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

[LordKiran]

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?

Can that same country club deny service to a person with a visible physical abnormality? Because when you break it down, that's really all this is. Someone has a visible physical abnormality and is being excluded because of that reason. Sounds way less defensible when I put it that way, no?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

The whole point of luxury services is to discriminate. It's to exclude the riff-raff, however that is defined. What's the difference between discriminating based on money, or anything else? Discrimination is discrimination. I've been to loads of night clubs where they only admit sexy people. How is that ok, and this isn't?

If we allow luxury as a concept, we've already accepted discrimination. Karl Marx, did have a point.

I don't think civil rights is about access to luxury. It's about getting access to things that normal people should be able to take for granted. That's where my fight for progressivness ends.

 

[LordKiran]

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?

The whole point of luxury services is to discriminate. It's to exclude the riff-raff, however that is defined. What's the difference between discriminating based on money, or anything else? Discrimination is discrimination. I've been to loads of night clubs where they only admit sexy people. How is that ok, and this isn't?

If we allow luxury as a concept, we've already accepted discrimination. Karl Marx, did have a point.

I don't think civil rights is about access to luxury. It's about getting access to things that normal people should be able to take for granted. That's where my fight for progressivness ends.

I'll be honest, I don't think that the elitist and insulary mindset this kind of "Keep out the rabble." policy sets is okay. I only accept it as a logical consequence of our(American) freedom to associate. Toronto though? I dunno, you tell me.

Also this lends me to ask what is and is not luxury? Is luxury defined by its superfluous nature? Does anything not immediately necessary for your survival count as luxury? I realize this isn't the exact topic but the way you answer these questions does have big implications for your point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'll be honest, I don't think that the elitist and insulary mindset this kind of "Keep out the rabble." policy sets is okay. I only accept it as a logical consequence of our(American) freedom to associate. Toronto though? I dunno, you tell me.

That may be. But we do live in the democratic west and an overwhelming majority thinks that luxury/discrimination is fine. At this point trying to stop it is like standing on the beach trying to prevent the tide coming in with a spoon.

I personally think that this is instinct. We're a social species, and a big part of it is thinking high status is desireable. We will find one way or another to create hierarchies of value. If not this way, then some other way.

I think it would be good if we try to shape our societies in such a way to mitigate this. But not try too hard. I mean... that's basically what Islam is. Trying really really really hard to negate status between people. And that isn't going very well.

Also this lends me to ask what is and is not luxury? Is luxury defined by its superfluous nature? Does anything not immediately necessary for your survival count as luxury? I realize this isn't the exact topic but the way you answer these questions does have big implications for your point.

If we take commodities. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods. The only reason why luxury goods are valuable is because most people can't afford them. The value of a luxury is in it's price, not it's usage. The value of a luxury good can actually increase the less useful it is.

A good example is clothing. Throughout history high status clothing has often been clothes you can't put on yourself. Because just wearing it proves you have servants. Or take the Roman toga. You can do fuck all in a toga. You can wave your right arm a bit. But anything else and it all falls off. Wearing a toga proves you don't do physical labour.

There's nothing you can do in a spa that you can't do in your own bathtub at home. 99% of the treatments are complete bullshit. The whole point of them is too feel spoiled and pampered. There's no difference between the cheap ones and the expensive one's other than the price IMHO. Nobody needs this.

Luxuries are things we buy because they are hard to attain for other people.

 

[repoman]

Getting that luxury is seen as validation by penis-attached trans women is it not? We have been sold luxury as status validation, often in different domains for men and women.

A spa is a woman's status amenity. On a basic level this is maybe what this transgender person is feeling. Telling someone no for this kind of thing is worse emotionally than it should be if judged rationally.



if you have 140 minutes this is interesting:

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I's not fine to advocate a lot of ideologies/religions, but it's allowed in nearly all cases in the West. People are allowed to discriminate on their private parties on the basis of whatever they want (race, sex, attractiveness), and it's allowed, even if it's not morally okay.
The central questions are whether it's okay to vote to pass a law banning some kinds of discrimination, whether it's okay not to do so, etc., even if the discrimination itself isn't okay. These matters need to be considered on a case by case basis.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

The thing is normally what's in your pants is a private matter that should have no influence on public choices. Thus virtually all businesses should have no right to make a choice based upon that private anatomy.

However, that does not mean that the same rules should be applied in the few cases where it does matter. In this case that anatomy is on public display, it ceases to be a private matter.

 

[Bomb#20]

Luxuries are things we buy because they are hard to attain for other people.

