Men should be allowed into lesbian bars.

I have a number of lesbian friends and I would like to have more, so some of my mates and I went to the Candy Bar in Soho, which is a lesbian bar.

http://www.thecandybar.co.uk...

However, we were refused entry on the grounds that we were men, even though I explained that our intentions were entirely honourable and we would be in now way offended by the sight of women engaging in sexual activity with one another.

I believe that the refusal of the bar's management to grant admittance to men amounts to sexual discrimination. Women are allowed to go into gay bars so men should be allowed into lesbian bars.

I await my opponent's response.

Thanks for the challenge, Brian :P

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

:: POINT 1 ::

Was sexual discrimination a factor?

A) Sexual Discrimination -- discrimination (usually in employment) that excludes one sex (usually women) to the benefit of the other sex ; Sexism is commonly considered to be discrimination and/or hatred towards people based on their sex rather than their individual merits (Google).

Under the provided definition of sexual discrimination, the bar's refusal to grant admittance to men does not warrant such a claim. First, this 'discrimination' has nothing to do with employment opportunities. Second, not allowing men into a lesbian bar does not benefit women, but rather protects them. The act also does not promote hatred against men based on their sex, so first, Pro must prove that sexual discrimination actually even took place.

B) Here in the states, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (namely Title VII) discusses what is and isn't permissible in terms of discrimination. An employer, for instance, cannot discriminate based on one's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. They can, however, discriminate based on one's political affiliation, sexuality, and handicaps, for example. Thus even legally - in addition to morally - one has the right to deny entrance into their own private institution.

:: POINT 2 ::

It's a LESBIAN bar.

Pro attempted to enter a lesbian bar. A lesbian is defined as a female homosexual. Assuming that Pro did not attempt to pass as a female (and prove that he was one), or indicate that he was even a homosexual, we can reasonably conclude that Pro was trying to trespass into an institution that is not open to men. So keep this in mind:

A) Brian and his friend(s) could presumably meet and befriend lesbians in many other locations - not just this one lesbian bar.

B) Like I said, a lesbian bar is a place specifically for lesbians... or at the very least, females. While this may seem unethical, we must also consider other places in society which discriminate admittance or service based on gender. For instance, a female might be refused service at a barber shop because the barber wishes to cut only men's hair. Instead, the woman might be directed to a beauty salon. This is not an example of sexual discrimination, but rather different institutions catering to different wants and needs of the public.

C) Women/lesbians might seek refuge at a lesbian bar to avoid the coming-ons of men... meaning this safe haven serves one population of the public - not all. To eliminate such a place would actually be discriminatory against lesbians or females in general -- after all, if places still exist that are for men only (i.e. professional sporting leagues), then to not allow such places for women would be biased and unfair.

:: POINT 3 ::

The rights of owners/customers.

A) As I've mentioned, females may seek refuge at a lesbian bar for a variety of reasons. Who is to say that a woman should not be able to enjoy something without the imposition of male presence? Again the precedent for this lies in other institutions in society. For instance, a female may have no shot at pledging a fraternity, because of the strictly enforced all-male policy. Fraternities are not legal institutions - they are private. Thus businesses are also private - or should be - and owners and patrons alike should have the right to exclude whom they want.

B) To elaborate on that point, I'd like to point out why business owners should be allowed to deny admittance of men into a lesbian club. First, they are not making money off it; in fact, they may be losing money (entrance fees, drinks, etc.). Thus the management's sole concern are their patrons. Second, like I said - women might be uncomfortable being in the presence of men. If so, they might not return to the bar/club, meaning management would actually lose money in the future. Unless Brian and his friends would be willing to compensate for the loss of profit, admitting men into this institution would be unprofitable and immoral against business owners.

C) In response to my opponent's claim, "Women are allowed to go into gay bars so men should be allowed into lesbian bars," I would like to reiterate that it should be up to the bar's particular management whom they would like to admit. Remember that bars who refuse patronage are taking the risk of assuming the consequences, whatever those might be (i.e. loss of profit, negative portrayal in the media/society, etc.).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'll leave it at this for now...

Again, thanks for the challenge! I look forward to your response.

Well, thanks for accepting my challenge, theLwerd.

