Women-only ‘full nudity’ spa’s ‘no male genitals’ rule ignites transgender debate in Toronto

[LordKiran]

Because of the precedent it sets. Now what you may think of this idea notwithstanding, the entire idea of being trans is to not necessarily be considered 'trans'. The ultimate end goal of most transsexuals is to be considered just another man/woman. So when a spa decides to restrict admittance of trans-women, it establishes the idea that there is a fundamental difference, that trans-women are not 'women' but instead are this other thing that doesn't belong with 'real women.'

If they still have a penis, then in a very objective physical sense they are an "other thing" from women without penises. So, unless we are going to make it illegal for people to recognize objective scientific reality, then there should be no legal compulsion for everyone else to to have along with a delusion every trans-woman is just like every other woman.

Maybe, but why should that even matter insofar as how you treat people? Here's the real question at the heart of this whole situation: What makes a transwoman with a penis somehow more threatening than one without? Is the underlying assumption that because she has a penis she might rape the other women there? If not then what's the big deal?

 

[Angry Floof]

Right wing authoritarian traits are: obedience to an authority, not questioning the authority, conformity to authority's views and rules, willingness to go along with whatever punishments the authority deems necessary for outgroups who do not follow those rules, adherence to tradition, and mistrust of other ideological and cultural groups.

That fits many SJW types perfectly except for the adherence to tradition. I would add groupthink and lack of introspection and independent thought for both groups. And for the SJWs (LWAs?) I would further add virtue signaling. Fits the campus crusaders perfectly then.

Can you link us to the literature on this type of right wing authoritarianism you're claiming? There's tons of research on right wing authoritarianism. I'm sure you can find some obscure, apples-to-oranges examples where the connection to right wing authoritarianism is clear. You can find it clearly among right wing ideologies, religious or political, but rarely do you find that particular cognitive repertoire at play so strongly among liberals.

A few people have tried to link liberal cognitive traits (openness, inclusiveness in their world view*, willingness to question authority and tradition, etc.) to right wing authoritarianism, but have failed miserably. I'd love to see more criticism of the research on fascism. In fact, it's been scientists and liberals who have criticized past research and refined it and/or threw out some previous assumptions. Right wing authoritarian followers tend to NOT read the research at all, and if they do get a gist of what it says about them, they typically just start throwing poop with no useful substance or even a glance at the literature.

*Just a reminder: calling bigots out for their inhumane beliefs isn't the same thing as accepting an authority's punishment of them, or laws that marginalize them, or depriving them of freedom or health care or economic opportunity, or someone behaving badly at the moment.

 

[Shadowy Man]

People have preferences. Regardless of why they do or what drove them to, they do. Many seek out places that cater to what they prefer. If others are unwelcome and excluded in the process, they can establish their own refuge, or they can set out to ruin it for those that do not welcome them. It's pretty clear the direction we're going on many issues: Articulated positively by many; tolerated until profoundly disgusted by others.

Exactly. Just like when the Trump men said that if a woman gets sexually harassed in the workplace, she should just go find a different career.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Neither. Private business with the right to impose its own policies. If you want to use their services, follow their fucking rules.

This is fine if we don't pre-suppose that trans-women are women.

Women who are pregnant, have heart conditions or prosthetic limbs are still women, but there's a giant sign on the Iron Wolf that says they're not allowed to ride on it.

- - - Updated - - -

even though I am a man, I would probably feel more at ease in a woman's gym if I had to pick between than and a man's gym.

Ironically, that's the main reason why men are banned from women's gyms.

 

[Malintent]

My advice to this spa would be to get to the point. Instead of introducing the apparently difficult question of gender into this, simply say what you want.

No Dicks Allowed.

It is not about gender, but about biology.

This has been my view of the bathroom "debate".. instead of putting the (apparently) difficult distinction "men" / "women".. put the (hopefully) simple distinction "Penises" / "Vaginas".

