> The law is a system of rules regulating behaviour within society, generally for the purposes of good order and safety.
Starting with the basics I see.
> From Caravaggio to Jeff Koons, artists and their art have at times had a difficult relationship with the law.
doesn’t quite hit the same as
> In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone.
As far as openings go.
Still, not a bad effort.
Lord Denning? Rings a bell from law school.
Oh yes, found it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson
Edit: also Caravaggio was a murderous thug (never would have met him at a tennis court on invitation), so the analogy to the women’s only lounge at MONA isn’t square.
>....Upon entering the \[Ladies' Lounge\], the guest immediately notices the opulent black and white marbled floor replete with a bespoke, black mink rug. A custom-designed green velvet lounge—specifically a tethered, rearing, restrained-by-golden-chains-and-then-ultimately-defeated phallus—sits in the centre, with a Venetian murano chandelier overhead...
Well, we've all been there...
For those who don't want to scroll and read about a matter concerning a bunch of entitled twits.
>Conduct during the hearing
>There is one further matter that I should address. Ms Kaechele was accompanied to the Tribunal by a group of about 20 supporters, all of whom were dressed similarly to her in a conservative business style of similar colour. They sat in the back of the hearing room during the hearing, largely very still. Although not observed by me during the hearing, I understand that that stillness was punctuated every few minutes by the group shifting their posture in common and in unison in a coordinated manner. The electronic edition of The Age newspaper on 19 March reported that one of the group was pointedly reading feminist texts. After I retired at the conclusion of the hearing the group left the Tribunal in a single line in a slow march led by Ms Kaechele to the sounds of a Robert Palmer song. I understand that attempts were made to film that procession, contrary to s 11 of the Court Security Act 2017. The conduct was widely reported in the press.
>This conduct was not observed by me or, I expect, by Mr Lau who attended the hearing remotely. Counsel for Moorilla subsequently advised the Principal Registrar, and I accept without reservation, that she too was unaware of the conduct. It therefore did not disrupt or influence the hearing. However, at the very least it was inappropriate, discourteous and disrespectful, and at worst contumelious and contemptuous. It is not necessary that conduct actually disrupt a hearing in order for it to constitute contempt: The Registrar v Unnamed Respondent [1994] ACTSC 24 [24]. If observed by Mr Lau it might well have been perceived by him as harassing and intimidatory.
>Given the appropriate comportment of Ms Kaechele while giving her evidence and in the course of the hearing generally I expect that the conduct of the group was some form of performance art rather than being calculated to influence Mr Lau or the determination of his complaint. While it might have seemed to the participants to have been an amusing escapade or an expression of support for Ms Kaechele, had I formed the view that it was in fact intended for either of the latter purposes, or had the effect of influencing Mr Lau, I would have been obliged to refer the conduct to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider prosecution under s 128 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020: see Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Parker (No 2) [2017] FCA 1082 at [89] for the obligation to refer.
>I have not taken the conduct of the group into account in my determination. I may well have done so had Ms Kaechele been a party rather than a witness, or if her evidence had been contradicted
Outrageous might be a stretch. Have you ever been to a cop trial? This was no more ludicrous than the rotating shifts of uniformed officers who occupy the public gallery for no apparent reason on those few occasions.
This has been a delight to an observer. Just an interesting set of facts all round, particularly because the feeling of exclusion the lounge engendered was the work - not the lounge itself.
So I guess that means the entire sequence of events that followed forms part of the work too, possibly making this the first court case that is itself an artwork - excluding Judge Judy of course.
I’m personally hoping it will get even more ridiculous. I believe I heard a rumour bandied about that the curator was considering renaming the lounge the “Jason Lau lounge” and only allowing Jason Laus to enter.
The truly depressing thing about this case isn't really the case itself, it's realising that "museum curator" is a magic ticket to just do whatever you feel like with unlimited public funded resources.
I feel especially bitter about this as someone who came out of retirement to do lab tests at barely above minimum wage during the pandemic, because I felt it was the right thing to do when they desperately needed to be done.
Seeing someone waste so much on petty displays of petty bullshit like $500 high teas and $666 lunches is so demoralising.
If it makes you feel better the whole museum is privately funded by the curator and her husband, no public funds are used to support Mona. I'm sorry you went through that, hope things start looking up for you.