Have you seriously never tasted chocolate? Dude! You have got to try this stuff!

 

[PyramidHead]

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?

The whole point of luxury services is to discriminate. It's to exclude the riff-raff, however that is defined. What's the difference between discriminating based on money, or anything else? Discrimination is discrimination. I've been to loads of night clubs where they only admit sexy people. How is that ok, and this isn't?

If we allow luxury as a concept, we've already accepted discrimination. Karl Marx, did have a point.

I don't think civil rights is about access to luxury. It's about getting access to things that normal people should be able to take for granted. That's where my fight for progressivness ends.

So no blacks allowed in the yacht club is something society should just accept?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Luxuries are things we buy because they are hard to attain for other people.

Have you seriously never tasted chocolate? Dude! You have got to try this stuff!

Sales people often sneakily write "luxury" on the packaging of non-luxury goods to increase sales.

But that said, I think all sweets might technically luxuries. Because they're counter productive to eat. But I'm not sure what high status is attained from eating them? So are they luxuries? Not sure.

- - - Updated - - -

The whole point of luxury services is to discriminate. It's to exclude the riff-raff, however that is defined. What's the difference between discriminating based on money, or anything else? Discrimination is discrimination. I've been to loads of night clubs where they only admit sexy people. How is that ok, and this isn't?

If we allow luxury as a concept, we've already accepted discrimination. Karl Marx, did have a point.

I don't think civil rights is about access to luxury. It's about getting access to things that normal people should be able to take for granted. That's where my fight for progressivness ends.

So no blacks allowed in the yacht club is something society should just accept?

Society accepts that poor people aren't allowed in. What's the difference?

 

[LordKiran]

Have you seriously never tasted chocolate? Dude! You have got to try this stuff!

Sales people often sneakily write "luxury" on the packaging of non-luxury goods to increase sales.

But that said, I think all sweets might technically luxuries. Because they're counter productive to eat. But I'm not sure what high status is attained from eating them? So are they luxuries? Not sure.

- - - Updated - - -

The whole point of luxury services is to discriminate. It's to exclude the riff-raff, however that is defined. What's the difference between discriminating based on money, or anything else? Discrimination is discrimination. I've been to loads of night clubs where they only admit sexy people. How is that ok, and this isn't?

If we allow luxury as a concept, we've already accepted discrimination. Karl Marx, did have a point.

I don't think civil rights is about access to luxury. It's about getting access to things that normal people should be able to take for granted. That's where my fight for progressivness ends.

So no blacks allowed in the yacht club is something society should just accept?

Society accepts that poor people aren't allowed in. What's the difference?

Is it really the same when someone cannot join a club for the simple fact that they cannot afford to take part in the activities associated with the club?
In all honesty though I imagine that a poor person becoming rich overnight probably wouldn't be allowed in either.

However! Do you concede that there is a difference between a social club and a business venture? To my mind, your money is just as green as anyone else's money and the policies of a business should generally reflect this, in principle if not legally.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is it really the same when someone cannot join a club for the simple fact that they cannot afford to take part in the activities associated with the club?
In all honesty though I imagine that a poor person becoming rich overnight probably wouldn't be allowed in either.

However! Do you concede that there is a difference between a social club and a business venture? To my mind, your money is just as green as anyone else's money and the policies of a business should generally reflect this, in principle if not legally.

Sure

 

[repoman]

Is it really the same when someone cannot join a club for the simple fact that they cannot afford to take part in the activities associated with the club?
In all honesty though I imagine that a poor person becoming rich overnight probably wouldn't be allowed in either.

However! Do you concede that there is a difference between a social club and a business venture? To my mind, your money is just as green as anyone else's money and the policies of a business should generally reflect this, in principle if not legally.

Sure

Beverly Hillbillies

 

[Bomb#20]

Luxuries are things we buy because they are hard to attain for other people.

Have you seriously never tasted chocolate? Dude! You have got to try this stuff!

Sales people often sneakily write "luxury" on the packaging of non-luxury goods to increase sales.

But that said, I think all sweets might technically luxuries. Because they're counter productive to eat. But I'm not sure what high status is attained from eating them? So are they luxuries? Not sure.

I.e., you're making an assertion about human psychology; you're defending it with a "no-true-luxury" word game; and the reason you're using that fallacy instead of making a substantive argument is because your assertion isn't true. Yes, of course chocolate is a luxury. I went without chocolate for five years straight when my doctor told me to; but it's not the counter-productiveness that makes it a luxury; it's the getting along without it. (I'm cured; I get to eat it again -- yay! -- in moderation -- dangit!)

