Yes it is . Imagine the shitstorm if it were the other way around.
Any type of place that completely excludes a certain gender and sexuality from entry is in fact being discriminatory. The owner even uses the “cisgender men are privileged” bullshit excuse which is becoming more and more prevalent in LGTB+ circles nowadays. Can’t see how this shit will be allowed to keep operating. And I say this as a heterosexual woman.
This seems pretty simple, no? Try the reverse. Does it generate and outrage? There, you have your answer.
The reasoning behind it is pretty off. Let’s turn that one its head. We’re not a cafe against X, we’re for Y.
Sure, not every muslim/gay person/… is dangerous, but as a Y it’s impossible to know when shit will go down. I mean… turn those arguments around and you will not be having a great time.
I mean… we can call it what it is, discrimination. At least that’s what it feels like. At the same time we have ladies nights every… so perhaps it’s another situation of why even give a fuck. But it’s still important. Want to make a FLINTA night? Go right ahead imho, but the context here is different. You basically threw them out because of a factor they cannot control after they were already there.
It’s ok to treat one group in another way because they have advantages elsewhere… not sure if I stand behind that. I’d rather get the people who verbally abuse others thrown out and potentially banned (or schooled?).
100% yes, pure discrimination.
Yes, by definition it is discrimination. The real question is: is it justifiable (my instinct says no)
We really got this far, didn’t we?
People like this are no better than people who call all Muslims bad/terrorists/etc. They are literally judging a large group in our population based on the fact they are muslim (but in this case it’s straight men)
What is a cisgender man? Is that something new again? I’m losing track.
This even hurts actual LGBT+ people. The last thing they need is more enemies.
It’s sad because actions like these confirm the stereotype of the ‘aggressive testosterone laden transphobic’ cis men. I hope most LGBTQ+ people will understand that just because a few morons use verbal abuse doesn’t mean all cis men will.
> Volgens het Instituut voor Gelijkheid lijkt dat voorlopig niet het geval
Dan moeten we het instituut voor Gelijkheid maar ineens mee aanklagen voor aanzetten tot haat en discriminatie.
They made a one-off decision, based on events that took place during one party, but there doesn’t seem to be any intent to permanently keep out cis males. We can debate whether the right decision was made that night, and the article explains the nuances pretty well, but ultimately this is not that big of a deal IMHO.
If the cis males that got kicked out that night felt discriminated against, they can take legal action and a judge can decide. Personally, I’d be disappointed to get kicked out, but I’d understand 100% given the circumstances.
The ‘problem’ with this law is art. 9, which foresees that there is the possibility of excluding one gender entirely from a service or good that you provide, assuming there is a legitimate purpose that justifies it and the way you do it is fitting and proportional (the standard criteria for when excluding based on certain criteria is not discrimination).
However, §2 states that there will be a KB that contains a (limitative) list of the services and goods that can be made exclusively for one gender.
Despite this law being from 2007 there is currently no such KB.
Meaning per current Belgian law, it is simply illegal to offer any kind of goods or services to only one gender. The ‘limitative list’ of services that could allow that doesn’t exist so nobody can do it.
Hairdresser only does men? Sue them, they cant do that. Women only gyms? Nope, not allowed. Allowing only X or Y in your bar? Strictly speaking not allowed.
The standard ‘is it discrimination or is it justified’ test does not even apply here because the law says ‘never ok, unless its one of the following on the list, and in that case you do the test to see if its ok’ and it does not have a list, so we fall back on ‘simply never ok’.
Legally speaking there is no way to get to ‘lets see if this is justified’, because we’re only allowed to go there if the activity in question is on the aformentioned list. And since that doesn’t exist, no activity will ever be on there, so a judge (in theory) can never get to ‘lets see if this is justified’.
> “Er bestaat op dit moment geen enkel ander criterium om op zo’n moment de veilige plek terug te garanderen.”
Actually there is, it’s called a bouncer and has worked wonders for decades in clubs.
This is pure discrimination. You’re excluding people based on what they are rather than who they are. If this were allowed, what’s stopping anyone from opening a bar saying ‘no people of colour’?
