The article mentions "sexual assault" as the motivation. In recent years, the rate has spiked in Sweden, from almost nothing to being really common.

The situation is pretty weird, because the cause is obvious but discussing it is considered unacceptable. Living in Sweden does not make a person follow the norms of traditional Swedish culture.

I am curious, aren't we allowed to identify as whatever we want these days? As a male what would happen if I went up and told them I identify as a female?

Yes, but once you start toggling your "identity" for whatever suits the occasion, it's not really an identity anymore.

What if that is my identity?

So, are you saying that the identity of gender benders is invalid?

I couldn't care less about this festival. Let them do what they want to do.

Anyway, from what i understood, "cis-men" was allowed, they needed to be due to construction, technicians etc, but they where "held" in what by the organizeres was called a "man-pen".

They were allowed, but clearly discouraged, and that's enough to be in breach of the law. From the article:

> "No differentiation based on sex was made between visitors at entry," the ruling said. However, it added that "public statements which clearly discourage" a certain group from attending an event amounts to discrimination, and therefore the festival was in breach of the law prohibiting gender-based discrimination.

The organizers had made public and explicit statement that "cis-men was not allowed", but then did not enforce it at entry.

Also, a "man-pen"? Just imagine if the targeted demographic was something else, like Muslims.

> The DO said that no individuals had been discriminated against, and noted that the festival had not in practice enforced the ban on cisgender men

Alrighty then.

Meaning what? The law extends to public statements which clearly discourage, even if they aren't enforced by denial of entry on the day.

Seems clear enough why this is the case: advertising with, say, No blacks allowed is prohibited, even if you don't enforce this policy on the day.

Meaning what you’ve pointed out is clear; the problem was the statement and not material discrimination. “No blacks allowed”, in America at least, was no idle threat.