On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:56 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not my area of expertise. But I’ve noticed that a number of bars > that are designed for gay men in the USA have a sign on the door with a > crossed out “W”. It looks like a no smoking sign but with a capital W > instead of a cigarette. > I've literally never heard of this. Usually GLBT friendly establishments in the US and Canada have a rainbow flag out front or are overtly campy, or in San Francisco's Castro District, *extremely both*. And in both countries, you don't have to be a specific gender or orientation to go in there. Heck, they'll even generally serve homophobes so long as they're not disruptive or otherwise harshing the atmosphere: Money talks, BS walks. > This means “no women allowed.” My wife tells me this is still legal in the > USA?! It's not, 14th Amendment (1868), equal protection clause. A century later, we spent a decade re-litigating this in the streets because apparently it wasn't made clear the first time around. > There are also barber shops that exclude women (though these shops usually > serve straight, gay and bi Men without distinctions) > There are gender-specific barber/hairdresser shops, but that isn't a restriction on who they will serve but a description of the specialty of what hairstyles they can turn out. A men's barber shop will serve women, but if they don't want a haircut that's popular among men, the result is probably going to be on par with something they could get cheaper going to a beauty school's open house (since that could be very well be the most recently they've done such a cut, however long ago that was for the barber) or not really possible at all (at least in the US, a men's barber shop, especially older ones, might be so basic, particularly in small towns, as to lack shampoo sinks and hair dryers). Likewise, womens barbers don't turn away guys, but getting a guy's cut there is not going to be ideal (my mom would take me to her hairdresser as a kid sometimes when the whole family needed haircuts, and they'd totally crush it out of the park with my mom and sister's hair, but totally butcher mine; but I have full confidence that if I wanted the same cut as my sister or mom, they'd have got it right). > So I believe this would be verifiable information. It would also be safe > to tag women=no for bars or clubs even in countries where LGBT activity is > illegal or persecuted. Men=designated could be used for bars that are > mainly for gay, bi (and trans?) men, but which do not prohibit women > explicitly. > > I haven’t heard of bars with a “no men” sign, but “women=designated” could > work for bars catering to lesbian, bisexual )and trans?) women? Pretty sure access tagging is a legal restriction/designation, not a specialty one.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging