Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

So I take it you think the Washington case was correctly decided and you think vulnerable immigrant women should be forced to provide spa services to naked people with penises, and their safety is not an issue for you. Do I have your position correct?

NP. Can't they just look away? I don't like seeing naked vulva and that's what I do for that.

Also, hotel workers are at a much greater risk of rape than someone working in a spa. There really is nothing inherently dangerous about a penis around you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

So I take it you think the Washington case was correctly decided and you think vulnerable immigrant women should be forced to provide spa services to naked people with penises, and their safety is not an issue for you. Do I have your position correct?

NP. Can't they just look away? I don't like seeing naked vulva and that's what I do for that.

Also, hotel workers are at a much greater risk of rape than someone working in a spa. There really is nothing inherently dangerous about a penis around you.

I should say there is nothing more dangerous about the penis of a trans woman than the penis of a cis man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

So I take it you think the Washington case was correctly decided and you think vulnerable immigrant women should be forced to provide spa services to naked people with penises, and their safety is not an issue for you. Do I have your position correct?

Honestly, I don't care much anymore. I tried to care when I saw the link, but I couldn't focus on the article enough to read the story. Based on what I've seen, I would say they've made a lot of choices that could fix the problem. If naked genitals are the problem, they could allow minimal clothing to cover the genitals. Seems like that would work.

Also, why are people so concerned about these trans women having BDE? I thought the reason we had to make it illegal for kids to get hormones is because it shrinks their junk down to micropeens and became dysfunctional.

I remember a simpler time when we were afraid the gays would assault all the straights in the safe, naked spaces we created for ourselves. And I heard tales of times before that that when we had to keep races separate because some races were far more violent or sexual and would corrupt or assault all the people in the safe naked spaces. I wonder who we'll attack after we accept the trans community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I'm confused by the safety argument, because spa workers are already often alone with people with penises in other spas. The only difference here is that all the patrons are naked. Is there something about having your penis out that makes someone more likely to rape?

Also, as I read the article (and as I understand Korean spas), you don't get your services in a solo room -- you get it in communal rooms. So a spa worker wouldn't find themselves alone with someone who has a penis.

Nope. Many women elect to visit spas where they will only be naked in the vicinity of other females. You have removed the ability for a woman to visit a communal spa and be separate from males.

Korean spas typically have both communal and solo rooms.

Well, that's a different argument. I was talking about the safety argument, not the community aspect of a single-sex environment.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I think that vulnerable immigrants are potentially subject to a number of types of abuses and I am concerned about their rights across the board. I would not assume that absent this ruling, they would otherwise be safe from abuse. Obviously, this ruling presents more challenges. Your or my feelings about the law are irrelevant given that it appears to be the law and the spa has to live with it. One obvious solution is to not allow a spa worker to be alone with a client regardless of the gender identity of the client. Another possibility is to have some sort of "panic button" either installed in the room or provided to the workers so that if they faced a dangerous situation, they could quickly summon help. I am also concerned that this ruling might threaten the survival of the business if its regular customers begin avoiding it. So, another solution might be to turn the spa into a private club that has more leeway to be selective of its members.

Moreover, I would hope that a trans woman who has not undergone bottom surgery would be sympathetic to the spa's and spa's customer's concerns and cooperate to find ways of alleviating those issues. I don't necessary believe that trans woman should summarily banned from the spa.

As for men who might simply be taking advantage of the ruling, I am not sure what to do. Maybe introduce a policy of welcoming all new members by posting their photo on the spa's website with the emphasis that the spa only serves women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

So I take it you think the Washington case was correctly decided and you think vulnerable immigrant women should be forced to provide spa services to naked people with penises, and their safety is not an issue for you. Do I have your position correct?

NP here, but no one is forcing the vulnerable immigrant women to do anything. It's a job. If they don't like the parameters of that job, they can always get a different job.

Right.
No one is forcing women to attend communal female only spas. So why don't they just stop?
No one is forcing women to play sports. If they don't like playing against males, why don't they just quit?
No one is forcing women to go to jail and be imprisioned with biological males, they can always....wait....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I'm confused by the safety argument, because spa workers are already often alone with people with penises in other spas. The only difference here is that all the patrons are naked. Is there something about having your penis out that makes someone more likely to rape?

Also, as I read the article (and as I understand Korean spas), you don't get your services in a solo room -- you get it in communal rooms. So a spa worker wouldn't find themselves alone with someone who has a penis.

Nope. Many women elect to visit spas where they will only be naked in the vicinity of other females. You have removed the ability for a woman to visit a communal spa and be separate from males.

Korean spas typically have both communal and solo rooms.

Well, that's a different argument. I was talking about the safety argument, not the community aspect of a single-sex environment.

They are inextricably related.

[Anonymous]

I’ve been to a Korean spa before. Same with a hammam spa. The services are nothing like what you get at a western spa, and require a lot more close proximity to genitalia.

There will be harassment and sex assault that comes out of this decision, without question, but predictably the male supremicists (with a side of racism) will downplay it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I'm confused by the safety argument, because spa workers are already often alone with people with penises in other spas. The only difference here is that all the patrons are naked. Is there something about having your penis out that makes someone more likely to rape?

