A Facebook event page appropriately titled ‘No CisHet Men Allowed’ has recently caused somewhat of a stir among South Africa’s classical liberal community – even if just for laughs.

The event, which will take place at the Blah Blah Bar on Kloof Street in Cape Town on 26 November, has the following description on its Facebook page:

“men are trash is an event put together for womxn by 3 womxn in cape town. this event focuses on the safety of womxn within the night life context, allowing womxn to finally let loose without the fear of unwanted male attention. bring your friends and wear the outfit you were scared to wear on a night out. this is a harassment free space.

please join us on the 26th of november and do the most.“

After some freedom-minded individuals discovered this page several hours later, it has been subjected to so-called ‘trolling’, with mostly cis-heterosexual males questioning what ‘cishet’ means, and how the group can legitimately exclude that demographic of the population in light of South Africa’s anti-discrimination laws. Threats of reporting the organizers to the SA Human Rights Commission have also been leveled.

‘ Cis’ within the context of the social justice notion of gender identity is often taken to mean that the ‘cis’ individual in question has the same gender identity (with their corresponding expression of that gender) as their sex at birth. In other words, a man who was born male, and expresses himself comfortably as a male, would be regarded as a ‘cis’ individual. The same applies to women. Within the context of the event in question, cis men who are also heterosexual are excluded, whereas cis homosexual men (i.e. men who identify as male and express themselves as male, but are sexually attracted to other men) are apparently welcome.

‘Womxn’ is also a term used by certain factions of the social justice left to describe ‘women’ with reference to the X-chromozone. Others have described it as a way to separate the ‘-men’ from ‘women’, based on the notion that the patriarchy treats women as ‘the other’ to the ‘standard’ of the man.

Some of the posts made in the event page include the following:

“To classify all party going males as trash and label them all as harrassers is extremely stereotypical and downright discriminatory.”

“Let’s just rename this to be what it’s become: cesspool of white male tears. Pool pardy anyone?!”

“Can admin just block all the cis male trolls now please. Enough. This space is not for you.”

“The comments on this page are exactly why cis het men aren’t allowed. If you wanted to make us change the ruling, then you should’ve acted a little differently to what’s expected of you. Right now, you’re just making us question why there aren’t more events like this. Cause there CLEARLY need to be. So many male tears, so much anger policing, mansplaining, victim blaming, fat shaming, patronising and censoring going on. It’s sort of mind numbing.”

“I think the organisers are being conservative. Cis non-hetero men in general should not be allowed. Specifically homosexual men. We are not immune from the statement “men are trash”. “gay” men are as capable of sexually harassing womxn and being incredibly derogatory to trans humans. “Gay” men are incredibly bigoted and are just as likely to argue about “all lives matter” against feminist ideals. So we see this vommit from cis het men. But cis gay men would have given the biggest bos kak too. This belief that “I too have suffered” runs too fucking deep with those identifying themselves through their dicks. Obviously the the use of non-hetero may be too broad in terms of my explanation. But within reason, cis men should not be allowed.”

“many cismen have come onto this platform and perpetuated violence thus proving why we need a safe space. this event is so important for womxn, queer, non binary and trans people. this is our space to breathe. this event will happen irrespective of what your fragile masculinity has to say. tuck it in, it’s ugly. see you on Saturday”

This event should be welcomed as a manifestation of the genius of private property and the corresponding freedom of association which results therefrom. Whereas this kind of discrimination by a State actor on public property would be manifestly unjust by using taxpayer funding to exclude taxpayers themselves, as it is done now on private property without the involvement of the State, we cannot help but appreciate it as a strong exercise of private property rights and a resounding endorsement of the Western free market system.