As usual, my opponent has put forward some very impressive-sounding arguments and expressed them in an extremely convincing manner. Therefore, on this occasion (and this occasion only) I would ask the members to vote on the issues, rather than the quality of the debate!

You see, some very dodgy politicians have risen to power through effectively promoting preposterous policies - policies that in sober analysis would seem outrageous, but have been nonetheless been implemented because the electorate have been convinced by that politician's rhetoric and force of argument. Margaret Thatcher was a frothing nutjob who decimated British manufacturing and heavy industries, but I met her and also watched her make speeches when she was at the height of power and she was, undeniably, a formidable and impressive character. I believe that theLwerd possesses similar powers of persuasion (albeit she is not quite as evil or mad as Thatcher!)

Now I've got that off my chest, I would like to address my opponent's points.

Her first and second points addressed, in short, sexual discrimination, claiming, in the legal sense, that is usually confined to the workplace and that a private establishment may limit admission to women, to protect them, rather than to discriminate against men. Perhaps in the US, anti-discrimination legislation is confined to the workplace. Here in the UK, however, golf clubs and gentlemen's clubs (in the traditional sense, rather than in the sense of a lap-dancing club) and working-men's clubs, had strict male-only membership policies. Now they are obliged by law to admit women. However, this may be a legal requirement, but I would contend that it is also a moral one, and that same moral principle should apply in the US, whether or not it is legally enforceable.

In the case of a club that refuses admission to all men, based solely on their gender, disregarding their general demeanour, must be considered blatant discrimination. I agree that a pack of drunken yobs hoping to see some live, red hot, XXX girl-on-girl action, free of charge, and subsequently bundle inside the club shouting things like "come on girls, lez it for the lads" might be intimidating to the customers and so should be refused admission. However, my friends and I were (reasonably) sober and (ostensibly) respectable and would have posed no threat to the occupants of the lesbian bar. The management have the right to refuse admission, of course, but it must be justified. Clearly a pub that had a sign up outside saying: "All welcome (except foreigners)" would have a tough job defending this admission policy, morally, even if not legally.

My opponent was correct in her assumption that I did not try and pass myself off as either a gay man or a lesbian. My impressions of a gay man are, at best comical, at worst offensive , but either way, utterly unconvincing. I toyed with my opponent's idea of buying a dress and a wig together with some false breasts from the joke shop and disguising myself as a woman in order to gain illicit entry into the Candy Club. However, I am six feet four inches tall with a stubbly chin and I suspect my ploy would be soon exposed!

My opponent's third point implied that the presence of males may discourage some women from attending lesbian bars and that, as a result, the bars may lose money. I dispute this point most strongly. I spend a King's ransom on booze and so do all my mates, whereas women tend to just sip coffee or Pimms and lemonade and can make a couple of drinks last all night. And, anyway, if they want to go to an all-female / gay male environment, there's always Starbucks!

I believe that, in a modern, liberal-minded society, women can only progress on the basis of having a truly equal playing field with no special privileges accorded to either gender.

I'm running late for a dentist appointment, so we'll see how this goes...

I find my opponent's comparison of myself to Margaret Thatcher to be quite comical if not offensive. Hahah! Similarly, I reckon that my opponent's style of humorous debate reminds me of Monty Python, for example, relying mainly on its British accents/undertones/figures of speech to achieve any real comic effect (for us Americans). In other words, a comment like 'Lez It Up For The Lads' seems almost funny to us because we can imagine a bunch of drunken Englishmen shouting something like this in a B-rated movie as the token foreigners for comic effect. If Brian were to have said, "Lez it up for the guys" like we would say in the States, it would not have been nearly as entertaining.

With that out of the way, let me try to address my opponent's points within the next 10 minutes. Argh! First, I would like to clarify that I in no way believe discrimination to occur only within the workforce. However, my assessment of that possibility was linked only to the provided and agreed upon definition. You can't blame me, as a debater, for pulling out all the stops.

More importantly, however, is this concept of morals and what 'should' be allowed. Brian feels that it would be immoral to discriminate entrance to one's club based on gender (or ethnicity, for example). I may agree that to some extent, discrimination based on these factors is wrong, however, that does not necessarily mean that it should not be allowed.