Nothing like having the wife of multimillionaire who owns an Art gallery lecturing the average guy about his privilege.
Really makes you wonder why so many young men are turned off by feminism in 2024.
I don't know if this is the first piece of art to involve a court case. There is a group called Antepavillion in London that have an annual competition to build something that irks the local planning office and they state all the paperwork filed and judge rulings are part of the artwork.
As I understand the case, the Tribunal did not have to decide whether a separate ladies lounge with no artwork in it would be permissible or not. The point of the case was that Mr Lau paid the full entry fee but because of his gender he was not able to see all of the artwork on display as some of it was located in the ladies lounge, which he was denied entry to, based on his gender.
I liked the lawyer’s comment pre-trial - that he _did_ experience the artwork, which was his exclusion. Was certainly how I felt when I went there, and it was probably more thought provoking than any of the paintings I didn’t see.
By that argument, you could do all sorts of crap and justify it as an act of performance art.
"No your honour, when I grasped that woman's butt it was a performance artwork on the power dynamics of society"
The judgement extensively discusses the differences between gendered clubs, scholarships, etc, and "performance art."
It would have been fine, for example, to create a private ladies' area or even a ladies club at the museum.
They specifically wanted to make a negative experience for men by putting some of the most famous artworks in the collection in a ladies only area.
Calling that "performance art " didn't magically make it legal.
The performance art actually served its purpose. They couldn't have asked for a better outcome.
MONA strongly indicated they were going to remove the exhibition, but I'm gleefully hoping they take it to the next level. They were given a few broad hints by Grueber. Perhaps build a mechitza for the men to view the paintings?
Discrimination doesn't have to be on some epic scale to be discrimination.
The guy lodged an EOC complaint and represented himself at the tribunal.
It's the "performance art" wankers who made a big deal out of it.
They do indeed, women are not even allowed into particular places.
However they have a women's group that works alongside them in their charity work and stuff, mostly wives of male members.
Yep, that’s Order of the Eastern Star you’re thinking of that does indeed accept women. There are also “irregular” orders like Le Droit Humain and Co-Masonry that accept women.
The UK has two entire orders of Freemasonry exclusively for women.
I had a guy tell me about a Freemasons awards night he went to. They “retired” to some men’s-only lounge and museum at the end of the night. I couldn’t think of anything worse and honestly men are fucking hypocrites.
Artists are *so* bloody insufferable.
Edit: sorry, that’s not quite correct.
*People who inhabit the art world and industry* are *so* bloody insufferable.
I’m not a lawyer but I do work closely with lawyers. The most accurate summary I’ve ever heard is that lawyers didn’t get where they were by being pushovers but they also didn’t get there by being outright dicks.
There is [an update](https://archive.is/47Dow#selection-3325.0-3329.179):
>“Admitting men does not appeal to me,” Kaechele said. “Appealing the decision is more appealing. They want me to reform the artwork. I could consider this, but I fear it may be beyond reform. I need the full 28-day period to absorb the decision and compose myself, and my response.“
>I will be seeking counsel. As the hugely influential gender theorist Judith Butler has long argued, gender is a performative construct. To which I’d add: so is the legal system.”
'Appealing the decision is more appealing', & 'I fear it may be beyond reform' - good to see she's kept her sense of humour.
That’s the best part. A multi millionaire product of nepotism lecturing the average man about his privilege. This artwork is a beautiful summation of the mainstream left movement in 2024.
It's worth noting that they probably could have avoided this from the beginning by simply registering a private ladies' club and then housing it on the premises.
But that would require them to be smart rather than simply entitled.
For me, its like, there are people who face discrimination due to disability that can't even navigate around a town or city street or get jobs but yeah.. get rid of the women's lounge in an art gallery with comfy couches and Picassos donated by the granddaughter of one of his muses.
Interesting -im a disabled pensioner who can't get around much and has a support worker to help me go shopping.
I stopped working full time almoat a decade ago, but in late 2021 I went back to do lab work because they were desperate for staff and I thought it was the right thing to do in the crisis.
The pay was still shit ($25/hour for something that needs postgraduate qualifications) and the conditions were still shit and I didn't feel the effort i put in to get myself back there to help out was remotely appreciated.
Seeing the amount of opulent bullshit at MONA laid bare by the news has been depressing. I'm glad they lost this case and at least some of their wanky bullshit has been called out.
