That is why there should be an enforced standard that is inclusive to all. Inclusivity is a door that has to swing both ways.
But what standard could possibly be “inclusive to all”? There are so many different religious, cultural, and personal beliefs that it is impossible to impose a dress code that all would agree upon.
There are some, again I am not one, that have deeply held religious values that dictate modesty. I want to be clear that I am not referring to Muslims, although they do have strict modesty standards for women in their culture. I am referring to other religions that are more Anglo based.
The thing that you’re missing (and why your posts are frustrating to many) is that there are also Christians, Jews, etc who adhere to different standards of modesty. If you want the rules to allow religious people to “feel comfortable” by not having to look upon people they feel are immodestly dressed, then head coverings, floor length skirts, and other items would have to be required for all female park guests.
People who are part of these more conservative religious groups are well aware of the fact that the “outside world” does not conform to their religious practices and
they do not expect them to. They make a conscious choice to expose themselves to people that they consider “immodest” every time they leave their house. Because they understand that those are their own beliefs and that they cannot impose their beliefs on others.
Others just kept assuming I was referring to Islam.
No one thought you were referring to Islam (only).
There are people from various religions that use head coverings and other “modest” dress that most Americans would find extreme. That’s the entire point others are making. You have repeatedly used the words “religious” and “modest” as a basis for a dress code, so where do you draw the line? Is it only the versions of Christianity/Judaism/etc that you personally agree with? Only the versions with a certain number of members? Only the versions that the majority Americans are comfortable with? Only the versions that Disney executives are members of?
You keep calling it “inclusive”, but in order to actually have a policy that banned everything a “religious” person might be offended by, Disney would have to ban all shorts, all sleeveless tops, all pants for women, all bathing suits for women, short hair on women, uncovered hair on women at all, etc, etc, etc.
Do you take the kiddos to the watermarks or public pools? Wont they "be subjected" to a lot of skin there?
I think this is the issue some have with the whole concept. All/most would have no issue seeing a woman in a bathing suit at the pool, but if she’s wearing a crop or low cut top in the park it’s somehow wildly inappropriate. If that's the case, there’s nothing inherently offensive or overly sexy about the
amount of skin, it’s just that they have deemed the location/context inappropriate for that manner of dress.
Some of us don’t view it any differently. We don’t over-sexualize a woman who is showing more skin in one context over another. That's what the people making the ogling comments aren't getting. For some people, nudity is not sexual. Just because a woman has some skin showing, doesn't mean that she is trying to "turn you on" or is giving you an open invitation to act like a creep.