Why this commotion? What’s wrong with having a space reserved for a certain public? I’m a gay men, I’ve been to loads of parties made only for gay men. There are men-only bars, clubs, bathhouses, etc. Is a women- and trans- only space such a novel concept that warrants this outrage? It’s not like there’s a lack of bars where cis men can go. Fuck off
Ofcourse it is discrimination. It excludes people based on sexuality. Also very hard to (correctly)enforce and the potential for abuse is tremendous.
Lgbt scene/activism should stop acting like a cult if they actually want to be included
+A gay man with lots of straight friends
> We are a safe space for queer people
Well, except for cisgender gay men it seems. While non queer cis women are still welcome.
Well, throwing out only certain people after letting them in, seems like a stupid move.
I have no problem with a bar that’s open for only certain groups (would cost them a fortune in new flyers since they come up with new dumb names and abbreviations every week, and it’s almost impossible to actually determine if you are a part of that group since the definitions are vague as fuck), but they should just only let those people in. Just make it a members only thing, and bring in new members based on an existing member vouching.
Calling it discrimination (in the negative meaning) depends on the situation. Everyone with a lick of common sense knows the difference. If you only allow people who are usually in a minority or at risk of harassment, that’s fine because you are providing a safe space. If you do a one-time themed event aimed at a certain group (men/women at the movies), that’s fine cause it’s just one time for a certain reason.
However, if you exclude those that are at risk of harassment, that’s discrimination in the negative meaning. That’s the difference between this situation and only allowing white people in a club. It’s really not that hard to understand….
I’m all for safe havens but this is discrimination.
However, the cause of the incident is the business not taking safety seriously by not putting a bouncer and taking knee jerk decisions.
Damn! Now where will I go to pick up hot transgirls?
Yes ofc it’s discrimination. It’s completely OK to remove individuals & ban them from entering. I’m sure all bars in Ghent have a do-not-enter list & I’m also sure those lists will be all “cis men”. But banning all men who identify as men is a bit much isn’t it? Aren’t trans people allowed to have cis friends & take them to their favourite bar?
Replace ‘cis men’ with ‘black people’ and… Well… Yes of course it’s discrimination.
ugh, you had some assholes at a previous party that belonged to a certain group, so now you’re gonna ban everyone in said group? I dunno, sounds kinda discriminatory to me. replace CIS gender men with black people and there would be no discussion. what’s the difference?
Ah yes, this comment section will be civil, and filled with meaningful discussion by people who have read the article. I’m sure nobody on reddit would just read the title and start dumping their opinion in the comments without a second thought.
Of course it is discrimination, how is that even a question? Now personally I don’t care if there are cisgender and transgender exclusive places, *as long as you allow both and aren’t being a hypocrite*.
One of the leading members of the muslim executive is found to have links to terrorism: 15 comments
Some random cafe had some troublemakers and decided to impose a questionable rule, for one night only: 400+ comments
Priorities.
How about we kick out the assholes and not look at one of their congenital traits to then kick out everyone with said trait?
Kicking out the bad apples is fine, turning it into a discrimination extravaganza is not. Especially when you’re trying to be a safe place for people who get discriminated against quite often.
Now it just becomes another “Do as I say, not as I do” situation where everyone is rightfully pointing out the hypocrisy.
The article stating they tried at first seems like a cop out. How hard can it be? Act like an asshole, get kicked out. Repeat until all assholes have vacated the premises.
Now I know why my grandfather always called me Ciske, little did I knew that he was so far ahead of his time.
I don’t even know what cisgender is so I’ll just assume I’m allowed in if I pass by
All cis gendered men were kicked out because some caused trouble. This is not troublesome to some? Let’s do a little thought experiment.
All gay men were kicked out because some caused trouble.
All black men were kicked out because some caused trouble.
All Muslim men were kicked out because some caused trouble.
If it’s a problem when replacing an identity, it’s a problem. Don’t discriminate, regardless of who it is. It’s a disgusting practice.
30 comments
Yes it is . Imagine the shitstorm if it were the other way around.
