It seems that in residences that it would be sanctionable to deny housing based on assigned sex or gender identity, and in education it would be sanctionable to have admissions based on that as well.
I was curious about this with Hackbright too, but I wasn't interested in this cause enough to see what legal counsel thought of it (it was the closest coding academy to me at one point). The California regulator ended up slapping them with other violations, and the sanctions seem fairly toothless.
I don't really think the various Civil Rights Acts support the bay area's rebranding of separate but equal.
And the more obvious difference to me is that your example is not providing housing and is not providing education.
There are really two questions here, the first being is it legal, and the second being is this what we want whether it is currently legal or currently illegal? If the answer to the second question is "yes" then carry on. To me it currently seems incompatible, and I am still trying to understand what the current consensus is. I don't have strong opinions on it, or much of anything, which is why I gravitate towards the legal field because - like lawyers - I can compartmentalize anything. So I am aiming to also understand the consensus on what people desire and if "safe spaces" are the most productive approach to getting there.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
“ The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In very limited circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family houses sold or rented by the owner without the use of an agent, and housing operated by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.”
So, they may be able to get by legally under the private club/member exemption.
Education under another though
that is an incredible bad faith characterization. In informal 'frat house' style settings that don't have many rules women often face incredible amounts of harassment because mostly men don't respect boundaries. It's why there is such a stereotypical bro-culture in SV, it's enabled by the laissez-faire attitude.
In settings with rules and where people expect professionalism it doesn't tend to be as much of an issue, but in some house where people even mix drinking and work it tends to go bad really quick.
I understand the rationale behind "safe spaces", that wasn't my question.
Although it's late in the cycle to be starting a hacker house.
I didn't even think of that in the prior person's example.
-Seminaries and monasteries that only house and educate men.
-Women's colleges that only house and educate women.
-Homeless and domestic violence shelters that only house men or women.
-All-boys and all-girls schools that only educate boys or girls.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is "good" or "bad". I'm just pointing out that there are many examples though out the United States. So your statement that "the bay area is rebranding separate but equal" just doesn't make any sense when this is common in various forms throughout the entire United States.
The question is whether those limitations apply here.
(It’s interesting to consider when this isn’t true in the US from a philosophical point of view)
Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws? Do you see how easy that is for me to have zero emotion on this, your turn. Think of it as a standardized test question, you have to answer those based on accuracy.
Obviously. Private, gender separated clubs exist everywhere in the United States. Ever been to a sports club or a fraternity? Civil rights legislation addresses employment and 'spaces of public accommodation'. You're obviously JAQing off because you know this