For instance, say I had $100 in my pocket and passed a bum on the street who asked me for some cash. Perhaps I *should* give it to him based on the moral concept of generosity. In other words, it would be a nice thing to do. However on the other hand, why should I give it to him? There is something to be said about rights of ownership, and I argue that it would be immoral to force an owner of a lesbian club to admit men. Granted that this debate is focused on what 'should' happen and not just legality; however, I have already established several good reasons as to why admittance of men should not have to be the case. As a reminder:

The owner of an establishment presumably owns not only the place of business, but the property as well. If you owned a piece of property, say a home, nobody would expect you to allow every Tom, Dick or Harry in off the street. Rather as a home owner, you would have the right to choose whom you wished to let into your home. Similarly, say you're a bachelor and 3 beautiful women wanted to come into your place. You might want to let them in and you have that right. Now suppose that 3 good looking men wanted to come into your home -- you might be a little peeved if not disinclined to grant them admittance. However in this situation, nobody is arguing that 'should' let the guys in, because... why should you? Simply because they want to come in? It doesn't add up.

Moreover on this point, say a distant son wanted to visit his dying father on his death bed. The doctor doesn't think that it would be good for the father's spirit to be riled up by the son's presence. However the son only has the very best of intentions for seeing his dad -- shouldn't that matter? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that letting him see his father would necessarily be the right thing to do. So you see, in my first example, I have established why property rights in this case take precedent over one's desire to enter upon another man's property. In my second example, I have proved how one's intentions really make no difference regarding the right course of action or what 'should' or should not be done.

Now, offering up the contention that once Men Only establishments in the UK are now forced by law to also allow women is fine and all; however, it does not effectively argue my point that there are still plenty of other places in which segregation by gender is not only allowed but preferred, such as regarding fraternities. My opponent did not respond to this point or any of my examples, so you must and 'should' extend my arguments on this platform and grant this a point in my favor. Or should I say favour.

Regarding my 3rd point, Brian's response was that he and his mates would probably spend more money on alcohol at the establishment than the other women in attendance. That might be true. Say Brian and his friends had 10 drinks each while 3 other women only had 2 drinks each. Certainly 30 drinks vs. 6 is a great discrepancy. However considering that the bar was a place for LESBIANS, we can reasonably assume that there would be more women to men (especially since they seem to not like admitting men), so if there were 30 women at the club that night all drinking 2 drinks a piece, then the ending ratio would actually be 30 drinks bought by the guys vs. 60 drinks bought by the ladies, meaning that the women, overall, would have in fact spent more money.

If at this point you regard Brian and his friends as some type of drunken Brits who spend all of their Euros at the local pub getting drunk as all bloody hell, and therefore assume that they might actually buy 20 drinks instead of 10 (equaling the amount of drinks that the ladies might buy), the response to that is that THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL. In fact it is easier to presume how much Brian drinks because he has told us; however, we have no idea how much a bunch of rowdy British lesbians drink. Some seasoned butch may even be able to drink Brian under the table for all we know!

Nevertheless, my opponent has disregarded the female/lesbian prerogative of wanting to spend time in an all-female environment by suggesting that Starbucks is always an option. Hah. Clever. However women and gay men does not = lesbians, therefore the sole demographic of this entire debate has been ignored. Additionally, there are plenty of places for Brian and his friends to befriend lesbians other than the Candy Club, such as a women's basketball game, for example. There are also plenty of other clubs for him to attend and drink, I suppose, so all-in-all there has really been no proof of why men should be allowed into lesbian bars other than the fact that they wish to be admitted.

Finally Brian ends his argument by stating, "I believe that, in a modern, liberal-minded society, women can only progress on the basis of having a truly equal playing field with no special privileges accorded to either gender." That's swell and all, but just because we live in a modern society does not mean that we live in a liberal one. Not everyone believes in gender equality, and some people would even argue that it's an immoral concept. Further, how does a female-only club for lesbians give women special privileges? To equal the playing field here, a club for gay men could choose to not admit women, and then this entire argument would be dismantled. Like I said - a club's management SHOULD be able to admit whomever they want, so long as they are willing to accept the consequences, whatever those might be, i.e. loss of profit, a negative stigma in the media/society, etc. If we live in such a liberal minded society, then people would recognize the immorality of the practice and choose to not attend the Candy Bar. But if people recognize the rights of property owners and patrons alike, perhaps Brian and his friends shouldn't be telling people what they should do...