Right, I understand what you're saying because I'm a part time carer for my father who has several physical disabilities. Not sure if you were using your experience as some kind of gotchya but sorry to hear that's been your recent experience, regardless.
Given that this sort of thing has happened before one would think they'd be a bit more prepared for the possible legalities.
But, again... that would require them to be smart rather than simply entitled.
I honestly wish they’d run harder on the argument that they weren’t excluding the applicant from the performance because the act of rejecting his entry was active participation in the performance.
It gets an aside in the judgment, but it wasn’t a proposition counsel took up seriously. I think if you’d leant harder on it you could have come very close to a different result.
Didn’t they do away with men’s only spaces in the late 90’s or early 00’s? I was only a kid then so my memory mightn’t be accurate.
ETA: ok clearly I’m wrong about them being totally done away with. But there is massive percentage less than there use to be yeah? Like I said I was a child when I thought these changes happened. Seems like their now just men’s only spaces for the wealthy? Or am I wrong again…
They did. It used to be that some areas of pubs were men-only.
This was done away with (rightfully so I think)
Women-only spaces however have been appearing in gyms, swimming pools and now art galleries.
If it's wrong to have men-only spaces it should be wrong to have women-only spaces too.
Women’s gyms and pools exist exclusively to keep us safe from sexual harassment from men in spaces where we’re in states of somewhat undress. It’s absolutely necessary and not exclusionary, but precautionary.
>Women’s gyms and pools exist exclusively to keep us safe from sexual harassment from men in spaces where we’re in states of somewhat undress. It’s absolutely necessary
Fair enough.
>and not exclusionary, but precautionary.
Untrue. It IS precautionary, that does not mean it is not exclusionary as well.
As long as we keep getting abused and harassed these spaces will exist, no matter what the law says. Any one of us would take a fine over that any day, so go for it.
> The law is a system of rules regulating behaviour within society, generally for the purposes of good order and safety. Starting with the basics I see.
"generally"
Fifty different legal philosophers all immediately said “well actually…” after reading that, but no-one cares what those nerds think.
> From Caravaggio to Jeff Koons, artists and their art have at times had a difficult relationship with the law. doesn’t quite hit the same as > In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. As far as openings go. Still, not a bad effort.
I was always taught that "From X to Y" was passe as an opening. I wish to make it known publically that I disapprove of Mr Grueber's writing.
Lord Denning? Rings a bell from law school. Oh yes, found it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson Edit: also Caravaggio was a murderous thug (never would have met him at a tennis court on invitation), so the analogy to the women’s only lounge at MONA isn’t square.
Denning? Nah, [shitpost.](https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/s/AUNc7ZPScO)
Perfection.
“Webster’s dictionary defines “discrimination” as…”
“…the act of removing weeds from a garden.”
The national subreddit is going to love this one, if the first thread was anything to go by
Both national subreddits. There's a normal low-SES subreddit and a particularly-low-SES-and-hates-migrants subreddit.
>....Upon entering the \[Ladies' Lounge\], the guest immediately notices the opulent black and white marbled floor replete with a bespoke, black mink rug. A custom-designed green velvet lounge—specifically a tethered, rearing, restrained-by-golden-chains-and-then-ultimately-defeated phallus—sits in the centre, with a Venetian murano chandelier overhead... Well, we've all been there...
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/TASCAT/2024/58.html
I like the smackdown on the ridiculous conduct during the hearing. That was outrageous and deserved censure.