 

[ronburgundy]

If they still have a penis, then in a very objective physical sense they are an "other thing" from women without penises. So, unless we are going to make it illegal for people to recognize objective scientific reality, then there should be no legal compulsion for everyone else to to have along with a delusion every trans-woman is just like every other woman.

Maybe, but why should that even matter insofar as how you treat people?

"How you treat people" and whether you want to be surrounded by exposed male genitalia while your naked and trying to relax are two very different things.

Here's the real question at the heart of this whole situation: What makes a transwoman with a penis somehow more threatening than one without? Is the underlying assumption that because she has a penis she might rape the other women there? If not then what's the big deal?

What's the reason for not just allowing people to just walk around completely nude anywhere they want to? Why can't school teachers just take off their clothes in class? The answer to those questions will lead you directly to the answer to your question.
It need not have anything to do with thinking the person will do any harm to anyone. Regardless of why or how sensible it is, in all modern societies the general custom is that genitals are covered and not exposed to the opposite sex, except sexual or very specific medical reasons. That inherently makes it "a big deal" for anyone to expose their genitals to the opposite sex or kids, because without a medical reason, it evokes sexuality into the situation regardless of that person intentions.
Given that the whole point of "spas" is comfort and relaxation, such a spa would be pointless. That is why there are very few spas where both sexes intermingle in the nude, and the few that do probably do have regular sexual encounters. There is little market for it, because unless they are going there for sex, most women don't find a room full of naked men who can also see them naked to be conducive to relaxation and stress relief.

In sum, the impact on the women at the spa is mostly about the physical reality of the male genitalia, so there is no meaningful difference in whether the person with the penis is a hetero cis-gender male or a trans-woman.
So, to avoid hypocritical self-contradiction, any argument for forcing such spas to admit those trans-women much also argue for forcing all spas to be completely open to all people of all gender and sex status, with no allowance for any areas that some people can go and not others.

 

[ronburgundy]

People have preferences. Regardless of why they do or what drove them to, they do. Many seek out places that cater to what they prefer. If others are unwelcome and excluded in the process, they can establish their own refuge, or they can set out to ruin it for those that do not welcome them. It's pretty clear the direction we're going on many issues: Articulated positively by many; tolerated until profoundly disgusted by others.

Exactly. Just like when the Trump men said that if a woman gets sexually harassed in the workplace, she should just go find a different career.

Yeah, because sexually harassing a person is the same as wanting to be in a privately owned space without penises waggin' in your face. Ironically, what sexual harassment is far more similar to is what trans advocates are demanding, which is that any woman that wants to be in a private place where they can be naked, be forced to also look at and be in close proximity to exposed male genitalia.

 

[prideandfall]

Maybe, but why should that even matter insofar as how you treat people? Here's the real question at the heart of this whole situation: What makes a transwoman with a penis somehow more threatening than one without?

i have to disagree with you here.
i think the real question at the heart of this whole situation is: why does anyone except for the women who frequent the spa get any say in what is or isn't threatening to them?

if the women at the spa don't like having dicks there, then it's perfectly reasonable to exclude dicks and anyone who has a dick.
i'm all for reasonable accommodation of people's delusions provided it does no harm, but there comes a point at which we (collectively) can no longer be held responsible for other people's self deception.

 

[blastula]

Maybe, but why should that even matter insofar as how you treat people? Here's the real question at the heart of this whole situation: What makes a transwoman with a penis somehow more threatening than one without?

i have to disagree with you here.
i think the real question at the heart of this whole situation is: why does anyone except for the women who frequent the spa get any say in what is or isn't threatening to them?

Has anyone asked them? The decision is by the spa owner.

My take is that since anyone who goes to a spa is an asshole, they should let in anyone with an asshole.

 

[prideandfall]

Has anyone asked them? The decision is by the spa owner.

well one would HOPE it's a policy derived from customer comments or something and not just instituted arbitrarily due to the whim of the owners... but if it was something the owners did out of nowhere and apropos of nothing, i would say that was a poor decision.

