Girl event ‘can refuse men’

Girl event ‘can refuse men’

A girls night in Victoria will be legally able to refuse biological men from the event following a decision in that state this morning.

Pinkalicious organisers were this morning successful in their application for a women’s only event with the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VACT).

Promoters applied to VCAT in May for an exemption from state equal opportunity laws to allow them to turn biological men away from the event.

Pinkalicious promoter Julie Mackenzie said it was a historicday for Melbourne’s lesbian community as the first enforced female-only event.

There are currently three venues in Melbourne that are exclusively gay male. In applying for the VCAT exemption, Pinkalicious was responding to a significant community need for female-only events.

MacKenzie said lesbians now have a place they can feel comfortable and won’t be subjected to judgement about their sexuality or receive unwanted male attention.

Pinkalicious will be following the lead of The Peel and The Laird Hotel with a policy allowing them to exclude patrons of the opposite sex.

The next Pinkalicious will be held on August 15.

You May Also Like

31 responses to “Girl event ‘can refuse men’”

  1. So David says…

    my opinion is that ANY sex-on-premises venues should be outlawed.

    You seem to have it all worked out – wanker.

  2. wow william what a sexy catch you are. i bet the ladies are lining up to get with you.

    that’s right. feminism is responsible for divorce and the fact women don’t like you.

    i’m a woman who loves women OR men for who they are inside (and whether they respect me as an individual), not for their pink bits or for what gender role they so rigidly ascribe to. i’m also a feminist, just plain feminist, who no “man hating” prefix. i really love men, probably have more male friends than female ones, and think we could learn a lot from each other. if you believe that feminism is about hating men – in fact, that it’s about men at all – then you’re a total ignoramus. feminism is about women and women’s empowerment – about loving ourselves and equal civil rights and sovereignty over our own bodies. it’s not about men at all.

    now that’s cleared up, the problem that many women and people of color have with traditionally white christian male only bastions is has to do with the consolidation of privilege and political power in ways which are designed specifically to exclude and dominate others, whilst taking public money or tax exemptions.

    with respect to religious organizations, there is the added hypocrisy of double speak – they claim to be about love, morality and humility before god whilst simultaneously privileging one group over others.

    since neither a lesbian club night nor a gay bathhouse can possibly be said to be bastions of public power and are not receiving public assistance in any way, it would seem they are not doing harm.

    further, with respect to refuges – there are in fact more places for homeless or at risk men to seek shelter and treatment than there are for women and those refuges further place more regulations on the women living there than the men’s ones do. until that situation is remedied, again, the point would seem moot.

  3. Wow it looks like the tables are slowly turning & many are NOT happy,
    Females are being given more rights & opportunities unlike “decades” ago when they had no say.
    I guess this is becoming a problem for many egotistic beings,
    hey….William?

  4. You know what? Why don’t we just build a huge wall in the middle of every country and seperate men and women from eachother? I’m sure the girls won’t get bothered by opinions of men and their unwanted interest for women.

    Feminism really has done a great job the last decades.. It’s like selfishness is a right these days for women. And to love a man for being just…. who he is, a man, is just a rare occasion these days.. Thanks feminism for all your wonderful divorces and “love” you gave this world.

  5. Surprisingly i have no problem with this, after all gay pubs in Vic are allowed to keep women out. Women being allowed sex exclusive gyms and men not being allowed said privilege, now that i have a problem with.

  6. Haven’t man hating lesbian feminists fought for inclusion in male only segamants of society? I guees its typical feminiist hypocrisy. “Do as I say, not as I do”

  7. Yes, I accept it is wonderful there should be female only, and male only spaces, but what happens with XY women, those born with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, and other intersexed, identifying as female, individuals.

    This judgement appears to exclude women born with complete AIS because they’re “biologically male”, even though they’ve never had one of those things

  8. Anti-discrimination laws allow for exemptions. In NSW, the Anti-Discrimination Board sets this out publicly:

    http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_exemption_guidelines

    Moreover, they don’t just apply to “minorities” – whoever they maybe. And they are not given easily. A considered application has to be made.

    Incidentally, when I hear the term “minority” and realise who the term applies to, I believe we’re actually talking about the majority of the population when you add it all up.

  9. David – it’s the minorities that have harped on about inclusiveness that have turned what were quite senseible anti-discrimination laws into laws now so ridiculoust that a bunch of lesbians have to go to court to legally have a female-only event.

    As for your gay male sex venues, don’t automatically assume that these are covered by similar laws. I’d put money on that, if inclusiveness or lack thereof was ever tested in court, then legally they would not be able to refuse entry to women. However in practice I can’t see this being an issue.

  10. The “minorities” do not harp on about “inclusiveness”. They demand the right to autonomy within the broader society. For example, the right to hold a gay and lesbian Mardi Gras – not a straight, gay and lesbian Mardi Gras.

    So this event is legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex? Good. As I said, so are women’s refuges and so are male sex-on-premises venues. And one of the key demands of the gay movement at present is the right to same-sex marriage which by its nature excludes certain people. As does marriage as it currently stands in legislation.

    Anyone who thinks the gay movement is simply all about inclusiveness is ignorant of its history and its current political demands and probably the sort of person who needs to ask what a homophobe is. Not to mention its diversity – the fact that some lesbians may disaprove of this event (and proving once again that lesbians have their differences) obviously hasn’t registered.

  11. If you don’t want inclusiveness, then which religions would you exclude from Australian communities?

  12. David – I forgot to address your comment about the footballers. They are a total disgrace to themselves, their families, their game, and to men in general.

