City's YMCA and police dept. start girls-only swim class

First, swimming skills in MN are indeed a necessity. Lakes are all over the place and it's too easy to fall into any given lake anywhere you live-- assuming they are nearby and part of life growing up. Not so in many places in the world, but in MN? Yes. So I get that they need to learn to swim.

Next is "modesty". Well MANN readers know what I think of avoidable gender segregation. This seems to be a religiously-based inclination and I don't usually take religious beliefs as the basis of restricting others' access to resources, etc. This case is far less severe however than the matter of, for example, circumcision. In that case, its. religious belief exercise rights vs. human rights. To me, it's no contest. In this case however, the issue isn't as severe, not even close. Due to their parents' religious beliefs, these girls have been denied the opportunity to learn to swim in a safe, controlled environment (lakes aren't that) that does not pose a significant risk of giving the girls some kind of health problem (lakes don't have fungicides or significant enough chlorine levels to kill the germs that love to feast on the nutrient-rich environment animal tissues provide). So in this case, the complicating matter of religious belief accomodation infringes on the opportunities of two kinds of ppl: the girls themselves and the male YMCA patrons who are denied access to the pool for that hour.

Provided the time set aside is not too significant compared to the total time the pool is otherwise open to the general membership (an hr. or two per week out of perhaps 14 hrs./day, 6 days/wk.) is not too unreasonable. IMO, provided this doesn't act as a slippery slope/thin edge of the wedge, it isn't too terrible a thing given what it's accomplishing.

This I feel is less a matter of overt intentional sexist discrimination vs. men and more an issue of trying to manage as fairly as possible the religious observances of a subsection of our general pop'n w/out compromising the general liberties and standards we have as a society. If the YMCA in question were utterly privately operated/funded, it'd not be subject to debate aside from the question of fairness to male paying members and access to the facility's pool. Instead, YMCAs usually receive taxpayer funding, so its policies and accomodation issues are a fair public policy matter. Here in the US, there's a long history of seeking ways to balance the desires of religious groups' beliefs observance vs. the state's obligations in general to make sure resource access and duty of fulfillment of civil burdens are balanced -- well, at least since a certain date; prior to that, not so much. Admittedly, we don't always get it right and sometimes totally a$$ it up, but at least we try. Further examples: Exempting some religious groups from most or all forms of taxation, but in so doing the group is required to avoid using publicly-funded utilities and other services excepting those necessary to dealing with life or health emergencies (hence, use of phones and requesting police/fire/EMS srvcs. are fine, though for fire/EMS, they might get a bill in the mail). Exempting men from coerced military service because of the group's pacifistic beliefs (e.g.: the Amish), but the trade-off is that the group must never try to form or hire any kind of such force of its own and not claim exemption from community standards around law enforcement, attempt to form its own such force, or be exempt from the same laws and standards those outside the group are subject to.

I suppose in this case I'd ask as follows: If Islam had this kind of modesty standard instead for boys and not girls (or both), would this YMCA do the same as now? My guess is that it would. Seems to me this is more a religious observance accomodation question than an MR-related one. The matter of whether the religious belief-inspired standard is a good thing, a just thing, a desirable thing, is a different question.

And my opinion? Well, can it be too hard to guess? It's a bad thing, esp. since living in the US, these girls will not be growing up in a place where generalized gender segregation is generally accepted. But unless it's clearly necessary for maintaining respect for basic human necessities' fulfillment (changing clothes, calls of nature) or the very nature of the matter requires it, otherwise publicly available services shouldn't be gender-segregated. If it's bad to do so when in the context of ethnicities, why not also for genders?

My problem is with the double standards. It seems religious belief can be used to discriminate against men in publicly funded (at least here in Canada, I assume the same for the states) institutions, but when a private business seeks to limit the services they offer based on the religious beliefs, the $#!t hits the fan

http://tundratabloids.com/2012/11/lesbian-in-need-of-a-haircut-picks-an-all-male-muslim-barbershop-gets-the-boot.html