Any type of place that completely excludes a certain gender and sexuality from entry is in fact being discriminatory. The owner even uses the “cisgender men are privileged” bullshit excuse which is becoming more and more prevalent in LGTB+ circles nowadays. Can’t see how this shit will be allowed to keep operating. And I say this as a heterosexual woman.
This seems pretty simple, no? Try the reverse. Does it generate and outrage? There, you have your answer.
The reasoning behind it is pretty off. Let’s turn that one its head. We’re not a cafe against X, we’re for Y.
Sure, not every muslim/gay person/… is dangerous, but as a Y it’s impossible to know when shit will go down. I mean… turn those arguments around and you will not be having a great time.
I mean… we can call it what it is, discrimination. At least that’s what it feels like. At the same time we have ladies nights every… so perhaps it’s another situation of why even give a fuck. But it’s still important. Want to make a FLINTA night? Go right ahead imho, but the context here is different. You basically threw them out because of a factor they cannot control after they were already there.
It’s ok to treat one group in another way because they have advantages elsewhere… not sure if I stand behind that. I’d rather get the people who verbally abuse others thrown out and potentially banned (or schooled?).
100% yes, pure discrimination.
Yes, by definition it is discrimination. The real question is: is it justifiable (my instinct says no)
We really got this far, didn’t we?
People like this are no better than people who call all Muslims bad/terrorists/etc. They are literally judging a large group in our population based on the fact they are muslim (but in this case it’s straight men)
What is a cisgender man? Is that something new again? I’m losing track.
This even hurts actual LGBT+ people. The last thing they need is more enemies.
It’s sad because actions like these confirm the stereotype of the ‘aggressive testosterone laden transphobic’ cis men. I hope most LGBTQ+ people will understand that just because a few morons use verbal abuse doesn’t mean all cis men will.
> Volgens het Instituut voor Gelijkheid lijkt dat voorlopig niet het geval
Dan moeten we het instituut voor Gelijkheid maar ineens mee aanklagen voor aanzetten tot haat en discriminatie.
They made a one-off decision, based on events that took place during one party, but there doesn’t seem to be any intent to permanently keep out cis males. We can debate whether the right decision was made that night, and the article explains the nuances pretty well, but ultimately this is not that big of a deal IMHO.
If the cis males that got kicked out that night felt discriminated against, they can take legal action and a judge can decide. Personally, I’d be disappointed to get kicked out, but I’d understand 100% given the circumstances.
Strictly legally speaking this is discrimination.
Belgium made [this law](https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg_2.pl?language=nl&nm=2007002098&la=N) regarding discrimination in gender in execution of EU guidelines, and has actually given more protection in this law than required by the EU (which is allowed, EU sets a minimum standard but states are free to provide more).
The ‘problem’ with this law is art. 9, which foresees that there is the possibility of excluding one gender entirely from a service or good that you provide, assuming there is a legitimate purpose that justifies it and the way you do it is fitting and proportional (the standard criteria for when excluding based on certain criteria is not discrimination).
However, §2 states that there will be a KB that contains a (limitative) list of the services and goods that can be made exclusively for one gender.
Despite this law being from 2007 there is currently no such KB.
Meaning per current Belgian law, it is simply illegal to offer any kind of goods or services to only one gender. The ‘limitative list’ of services that could allow that doesn’t exist so nobody can do it.
Hairdresser only does men? Sue them, they cant do that. Women only gyms? Nope, not allowed. Allowing only X or Y in your bar? Strictly speaking not allowed.
The standard ‘is it discrimination or is it justified’ test does not even apply here because the law says ‘never ok, unless its one of the following on the list, and in that case you do the test to see if its ok’ and it does not have a list, so we fall back on ‘simply never ok’.
Legally speaking there is no way to get to ‘lets see if this is justified’, because we’re only allowed to go there if the activity in question is on the aformentioned list. And since that doesn’t exist, no activity will ever be on there, so a judge (in theory) can never get to ‘lets see if this is justified’.
> “Er bestaat op dit moment geen enkel ander criterium om op zo’n moment de veilige plek terug te garanderen.”
Actually there is, it’s called a bouncer and has worked wonders for decades in clubs.
