
Sweden's 'man-free' festival was discriminatory, rules Swedish ombudsman - Tomte
https://www.thelocal.se/20181218/swedens-man-free-festival-was-discriminatory-rules-swedish-ombudsman
======
burfog
The article mentions "sexual assault" as the motivation. In recent years, the
rate has spiked in Sweden, from almost nothing to being really common.

The situation is pretty weird, because the cause is obvious but discussing it
is considered unacceptable. Living in Sweden does not make a person follow the
norms of traditional Swedish culture.

------
collyw
I am curious, aren't we allowed to identify as whatever we want these days? As
a male what would happen if I went up and told them I identify as a female?

~~~
i_am_nomad
Yes, but once you start toggling your "identity" for whatever suits the
occasion, it's not really an identity anymore.

~~~
philwelch
What if that is my identity?

------
thecopy
I couldn't care less about this festival. Let them do what they want to do.

Anyway, from what i understood, "cis-men" was allowed, they needed to be due
to construction, technicians etc, but they where "held" in what by the
organizeres was called a "man-pen".

~~~
MaxBarraclough
They were _allowed_ , but clearly discouraged, and that's enough to be in
breach of the law. From the article:

> "No differentiation based on sex was made between visitors at entry," the
> ruling said. However, it added that "public statements which clearly
> discourage" a certain group from attending an event amounts to
> discrimination, and therefore the festival was in breach of the law
> prohibiting gender-based discrimination.

------
jeklj
> The DO said that no individuals had been discriminated against, and noted
> that the festival had not in practice enforced the ban on cisgender men

Alrighty then.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
Meaning what? The law extends to _public statements which clearly discourage_
, even if they aren't enforced by denial of entry on the day.

Seems clear enough why this is the case: advertising with, say, _No blacks
allowed_ is prohibited, even if you don't enforce this policy on the day.

~~~
jeklj
Meaning what you’ve pointed out is clear; the problem was the statement and
not material discrimination. “No blacks allowed”, in America at least, was no
idle threat.