You wrote "If we take commodities. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods. The only reason why luxury goods are valuable is because most people can't afford them.". That doesn't make any sense. Luxury goods are valuable because people value them. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods because you can get along without them but you want them anyway. The usual reason you want them anyway is because you enjoy them. Another common reason is because they're high quality and will last longer than cheap substitutes, and being rich allows you the luxury of longer-term decision making. Wanting things because other people can't afford them happens sometimes, but it isn't one of the top reasons for wanting things.

The whole point of luxury services is to discriminate. It's to exclude the riff-raff, however that is defined. What's the difference between discriminating based on money, or anything else? Discrimination is discrimination. I've been to loads of night clubs where they only admit sexy people. How is that ok, and this isn't?

If we allow luxury as a concept, we've already accepted discrimination. Karl Marx, did have a point.

I don't think civil rights is about access to luxury. It's about getting access to things that normal people should be able to take for granted. That's where my fight for progressivness ends.

So no blacks allowed in the yacht club is something society should just accept?

Society accepts that poor people aren't allowed in. What's the difference?

The one currently upsets more people's culturally ingrained sensibilities than the other. Go back to 1848 and you'd find millions of rabidly left-wing racists outraged over the exclusion of poor people but having no problem with exclusion of blacks, or Jews, or whoever. Engels drooled over genociding the Yugoslavs. Cultural evolution follows its own dynamics.

So would you fight to abolish Sweden's discriminatory program of socialized medicine and divert all that health-care-for-people-in-Sweden money to Doctors Without Borders?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Luxuries are things we buy because they are hard to attain for other people.

Have you seriously never tasted chocolate? Dude! You have got to try this stuff!

Sales people often sneakily write "luxury" on the packaging of non-luxury goods to increase sales.

But that said, I think all sweets might technically luxuries. Because they're counter productive to eat. But I'm not sure what high status is attained from eating them? So are they luxuries? Not sure.

I.e., you're making an assertion about human psychology; you're defending it with a "no-true-luxury" word game; and the reason you're using that fallacy instead of making a substantive argument is because your assertion isn't true. Yes, of course chocolate is a luxury. I went without chocolate for five years straight when my doctor told me to; but it's not the counter-productiveness that makes it a luxury; it's the getting along without it. (I'm cured; I get to eat it again -- yay! -- in moderation -- dangit!)

You wrote "If we take commodities. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods. The only reason why luxury goods are valuable is because most people can't afford them.". That doesn't make any sense. Luxury goods are valuable because people value them. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods because you can get along without them but you want them anyway. The usual reason you want them anyway is because you enjoy them. Another common reason is because they're high quality and will last longer than cheap substitutes, and being rich allows you the luxury of longer-term decision making. Wanting things because other people can't afford them happens sometimes, but it isn't one of the top reasons for wanting things.

That's circular. We both buy necessity products and luxury products because they give us joy. Whatever definition we use we have have come up with one that sets luxuries apart from necessities.

How does luxuries give us joy that necessities don't, and why? I can't see you attempted to answer that?

The whole point of luxury services is to discriminate. It's to exclude the riff-raff, however that is defined. What's the difference between discriminating based on money, or anything else? Discrimination is discrimination. I've been to loads of night clubs where they only admit sexy people. How is that ok, and this isn't?

If we allow luxury as a concept, we've already accepted discrimination. Karl Marx, did have a point.

I don't think civil rights is about access to luxury. It's about getting access to things that normal people should be able to take for granted. That's where my fight for progressivness ends.

So no blacks allowed in the yacht club is something society should just accept?

Society accepts that poor people aren't allowed in. What's the difference?

The one currently upsets more people's culturally ingrained sensibilities than the other. Go back to 1848 and you'd find millions of rabidly left-wing racists outraged over the exclusion of poor people but having no problem with exclusion of blacks, or Jews, or whoever. Engels drooled over genociding the Yugoslavs. Cultural evolution follows its own dynamics.

So would you fight to abolish Sweden's discriminatory program of socialized medicine and divert all that health-care-for-people-in-Sweden money to Doctors Without Borders?

I think you are absolutely correct. It is arbitrary. 15 years ago they changed the Swedish royal succession. Before it was the oldest male heir that came to the throne. Because it was considered unequal they changed the succession order to whatever the oldest child was regardless of gender. How the flaming fuck is that any more equal? It's not. It's just a bizarre quirk in public opinion.

 

[PyramidHead]

Have you seriously never tasted chocolate? Dude! You have got to try this stuff!

