Is there a value to single sex spaces or are they inherently discriminatory? Should organizations like the Scouts and a cappella groups be all one gender?

I voted yes at first, because it seemed it was always that way and that's fine. And while I think there are simply clubs/ activities that are geared to a specific gender, so it's naturally dominated by one, I don't think the other gender should be allowed to be excluded if they wanted to join.

Freedom of choice

I think the original post conflates sex/gender a bit (sex is biological whereas "gender" as a term seems to be fluid based on who you're talking to), but I won't call for your head



In reference to this scenario, do you mean someone has the freedom to choose joining either a man's club/woman's club regardless of their sex? Or someone has the freedom to choose joining a men's club/women's club with other members who also want to join a men's club/women's club?

By that I mean, if a woman chooses to join a women only club with other women who also choose to be in a women only club but a man wants to join then who's freedom of choice takes the cake?

The situation I’m thinking of is a club is aimed specifically at one gender, but someone of the opposite gender decides they want in. Does that person have a right to join?

Like there’s an all male a cappella group, or another club aimed specifically at men. If a woman decides she wants to join regardless, does she have a right?

If a group of private citizens want to form an all male a cappella club, no girls allowed, then I don't see a reason why that should be verboten. Women could do the same plus there can always be other a cappella groups that are open to all--that way you've got at least three clubs right there for some kind of a cappella-off

Males have different voices than women’s so it would seem justified to have an all-male or all-women group. For something like the scouts if it involves sleepovers or showers I can see why for safety reasons you would want the boys and girls to be separated.

However if it was something like an “all male debate team” I’m not sure that’s necessary.

Both in this case. If there are exclusive clubs for either of the gender then I don't see the necessity for others to join but the more we move towards culture where people don't identify gender (sorry if its offensive but I don't know the term) this will be a difficult decision. So I feel it should not be strict rule and should be taken case by case based on the policy and reasoning to start the club in the first place.

There's no rules forbidding women from joining NBA, and a few years ago Mark Cuban said he was open to Brittney Griner trying out for Dallas.

I wonder if there's any rules forbidding men from trying out for WNBA.

My biggest dream is to join an all male a cappella club that has zwackerm as a key member, while being a black girl (Moviedude's sister Erika).

I thought this was about night clubs before I realized who posted the question.

I worked on some videos highlighting the first girls admitted to Boy Scouts last year, and it was pretty fantastic. I'm honestly against this idea, if someone's passion or even curiosity gets hindered because of their gender, it's a major step back. There are benefits obviously to self help groups that require more restrictions as it affects comfortability with sharing, safety, etc. Any group outside of those obvious ones though should really get over themselves.

This whole human experiment makes more sense, if you know, interact with humans that aren't just like you.

People should be able to be with who they want. Freedom of association.

It's more complicated than that. Lots of gray areas.

Here's an excerpt from my recent book about the Constitution:

When it’s okay to discriminate

There are times when it is perfectly fine to discriminate. If you’re casting a movie about Abraham Lincoln, you have every right to not hire a short Asian woman for the part (unless you want to for some artistic reason). If you’re looking for someone to teach the Bible to students at a private religious school, you have every right to demand that person belong to your religion. If you have started a private club for “Children of Italian-American immigrants” then you have every right to keep out anyone else. It’s not really discrimination when it’s a required qualification.

The preference of your customer base is not a “qualification.” Years ago, airlines only hired women to be flight attendants, pointing to surveys that showed their customers preferred to be served by women than by men. No, the court ruled, that’s not a “qualification.” Customer preference to be served only by women (or by white people or by Christians) doesn’t matter because rights are not voted on. A majority of Americans didn’t want schools integrated either when the courts ruled that they must, but that doesn’t mean the majority was right.

You can’t create qualifications that are simply there to discriminate and don’t have a rational relationship to the position. For instance, groups like the Jaycees and the Rotary Club used to exclude women from joining. Why? No real reason. The Supreme Court saw through that, pointing out that the goals of the club had absolutely nothing to do with things that only applied to men.
While you have the right to start your own private club (Freedom of Association. It’s there in the 1st Amendment), you don’t have the right to discriminate in public accommodations. Hotels, clubs, stores, and restaurants and other places are not allowed to discriminate and that means your club meeting in these places can’t discriminate when there isn’t a qualification. Having these groups meet on your own personal property? Probably fine, but honestly, it depends on what the goal of the group is.

Yeah, that’s kind of unclear, but in general, you can’t create a group that discriminates as its goal. “The Christian Men’s Group” could discriminate if indeed they are doing things that are applicable only to Christian men, but if they’re just a front for an organization whose real purpose is to provide business networking while keeping out non-Christians and women, then probably not.

Once more, there are gray areas everywhere. A political group that is against gay marriage certainly discriminates as its goal, but political groups are protected under the 1st Amendment so they can get away with it.

What about private clubs that discriminate by having a bodyguard stand outside and decide who gets in? Perfectly fine so long as the reason for denying entrance isn’t based on race or sex or anything prohibited by the 14th Amendment. You technically don’t have a “right” to visit a club or shop in a store, which is why these places can deny service if you’re disruptive or don’t meet their dress code (no shoes, no shirt, no service) or have some other reasonable reason not related to things prohibited by the law.

Recently, a member of a group called the “Sad Puppies”—butthurt snowflake selfish white male Trumpites who whine about things like the 1% of female leads in science fiction books and movies—was barred from attending a major science fiction convention after he stated that he planned to take disruptive action at the convention, having done similar things in the past. So of course, he claimed he was being “discriminated against” because of his political views. But no, it’s not “discrimination.” A private organization has the right to deny entry to anyone they think will disrupt their group, including for political disruptions.

Remember, you have every right to hold whatever terrible political viewpoints you want. That is guaranteed to you under the Constitution. You don’t have the right to demand that anyone else provide you with a place or a forum for you to express those opinions, nor do you have the right to demand that someone let you into their group when they believe you don’t meet their standards. No shirt no shoes no service.

If you choose to be the kind of guy people can’t stand to be around and they say they don’t want you near them, that’s not discrimination. You chose to be that person.

As Frank Zappa said, “It’s okay to discriminate against assholes, because nobody was born an asshole.”

you had me until butthurt

Should I have used a stronger word? I personally know some of those guys. They're all assholes who can't stand it if the main character isn't a white male like them.

All good points Groucho

No It was nicely worked in.

We all know those guys. There were a few on a zoom call last night. Nothing as meaningful as gender though, people fighting over silly shit.

It's a good thing to have girls in Scouts. But I'll admit that I don't understand why instead of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts there is now Scouts and Girl Scouts. How did the ladies get out of this one?

Boy Scouts changed of their own free will, not because of any law requiring them to do so. Girl Scouts have decided not to do that.

Boy Scouts is fun, Girl Scouts is mostly a scam to sell cookies.

lol, that pretty much confirms your stance. I grew up with plenty of girl scouts. My mom was a troop leader, and as a boy scout, it was ridiculously similar. Boy Scouts do the same thing with popcorn (though thankfully that never caught on)

Don't disrespect the thin mint! They're both silly clubs. But if they instill confidence and camaraderie among the participants. There's no reason be negative towards the club Isn't that the reason you created the thread? Very few clubs can claim to have something as national a popular cooke to go with it!

I know tons of Girl Scouts jealous of the Boy Scout program which is why they started letting girls in. There was no such movement from boys because there’s no appeal to boys in Girl Scouts

That’s the way it is in a lot of clubs. I was referring to you calling it a scam. There’s no reason for Boy Scouts to become Girl Scouts, but they are open to making it just scouts. That’s almost the same thing.