    What exactly is a homophobe?

  13. David – my opinion is that ANY sex-on-premises venues should be outlawed. But given your example, then LEGALLY I don’t think that the gay male sex venues should be able to exclude females. However, in practice it’s a venue that doesn’t cater for women and therefore I don’t think it’s an issue.

    The thing about the lesbian (girl-only) event is that, even though it doesn’t cater for men and therefore I can’t imagine it being an issue, the event is LEGALLY allowed to discriminate based on sex.

    David, I may have not made myself clear on previous posts. I actually DO NOT WANT inclusiveness. It’s the minorities that have been harping on about “inclusiveness”. So far they have been quite successful, so it’s rather hypocritical of them to ask to pracitce the sort of discrimination that they fought so vigorously to remove for everyone else.

  14. So James, should gay male sex-on-premises venues now include women? Should women’s refuges include men (who are excluded due to an exemption in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act)? Should non-Catholics be allowed to become priests? How much “inclusiveness” do you want?

    James appears to want inclusiveness only when it concerns other people – especially gays. And it seems that one women’s only event organised by lesbians somehow nullifies the legitimate rights lesbians are campaigning for.

    Homophobes are always holding gays to a higher standard than themselves when it suits. The appalling behaviour of straight men is conveniently forgotten. The violent, sexist behaviour of straight, male footballers is nothing compared with a lesbians’ social event that excludes men (who, of course, have nowhere else to go, the poor dears).

  15. A Girls only event has the right to exclude men! For years Lesbians have been slagged off in Boy Bars. The Gay scene for years has been a total emphasis on MEN. The Girls want their own and good on them.

  16. John – I didn’t know that that “inclusiveness” came with any sort of condition attached to it regarding not dominating “what can be done outside their groups”.

    To my simple mind, inclusiveness basically meant that “eveyone’s welcome” and that “no one is excluded”.
    Therefore, an event that can refuse entry to men is not an inclusive event. It is simply an event that refuses entry by discriminating against people based on their sex.

  17. James, don’t you understand that “inclusiveness” means allowing different groups of people to associate with one another – just as long as they don’t dominate what can be done outside their groups. For example, “inclusiveness” means that we allow people to be Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheist or any other kind of religion. If we were to use your definition of “inclusiveness” none of these groups could exist because at some point they would be EXcluding others.

    This religious example would only be Non-inclusive if you only allowed people to practise one form of religion, or banned religion all together.

    And I’m glad you don’t knwo of any religious nutters who want to harm us, because i know plenty of them who use the “word of god” to incite hate and prejudice towards us as sexual minorities.

    And the reason we want to enter into a marriage is because we ignore the first condition (ie. “one man and one woman”) and embrace the other two conditions (ie. 2. “for life” and 3. “entered into voluntarily” – which so many people seem to forget – what’s the hetero divorce rate at the moment?)

  18. Oliver – nah, 50/50. My point was one about inclusiveness; not whether someone wants to go to a lesbian event or not. They should be practising the diversity that they preach.

  19. Oliver – why as a gay man would you want to enter into a marriage; i.e. the union of one man and one woman?

  20. Before I make a comment can I ask what is understood by the term “biological men”?

    Thank-you

    Stephanie

  21. John – not sure what Christian lobbyists you are referring to who “incite violence against people whose lifestyle they don’t agree with”.

    Can’t agree with you about having to go to court. If these lesbians want to hold a woman-only event why can’t they simply do so without having to go to court to get a “judgement”? The world’s gone mad.

  22. I would’ve thought that was a religious double standard. Don’t the Christian lobbyist bang on about their rights being eroded because they can no longer incite violence against people whose lifestyle they don’t agree with? And it’s NOT ridiculous they had to go through the court system to get a judgement. It’s the proper way to get an IMPARTIAL verdict as to whether they should be allowed to do it! Courts are just the way the secular world makes decisions like these!

  23. John – I actually think it’s ridiculous that they had to go to the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VACT) and receive a judgement. I think if lesbians want to hold a women’s only event then good luck to them. I also think that if a male club wants to exclude females then good luck to them also. Same with religous organisations; churches, mosques, etc. However it’s the lesbians and similar minorities that have been pushing for inclusion and equity for years, and have been banging on about human rights and equality; not religous organisations or pretty much anyone else. Therefore I see a very strong example of a double standard.

    It will be very difficult to take their next complaint about “discrimination” seriously when they are seeking one rule for themselves, and one for everyone else.

  24. Actually this IS a triumph of equality (for lesbians needs to be treated equally), inclusiveness (for lesbians to feel they can have a space where they feel comfortable), tolerance (that we tolerate that this kind of venue is a valued asset in our community) and respect (because we feel lesbians needs are worthy).

    Remember James, this is only ONE venue. And there are already plenty of spaces where such precedents have already occurred. Many of them are inside religious institutions who feel they need to be able to congregate with others who share the same beliefs. Religious institutions (who accept government money) can still freely choose to NOT employ someone who doesn’t share their beliefs. How is this venue any different? It would only be discriminatory if ALL venues were female only.

    Perhaps if you still feel slighted you should talk to some ethnic minorities about the bad old days when they were systematically barred from many places due to their cultural background. Perhaps then you won’t feel so annoyed that you can’t go to a venue aimed at lesbians.

  25. This flies in the face of equality, inclusiveness, tolerance and respect I would have thought. Pretty rich coming from a so-called minority that acts as the champion of such righteous ideals.

  26. No doubt there’ll be an uproar about men being discriminated against. But then not too many women are allowed into Bodyline or Ken’s here in Sydney. Well, actually none.