Sales people often sneakily write "luxury" on the packaging of non-luxury goods to increase sales.

But that said, I think all sweets might technically luxuries. Because they're counter productive to eat. But I'm not sure what high status is attained from eating them? So are they luxuries? Not sure.

- - - Updated - - -

The whole point of luxury services is to discriminate. It's to exclude the riff-raff, however that is defined. What's the difference between discriminating based on money, or anything else? Discrimination is discrimination. I've been to loads of night clubs where they only admit sexy people. How is that ok, and this isn't?

If we allow luxury as a concept, we've already accepted discrimination. Karl Marx, did have a point.

I don't think civil rights is about access to luxury. It's about getting access to things that normal people should be able to take for granted. That's where my fight for progressivness ends.

So no blacks allowed in the yacht club is something society should just accept?

Society accepts that poor people aren't allowed in. What's the difference?

It's possible to change your wealth or give it to someone else. You can't decide not to be black. Can you decide not to be trans?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That (i.e., the trans question) is a can of worms (i.e., not something that one should expect to have a civil online discussion about; there usually seems to be too much anger involved), but in any case, whether you can change isn't the reason why "society" (roughly, the vast majority of people, or at least a group with enough power to change the law) accepts one but not the other.
For example:

1. High-IQ society. They have gatherings for members only. And members have to be above a certain percentile on some tests. That one is accepted. But while you might be able to train and improve to some extent the result on the tests, for most people, the requirement is not achievable.
2. Let's say that overweight people are excluded. Would that be accepted by present-day society (whoever those are)? Losing weight may be very difficult, but overall, it doesn't seem more difficult to achieve than, say, becoming a millionaire is for a poor person. Would that ban be accepted by society? (I'm not sure; it might depend where and whom you're looking at for your test, but I'm adding the example just in case).
3. Let's say that the club only accepts millionaires. Some people might choose to become millionaires, but for most people, that is out of reach. On the other hand, let's say that in the future, someone comes up with an effective way of changing sexual orientation (after all, it's a matter of learning about the brain and figuring out how to change it with enough precision). Do you think current society would accept that exclusion?
4. Consider a club that bans no races, but bans Black people from eating together with White people (or kissing, etc.); you can't change your race, but you can change how you behave. Yet, that one would not be accepted, either.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's possible to change your wealth or give it to someone else. You can't decide not to be black. Can you decide not to be trans?

Isn't that the same thing as refusing to visit places that ban blacks?

- - - Updated - - -

That's a can of worms (i.e., not something that one should expect to have a civil online discussion about; there usually seems to be too much anger involved), but in any case, whether you can change isn't the reason why "society" (roughly, the vast majority of people, or at least a group with enough power to change the law) accepts one but not the other.
For example:

1. High-IQ society. They have gatherings for members only. And members have to be above a certain percentile on some tests. That one is accepted. But while you might be able to train and improve to some extent the result on the tests, for most people, the requirement is not achievable.
2. Let's say that overweight people are excluded. Would that be accepted by present-day society (whoever those are)? Losing weight may be very difficult, but overall, it doesn't seem more difficult to achieve than, say, becoming a millionaire is for a poor.
3. Let's say that the club only accepts millionaires. Some people might choose to become millionaires, but for most people, that is out of reach. On the other hand, let's say that in the future, someone comes up with an effective way of changing sexual orientation (after all, it's a matter of learning about the brain and figuring out how to change it with enough precision). Do you think current society would accept that exclusion?
4. Consider a club that bans no races, but bans Black people from eating together with White people (or kissing, etc.); you can't change your race, but you can change how you behave. Yet, that one would not be accepted, either.

There's loads of kinky clubs that only allow people who have a specific fetish or turn-on

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Isn't that the same thing as refusing to visit places that ban blacks?

No, it's not.
PyramidHead seems to be saying that the distinction about what's accepted by society is based on whether the trait is changeable. The claim is false, but what he's saying does not appear related to refusing to visit places than ban Blacks.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Isn't that the same thing as refusing to visit places that ban blacks?

No, it's not.
PyramidHead seems to be saying that the distinction about what's accepted by society is based on whether the trait is changeable. The claim is false, but what he's saying does not appear related to refusing to visit places than ban Blacks.

So what? It's not changeable for most people. Most poor people stay poor. That's just a fact. If we make the case that there's a difference because banning blacks is unfair. Well... then we've made the case that poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor. Erm... no. Life is just unfair.

I think Bomb#20 nailed it. We've just decided that one is ok, and the other isn't because that's the trendy opinion to hold now. Still not any more fair.