 

[blastula]

Has anyone asked them? The decision is by the spa owner.

well one would HOPE it's a policy derived from customer comments or something and not just instituted arbitrarily due to the whim of the owners... but if it was something the owners did out of nowhere and apropos of nothing, i would say that was a poor decision.

It could be they are assuming. Maybe the women who go there wouldn't have a problem with trans women.

 

[LordKiran]

Maybe, but why should that even matter insofar as how you treat people?

"How you treat people" and whether you want to be surrounded by exposed male genitalia while your naked and trying to relax are two very different things.

Here's the real question at the heart of this whole situation: What makes a transwoman with a penis somehow more threatening than one without? Is the underlying assumption that because she has a penis she might rape the other women there? If not then what's the big deal?

What's the reason for not just allowing people to just walk around completely nude anywhere they want to? [1] Why can't school teachers just take off their clothes in class? [2] The answer to those questions will lead you directly to the answer to your question. [3]
It need not have anything to do with thinking the person will do any harm to anyone.[4] Regardless of why or how sensible it is, in all modern societies the general custom is that genitals are covered and not exposed to the opposite sex, except sexual or very specific medical reasons. That inherently makes it "a big deal" for anyone to expose their genitals to the opposite sex or kids, because without a medical reason, it evokes sexuality into the situation regardless of that person intentions.
Given that the whole point of "spas" is comfort and relaxation, such a spa would be pointless. That is why there are very few spas where both sexes intermingle in the nude, and the few that do probably do have regular sexual encounters. There is little market for it, because unless they are going there for sex, most women don't find a room full of naked men who can also see them naked to be conducive to relaxation and stress relief.

In sum, the impact on the women at the spa is mostly about the physical reality of the male genitalia, so there is no meaningful difference in whether the person with the penis is a hetero cis-gender male or a trans-woman.
So, to avoid hypocritical self-contradiction, any argument for forcing such spas to admit those trans-women much also argue for forcing all spas to be completely open to all people of all gender and sex status, with no allowance for any areas that some people can go and not others.

1. Because most people have an irrational discomfort related to public nudity due to their upbringing and their own personal body image hangups?

2. Largely again to do with point one but what does all this rhetorical fluff about clothing have to do with which women are allowed into a spa?

3. An answer so obvious that you failed to provide it? Don't ask rhetorical questions and then just trail off. Make your point.

4. Because there's not really any other rational that makes sense for why women would be uncomfortable sharing there space with a transwoman. What if our transwoman was a hermaphrodite? Would she not be allowed in then because of a birth defect she was born with? From a purely practical standpoint how is our transwoman any different from any other woman afflicted with a physical abnormality? Should women with physical deformities not be allowed in because they make people feel uncomfortable having to look at them? The fact that her physical abnormality is related to her sexual organs and thus carries a lot of emotional baggage for a lot of people due to how people are raised to regard sex and sexual contact in general is not in itself a valid reason for denying service to a person society has determined to be legally a woman (This is Canada so presumably her gender will be reflected on her ID.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If they still have a penis, then in a very objective physical sense they are an "other thing" from women without penises. So, unless we are going to make it illegal for people to recognize objective scientific reality, then there should be no legal compulsion for everyone else to to have along with a delusion every trans-woman is just like every other woman.

Maybe, but why should that even matter insofar as how you treat people? Here's the real question at the heart of this whole situation: What makes a transwoman with a penis somehow more threatening than one without? Is the underlying assumption that because she has a penis she might rape the other women there? If not then what's the big deal?

Does the same question not apply to all humans with penises? What makes a human with a penis that is not trans somehow more threatening than one that is? Is the underlying assumption that because he isn't trans, he might rape the women there? If not, what's the big deal? You are either discriminating against people for being trans or you are discriminating against people (both who have penises) for not being trans. This hysteria opens a never ending stream of discrimination accusations.