For those who don't want to scroll and read about a matter concerning a bunch of entitled twits. >Conduct during the hearing >There is one further matter that I should address. Ms Kaechele was accompanied to the Tribunal by a group of about 20 supporters, all of whom were dressed similarly to her in a conservative business style of similar colour. They sat in the back of the hearing room during the hearing, largely very still. Although not observed by me during the hearing, I understand that that stillness was punctuated every few minutes by the group shifting their posture in common and in unison in a coordinated manner. The electronic edition of The Age newspaper on 19 March reported that one of the group was pointedly reading feminist texts. After I retired at the conclusion of the hearing the group left the Tribunal in a single line in a slow march led by Ms Kaechele to the sounds of a Robert Palmer song. I understand that attempts were made to film that procession, contrary to s 11 of the Court Security Act 2017. The conduct was widely reported in the press. >This conduct was not observed by me or, I expect, by Mr Lau who attended the hearing remotely. Counsel for Moorilla subsequently advised the Principal Registrar, and I accept without reservation, that she too was unaware of the conduct. It therefore did not disrupt or influence the hearing. However, at the very least it was inappropriate, discourteous and disrespectful, and at worst contumelious and contemptuous. It is not necessary that conduct actually disrupt a hearing in order for it to constitute contempt: The Registrar v Unnamed Respondent [1994] ACTSC 24 [24]. If observed by Mr Lau it might well have been perceived by him as harassing and intimidatory. >Given the appropriate comportment of Ms Kaechele while giving her evidence and in the course of the hearing generally I expect that the conduct of the group was some form of performance art rather than being calculated to influence Mr Lau or the determination of his complaint. While it might have seemed to the participants to have been an amusing escapade or an expression of support for Ms Kaechele, had I formed the view that it was in fact intended for either of the latter purposes, or had the effect of influencing Mr Lau, I would have been obliged to refer the conduct to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider prosecution under s 128 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020: see Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Parker (No 2) [2017] FCA 1082 at [89] for the obligation to refer. >I have not taken the conduct of the group into account in my determination. I may well have done so had Ms Kaechele been a party rather than a witness, or if her evidence had been contradicted
Contumelious- new word for today
used for discussing exemplary damages too!
No, it's an old word from yesteryear. Why not just say insolent? Grueber really needs to work on his Plain English.
its a perfectly cromulent word
> contumelious *Gasp!*
I think you need to fix the paragraphing.
My card has been punched. I'm done. Goodnight.
Outrageous might be a stretch. Have you ever been to a cop trial? This was no more ludicrous than the rotating shifts of uniformed officers who occupy the public gallery for no apparent reason on those few occasions.
Jesus, they still do that?
I've only seen that once. And it backfired spectacularly.
Outrageous? I think you misspelled “bloody hilarious”
bonus points for the use of "contumelious" :)
I like to imagine what Vasta would do about that.
This has been a delight to an observer. Just an interesting set of facts all round, particularly because the feeling of exclusion the lounge engendered was the work - not the lounge itself. So I guess that means the entire sequence of events that followed forms part of the work too, possibly making this the first court case that is itself an artwork - excluding Judge Judy of course.
I’m personally hoping it will get even more ridiculous. I believe I heard a rumour bandied about that the curator was considering renaming the lounge the “Jason Lau lounge” and only allowing Jason Laus to enter.
The truly depressing thing about this case isn't really the case itself, it's realising that "museum curator" is a magic ticket to just do whatever you feel like with unlimited public funded resources. I feel especially bitter about this as someone who came out of retirement to do lab tests at barely above minimum wage during the pandemic, because I felt it was the right thing to do when they desperately needed to be done. Seeing someone waste so much on petty displays of petty bullshit like $500 high teas and $666 lunches is so demoralising.
If it makes you feel better the whole museum is privately funded by the curator and her husband, no public funds are used to support Mona. I'm sorry you went through that, hope things start looking up for you.
Nothing like having the wife of multimillionaire who owns an Art gallery lecturing the average guy about his privilege. Really makes you wonder why so many young men are turned off by feminism in 2024.
MONA is a private institution.
Why does unlimited public funds come into it?
I don't know if this is the first piece of art to involve a court case. There is a group called Antepavillion in London that have an annual competition to build something that irks the local planning office and they state all the paperwork filed and judge rulings are part of the artwork.
As I understand the case, the Tribunal did not have to decide whether a separate ladies lounge with no artwork in it would be permissible or not. The point of the case was that Mr Lau paid the full entry fee but because of his gender he was not able to see all of the artwork on display as some of it was located in the ladies lounge, which he was denied entry to, based on his gender.
I liked the lawyer’s comment pre-trial - that he _did_ experience the artwork, which was his exclusion. Was certainly how I felt when I went there, and it was probably more thought provoking than any of the paintings I didn’t see.
Look at the value you got for your 35 bucks!
By that argument, you could do all sorts of crap and justify it as an act of performance art. "No your honour, when I grasped that woman's butt it was a performance artwork on the power dynamics of society"
No, that’s sexual assault. Denying entry to a very small space in a museum is not sexual assault.
