some limitations on housing, education, and employment. The question is whether those limitations apply here.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      People have the freedom to sleep, learn, and work with who they want? (It’s interesting to consider when this isn’t true in the US from a philosophical point of view)
- MyHypatia 6y ago
  Ok, some other examples include: -Seminaries and monasteries that only house and educate men. -Women's colleges that only house and educate women. -Homeless and domestic violence shelters that only house men or women. -All-boys and all-girls schools that only educate boys or girls. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is "good" or "bad". I'm just pointing out that there are many examples though out the United States. So your statement that "the bay area is rebranding separate but equal" just doesn't make any sense when this is common in various forms throughout the entire United States.
ummonk 6y ago
That golf club is not in California.

Barrin92 6y ago

>I don't really think the various Civil Rights Acts support the bay area's rebranding of separate but equal. that is an incredible bad faith characterization. In informal 'frat house' style settings that don't have many rules women often face incredible amounts of harassment because mostly men don't respect boundaries. It's why there is such a stereotypical bro-culture in SV, it's enabled by the laissez-faire attitude. In settings with rules and where people expect professionalism it doesn't tend to be as much of an issue, but in some house where people even mix drinking and work it tends to go bad really quick.

vmception 6y ago
It's supposed to be provocative to potentially stoke introspection. I understand the rationale behind "safe spaces", that wasn't my question.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  well it's not provocative, it's just stupid. The whole "oh safe spaces? See you're the real racist!" thing you can find in the youtube comment section of Ben Shapiro videos. You're not making some genius point here, you're just not familiar with the kind of experiences women face in these environments or lack the social intelligence to imagine it, like 95% of the HN audience.
  - vmception 6y ago
    your words and I’m not familiar with those influencers Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws? Do you see how easy that is for me to have zero emotion on this, your turn. Think of it as a standardized test question, you have to answer those based on accuracy.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      >Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws? Obviously. Private, gender separated clubs exist everywhere in the United States. Ever been to a sports club or a fraternity? Civil rights legislation addresses employment and 'spaces of public accommodation'. You're obviously JAQing off because you know this

javagram 6y ago

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview#_What_Types_of https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f... “ The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In very limited circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family houses sold or rented by the owner without the use of an agent, and housing operated by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.” So, they may be able to get by legally under the private club/member exemption.

vmception 6y ago
Thanks! The California version can be stricter too with fair housing and employment being under one agency Education under another though

klyrs 6y ago

I'm still waiting to see a lawsuit forcing strip clubs to hire equal proportions of male and female dancers

vmception 6y ago
In California they only recently got reclassified as employees and the club as employer, so you were waiting for that first and now you might be able to get the challenge you desired.
staticman2 6y ago
I know there are first amendment exceptions that would, for example, not require a movie to consider male actors for the role of Juliet or woman actors for the role of Romeo.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
That would almost certainly fall under the "bona fide occupational qualification"[1] exception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
- vmception 6y ago
  Oh that's interesting, so the strip club featuring women could have to just have other positions like bouncers, doormen, cooks etc that were fillable by both men and women, which they already do. I didn't even think of that in the prior person's example.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    That's because I specified "dancers". But... as the gay cakes case shows, bisexuals probably won't be able to compel strip clubs to cater to them.

ummonk 6y ago

Not in California, no. This house would not be allowed to exclude men.