 

[LordKiran]

Maybe, but why should that even matter insofar as how you treat people? Here's the real question at the heart of this whole situation: What makes a transwoman with a penis somehow more threatening than one without? Is the underlying assumption that because she has a penis she might rape the other women there? If not then what's the big deal?

Does the same question not apply to all humans with penises? What makes a human with a penis that is not trans somehow more threatening than one that is? Is the underlying assumption that because he isn't trans, he might rape the women there? If not, what's the big deal? You are either discriminating against people for being trans or you are discriminating against people (both who have penises) for not being trans. This hysteria opens a never ending stream of discrimination accusations.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? I mean really there's really no reason to feel threatened by someone just because they're in a spa with you.

 

[repoman]

Many transgenders women with penises are attracted to women.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who gives a fuck? Transexuals are just as free to self-identify as everybody else is to identify him or her as they please. If some women chose to identify all persons with penises as men, they've got to be free to do so.

While I sympathise for the plight of transexuals. I think in this case they don't have one.

In your opinion, how does the plight of trans people differ from the plight of gays generally, or from that of other minorities who until recently were restricted from accessing the same services as everyone else?

This isn't really a plight, is it? A spa isn't a crucial social function for women, or anybody. I've been to several spas and most have people walking around in swimsuits or bathrobes. This is in nudist-friendly Sweden. This spa seems to be highly specialised to cater to a very specific clientel. A specific clientel that it seems like, trans women aren't. If this was about access to a university I'd be the first to man the pro-trans baricades. This time... not so much.

I'm all for regulations against restrictions when those restrictions seem to only exist to make life difficult for certain groups. But this just isn't. Spa's are a luxury service. I think we should be restrictive with regulations. Too often they just make life better for lawyers, and worse for everybody else. Not all regulations. Just some.

We can't regulate ourselves to happiness. The fundamental problem here is that some women feel icky about penises, and they associate penises with cis men. The work that needs to be done here is to change that perception. Which does not, (and should not) involve going the legal route.

The gay movement, primarily, was about changing the image and perception of gay men and women. So was the civil rights movement, when it came to blacks. This is no different IMHO

 

[whichphilosophy]

Many transgenders women with penises are attracted to women.

And to men as well even if if there there isn't a port to dock during a storm.

We had no problems with women only and male only spas. Perhaps a few should open specifically for other tastes. However, I don't think spas should have to change their policies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Many transgenders women with penises are attracted to women.

So? They're not keeping lesbian women out. It's not a factor.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Many transgenders women with penises are attracted to women.

It saves necessity for a Strapadictomie

 

[PyramidHead]

In your opinion, how does the plight of trans people differ from the plight of gays generally, or from that of other minorities who until recently were restricted from accessing the same services as everyone else?

This isn't really a plight, is it? A spa isn't a crucial social function for women, or anybody. I've been to several spas and most have people walking around in swimsuits or bathrobes. This is in nudist-friendly Sweden. This spa seems to be highly specialised to cater to a very specific clientel. A specific clientel that it seems like, trans women aren't. If this was about access to a university I'd be the first to man the pro-trans baricades. This time... not so much.

I'm all for regulations against restrictions when those restrictions seem to only exist to make life difficult for certain groups. But this just isn't. Spa's are a luxury service. I think we should be restrictive with regulations. Too often they just make life better for lawyers, and worse for everybody else. Not all regulations. Just some.

We can't regulate ourselves to happiness. The fundamental problem here is that some women feel icky about penises, and they associate penises with cis men. The work that needs to be done here is to change that perception. Which does not, (and should not) involve going the legal route.

The gay movement, primarily, was about changing the image and perception of gay men and women. So was the civil rights movement, when it came to blacks. This is no different IMHO

Do you think it's okay for luxury services to discriminate on the basis of things their specialized clientele might find icky, even if it's a certain race or sexual orientation? Can a country club just decide not to allow gay men to join, since playing golf in the Hamptons isn't a vital public service?