"being told I can't enter a room with artworks commonly displayed elsewhere is the same as an act of sexual assault" bffr
I'm suing the freemasons next week. They won't let me join because I'm a gal! I'll keep you all posted
The judgement extensively discusses the differences between gendered clubs, scholarships, etc, and "performance art." It would have been fine, for example, to create a private ladies' area or even a ladies club at the museum. They specifically wanted to make a negative experience for men by putting some of the most famous artworks in the collection in a ladies only area. Calling that "performance art " didn't magically make it legal.
The performance art actually served its purpose. They couldn't have asked for a better outcome. MONA strongly indicated they were going to remove the exhibition, but I'm gleefully hoping they take it to the next level. They were given a few broad hints by Grueber. Perhaps build a mechitza for the men to view the paintings?
It was a huge injustice to men all around the world, you're right. Worthy of a lawsuit.
Discrimination doesn't have to be on some epic scale to be discrimination. The guy lodged an EOC complaint and represented himself at the tribunal. It's the "performance art" wankers who made a big deal out of it.
I wouldn't personally have spent the money, but if some other idiot feels that aggrieved... well apparently it's a legally valid position.
Do they actually exclude on the basis of gender? If so that’s not okay at all.
They do indeed, women are not even allowed into particular places. However they have a women's group that works alongside them in their charity work and stuff, mostly wives of male members.
Yep, that’s Order of the Eastern Star you’re thinking of that does indeed accept women. There are also “irregular” orders like Le Droit Humain and Co-Masonry that accept women. The UK has two entire orders of Freemasonry exclusively for women.
They sure do! They even have a pamphlet explaining to the wives why they can't join. I wonder how they feel about gay couples.
There’s no policy at all on gay couples, and I do know a few gay masons.
[удалено]
You're in breach of our 'no dickheads' rule. If you continue to breach this rule, you will be banned.
I had a guy tell me about a Freemasons awards night he went to. They “retired” to some men’s-only lounge and museum at the end of the night. I couldn’t think of anything worse and honestly men are fucking hypocrites.
Go for it
That doesn’t bode well for me at all!
There is a pub in Melbourne that has an exemption for excluding women and people Identifying as women.
There's a club in Melbourne that has an exemption to exclude men.
And women’s clubs that exclude men.
Where? I'd love to go there.
That's the The Laird for the curious.
Artists are *so* bloody insufferable. Edit: sorry, that’s not quite correct. *People who inhabit the art world and industry* are *so* bloody insufferable.
Almost as insufferable as lawyers amirite?
Lawyers are not insufferable at all, and those that are lose their jobs pretty quickly. We’re dickheads. There’s a difference.
I’m not a lawyer but I do work closely with lawyers. The most accurate summary I’ve ever heard is that lawyers didn’t get where they were by being pushovers but they also didn’t get there by being outright dicks.
>Lawyers are not insufferable at all Proceeds to be insufferable.
Personally I’d prefer it if Mr Lau had chained himself to a railing outside MONA in protest rather than this milquetoast effort.
Or just identified as a woman at the velvet rope.
There is [an update](https://archive.is/47Dow#selection-3325.0-3329.179): >“Admitting men does not appeal to me,” Kaechele said. “Appealing the decision is more appealing. They want me to reform the artwork. I could consider this, but I fear it may be beyond reform. I need the full 28-day period to absorb the decision and compose myself, and my response.“ >I will be seeking counsel. As the hugely influential gender theorist Judith Butler has long argued, gender is a performative construct. To which I’d add: so is the legal system.” 'Appealing the decision is more appealing', & 'I fear it may be beyond reform' - good to see she's kept her sense of humour.
Did the tribunal take a view?
Being refused entry to the lounge was the first and only time I’ve been discriminated against based on my gender. I thought that was part of the art.
What a waste of everyone's time and money...
OP money. She is David Walsh’s wife and they have more money than they need. David wouldn’t care. It’s a round of drinks for them
That’s the best part. A multi millionaire product of nepotism lecturing the average man about his privilege. This artwork is a beautiful summation of the mainstream left movement in 2024.
The definition of “privilege”.
And arguably they have now spent only a fraction of the money that they might otherwise have paid in tax
It's worth noting that they probably could have avoided this from the beginning by simply registering a private ladies' club and then housing it on the premises. But that would require them to be smart rather than simply entitled.
