262
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip

Australia's Mona asked a court to reverse its ruling that allowed men inside a women's only space.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/oHT6U

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

So we need a space for women abused by men, women abused by women, men abused by men, men abused by women, and people abused by mascots.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How about if people who want to create safe spaces just create the safe spaces they want to create, and we try to respect their need instead of making sure they've covered every corner case an uninvolved third party can imagine?

I'm pretty sure that if there is a large enough community of people abused by mascots in a given locality, someone will create a safe space for those people. The presence of a "safe space for female rape survivors" doesn't preclude someone who wants to from creating that, nor a safe space for male rape survivors.

[-] shottymcb@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

The problem I see is bigots using that as cover for their bigotry. "Sorry, this golf club is a safe space for people triggered by black people and women."

The government would have to decide that the discrimination we like is ok, but the discrimination we don't like isn't. Which has incredible potential for abuse when the wrong people end up in charge.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

Here's my problem with that (reasonable) viewpoint.

I think there is a fairly reasonable distinction that could be made between those two scenarios such that it should not be difficult to write the related laws in a way that handles both circumstances appropriately. You can phrase it as "the discrimination we like vs the discrimination we don't like" but I think that's overly reductive.

No one using this example (and there are a few) finds it hard to see the difference between a safe space for women and a club for bigots. If we can perceive that distinction, we can describe it with words, and we can legislate accordingly.

Otherwise, we’re deciding not to let people who need them have safe spaces because assholes might take advantage of our permissiveness. I’m not OK with that.

[-] shottymcb@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I mean give it a go. Yeah, it's easy to distinguish in a common sense sort of way. It's very much not an easy problem to solve in coherent legal wording, or it would've been already.

I agree that discrimination against vulnerable populations should absolutely not be ok, and women especially should have safe spaces to escape abusers even if it's difficult to make a legal argument.

Anyway, that's going to have to suffice for my argument, my daughter needs my attention more than lemmy😅

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Anyway, that’s going to have to suffice for my argument, my daughter needs my attention than lemmy

All good, thanks for the reply, we agree more than we don't!

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Better add non-binary into the mix, too.

this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
262 points (100.0% liked)

Interesting Global News

2600 readers
116 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS