• Nate Cox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Nah, I can’t get behind that as an argument.

    The restrooms aren’t an exhibit that you pay for, and it’s common knowledge when you buy a ticket that you won’t be able to use the restroom of the opposite gender as a general rule. Seems a bit hyperbolic.

    My personal take: just disclose this at the time of purchase. A simple asterisk on the general admission info noting that some exhibits will be [insert blocking restriction] would make the problem go away.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Restrooms that are past the ticket barrier require a ticket. The ticket/museum discloses the fact that its female only prior to purchase, so common knowledge doesn’t play a part.

      I agree, its a poor argument, but its the same argument about something different on offer, that is accepted to discriminate.

      The fact that there is an exemption in the law to allow for things like this bit they deem it doesn’t seems wrong to me.

      However, the point of the piece seems to be to highlight discrimination and get people to think about it, so its achieved its purpose, if arts purpose can be measured.