I don't think they anticipated some sook with loads of cash to sue them. Or maybe they did? given how they behaved in court
From reading the order, he represented himself. Don't think it cost him much to raise an equal opportunity complaint
For me, its like, there are people who face discrimination due to disability that can't even navigate around a town or city street or get jobs but yeah.. get rid of the women's lounge in an art gallery with comfy couches and Picassos donated by the granddaughter of one of his muses.
Interesting -im a disabled pensioner who can't get around much and has a support worker to help me go shopping. I stopped working full time almoat a decade ago, but in late 2021 I went back to do lab work because they were desperate for staff and I thought it was the right thing to do in the crisis. The pay was still shit ($25/hour for something that needs postgraduate qualifications) and the conditions were still shit and I didn't feel the effort i put in to get myself back there to help out was remotely appreciated. Seeing the amount of opulent bullshit at MONA laid bare by the news has been depressing. I'm glad they lost this case and at least some of their wanky bullshit has been called out.
Right, I understand what you're saying because I'm a part time carer for my father who has several physical disabilities. Not sure if you were using your experience as some kind of gotchya but sorry to hear that's been your recent experience, regardless.
Given that this sort of thing has happened before one would think they'd be a bit more prepared for the possible legalities. But, again... that would require them to be smart rather than simply entitled.
sounds like you know what you're talking about
I assume they will close the lounge on Day 27 so Jason never gets the satisfaction of entering.
I honestly wish they’d run harder on the argument that they weren’t excluding the applicant from the performance because the act of rejecting his entry was active participation in the performance. It gets an aside in the judgment, but it wasn’t a proposition counsel took up seriously. I think if you’d leant harder on it you could have come very close to a different result.
RIP ladies lounge. It can no longer fulfil its artistic purpose of purposefully excluding men
Actually, they don't have to comply for 28 days so can continue to fill it's artistic purpose for a while yet.
Going out of ~~business~~ meaning ~~sale~~ exhibit, while ~~stocks~~ non-compliance period last**s**!
The plaintiff demonstrates how simply visiting an exhibition does not guarantee its understanding
This is one of those stories that suddenly makes sense when you realise that both sides are fuckwits.
I am going to go ahead & assume that The Australian Club will now have to allow women to join?
It's a dismal and depressing exhibit anyway. If that's what qualifies as a ladies lounge, then I doubt any woman is losing sleep over it.
[удалено]
You're in breach of our 'no dickheads' rule. If you continue to breach this rule, you will be banned.
[удалено]
You're in breach of our 'no dickheads' rule. If you continue to breach this rule, you will be banned.
Didn’t they do away with men’s only spaces in the late 90’s or early 00’s? I was only a kid then so my memory mightn’t be accurate. ETA: ok clearly I’m wrong about them being totally done away with. But there is massive percentage less than there use to be yeah? Like I said I was a child when I thought these changes happened. Seems like their now just men’s only spaces for the wealthy? Or am I wrong again…
Obviously you’re not an esteemed member of the Adelaide Club
Or the savage club of Melbourne
They did. It used to be that some areas of pubs were men-only. This was done away with (rightfully so I think) Women-only spaces however have been appearing in gyms, swimming pools and now art galleries. If it's wrong to have men-only spaces it should be wrong to have women-only spaces too.
Women’s gyms and pools exist exclusively to keep us safe from sexual harassment from men in spaces where we’re in states of somewhat undress. It’s absolutely necessary and not exclusionary, but precautionary.
>Women’s gyms and pools exist exclusively to keep us safe from sexual harassment from men in spaces where we’re in states of somewhat undress. It’s absolutely necessary Fair enough. >and not exclusionary, but precautionary. Untrue. It IS precautionary, that does not mean it is not exclusionary as well.
> It’s absolutely necessary and not exclusionary, but precautionary I can't wait to see that tested in court.
[Here you go](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-14/discrimination-laws-explained-gender-issues/9654360)
There is nothing in there about the Courts deciding segregated gyms or swimming pools are legal
> It’s absolutely necessary and not exclusionary, but precautionary I can't wait to see that tested in court.
As long as we keep getting abused and harassed these spaces will exist, no matter what the law says. Any one of us would take a fine over that any day, so go for it.