This is pure discrimination. You’re excluding people based on what they are rather than who they are. If this were allowed, what’s stopping anyone from opening a bar saying ‘no people of colour’?
Why this commotion? What’s wrong with having a space reserved for a certain public? I’m a gay men, I’ve been to loads of parties made only for gay men. There are men-only bars, clubs, bathhouses, etc. Is a women- and trans- only space such a novel concept that warrants this outrage? It’s not like there’s a lack of bars where cis men can go. Fuck off
Ofcourse it is discrimination. It excludes people based on sexuality. Also very hard to (correctly)enforce and the potential for abuse is tremendous.
Lgbt scene/activism should stop acting like a cult if they actually want to be included
+A gay man with lots of straight friends
> We are a safe space for queer people
Well, except for cisgender gay men it seems. While non queer cis women are still welcome.
Well, throwing out only certain people after letting them in, seems like a stupid move.
I have no problem with a bar that’s open for only certain groups (would cost them a fortune in new flyers since they come up with new dumb names and abbreviations every week, and it’s almost impossible to actually determine if you are a part of that group since the definitions are vague as fuck), but they should just only let those people in. Just make it a members only thing, and bring in new members based on an existing member vouching.
Calling it discrimination (in the negative meaning) depends on the situation. Everyone with a lick of common sense knows the difference. If you only allow people who are usually in a minority or at risk of harassment, that’s fine because you are providing a safe space. If you do a one-time themed event aimed at a certain group (men/women at the movies), that’s fine cause it’s just one time for a certain reason.
However, if you exclude those that are at risk of harassment, that’s discrimination in the negative meaning. That’s the difference between this situation and only allowing white people in a club. It’s really not that hard to understand….
I’m all for safe havens but this is discrimination.
However, the cause of the incident is the business not taking safety seriously by not putting a bouncer and taking knee jerk decisions.
Damn! Now where will I go to pick up hot transgirls?
Yes ofc it’s discrimination. It’s completely OK to remove individuals & ban them from entering. I’m sure all bars in Ghent have a do-not-enter list & I’m also sure those lists will be all “cis men”. But banning all men who identify as men is a bit much isn’t it? Aren’t trans people allowed to have cis friends & take them to their favourite bar?
Replace ‘cis men’ with ‘black people’ and… Well… Yes of course it’s discrimination.
ugh, you had some assholes at a previous party that belonged to a certain group, so now you’re gonna ban everyone in said group? I dunno, sounds kinda discriminatory to me. replace CIS gender men with black people and there would be no discussion. what’s the difference?
Ah yes, this comment section will be civil, and filled with meaningful discussion by people who have read the article. I’m sure nobody on reddit would just read the title and start dumping their opinion in the comments without a second thought.
Of course it is discrimination, how is that even a question? Now personally I don’t care if there are cisgender and transgender exclusive places, *as long as you allow both and aren’t being a hypocrite*.
One of the leading members of the muslim executive is found to have links to terrorism: 15 comments
Some random cafe had some troublemakers and decided to impose a questionable rule, for one night only: 400+ comments
Priorities.
How about we kick out the assholes and not look at one of their congenital traits to then kick out everyone with said trait?
Kicking out the bad apples is fine, turning it into a discrimination extravaganza is not. Especially when you’re trying to be a safe place for people who get discriminated against quite often.
Now it just becomes another “Do as I say, not as I do” situation where everyone is rightfully pointing out the hypocrisy.
The article stating they tried at first seems like a cop out. How hard can it be? Act like an asshole, get kicked out. Repeat until all assholes have vacated the premises.
Now I know why my grandfather always called me Ciske, little did I knew that he was so far ahead of his time.
I don’t even know what cisgender is so I’ll just assume I’m allowed in if I pass by
All cis gendered men were kicked out because some caused trouble. This is not troublesome to some? Let’s do a little thought experiment.
All gay men were kicked out because some caused trouble.
All black men were kicked out because some caused trouble.
All Muslim men were kicked out because some caused trouble.
If it’s a problem when replacing an identity, it’s a problem. Don’t discriminate, regardless of who it is. It’s a disgusting practice.