Also, as I read the article (and as I understand Korean spas), you don't get your services in a solo room -- you get it in communal rooms. So a spa worker wouldn't find themselves alone with someone who has a penis.

Nope. Many women elect to visit spas where they will only be naked in the vicinity of other females. You have removed the ability for a woman to visit a communal spa and be separate from males.

Korean spas typically have both communal and solo rooms.

Trans men are, what, .75% of the US population? And there is a wage gap between trans and cis people so of that .75%, let's say half of them will never be able to afford going to a spa. And how much of the rest of them are actually going to spas and flashing their junk? The odds of this actually happening are extremely rare; I think you're more likely to get assaulted walking down the street than seeing a trans woman's penis at a spa. Typically we don't make laws against things that are extremely rare and that aren't a threat to safety unless there is another issue at play. In this case, that's transphobia.

It's fine to not want to see a penis at a spa, but it's crazy to ban trans people at spas because of the teeny teeny tiny possibility you'll see a penis there.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I'm confused by the safety argument, because spa workers are already often alone with people with penises in other spas. The only difference here is that all the patrons are naked. Is there something about having your penis out that makes someone more likely to rape?

Also, as I read the article (and as I understand Korean spas), you don't get your services in a solo room -- you get it in communal rooms. So a spa worker wouldn't find themselves alone with someone who has a penis.

Nope. Many women elect to visit spas where they will only be naked in the vicinity of other females. You have removed the ability for a woman to visit a communal spa and be separate from males.

Korean spas typically have both communal and solo rooms.

Trans men are, what, .75% of the US population? And there is a wage gap between trans and cis people so of that .75%, let's say half of them will never be able to afford going to a spa. And how much of the rest of them are actually going to spas and flashing their junk? The odds of this actually happening are extremely rare; I think you're more likely to get assaulted walking down the street than seeing a trans woman's penis at a spa. Typically we don't make laws against things that are extremely rare and that aren't a threat to safety unless there is another issue at play. In this case, that's transphobia.

It's fine to not want to see a penis at a spa, but it's crazy to ban trans people at spas because of the teeny teeny tiny possibility you'll see a penis there.

I agree with everything that you are saying but the fear being expressed is that cis men who just horny for naked women will take advantage of the ruling. I don't know how realistic this concern is, but that's what is being expressed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I think that vulnerable immigrants are potentially subject to a number of types of abuses and I am concerned about their rights across the board. I would not assume that absent this ruling, they would otherwise be safe from abuse. Obviously, this ruling presents more challenges. Your or my feelings about the law are irrelevant given that it appears to be the law and the spa has to live with it. One obvious solution is to not allow a spa worker to be alone with a client regardless of the gender identity of the client. Another possibility is to have some sort of "panic button" either installed in the room or provided to the workers so that if they faced a dangerous situation, they could quickly summon help. I am also concerned that this ruling might threaten the survival of the business if its regular customers begin avoiding it. So, another solution might be to turn the spa into a private club that has more leeway to be selective of its members.

Moreover, I would hope that a trans woman who has not undergone bottom surgery would be sympathetic to the spa's and spa's customer's concerns and cooperate to find ways of alleviating those issues. I don't necessary believe that trans woman should summarily banned from the spa.

As for men who might simply be taking advantage of the ruling, I am not sure what to do. Maybe introduce a policy of welcoming all new members by posting their photo on the spa's website with the emphasis that the spa only serves women.

A brilliant idea in some respects, but again it is women who pay the price for predatory men by having to advertise their face and name in order to get spa services.

In general, and please let me know if I am misunderstanding you, you seem to be taking the position that spa workers and spa clients will potentially be hurt by predatory men abusing the ruling, but that is less important to you than getting the legal position on trans rights correct here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

So I take it you think the Washington case was correctly decided and you think vulnerable immigrant women should be forced to provide spa services to naked people with penises, and their safety is not an issue for you. Do I have your position correct?

NP. Can't they just look away? I don't like seeing naked vulva and that's what I do for that.

Also, hotel workers are at a much greater risk of rape than someone working in a spa. There really is nothing inherently dangerous about a penis around you.

I should say there is nothing more dangerous about the penis of a trans woman than the penis of a cis man.

I agree with that, but the point is that both are now freely allowed in previously single sex places. And we know for a fact that single sex environments protect women from harassment and assault from penis-having people. I don’t care whether the assaulting penis belongs to a transwoman or cis man, I care about stopping assaults.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I think that vulnerable immigrants are potentially subject to a number of types of abuses and I am concerned about their rights across the board. I would not assume that absent this ruling, they would otherwise be safe from abuse. Obviously, this ruling presents more challenges. Your or my feelings about the law are irrelevant given that it appears to be the law and the spa has to live with it. One obvious solution is to not allow a spa worker to be alone with a client regardless of the gender identity of the client. Another possibility is to have some sort of "panic button" either installed in the room or provided to the workers so that if they faced a dangerous situation, they could quickly summon help. I am also concerned that this ruling might threaten the survival of the business if its regular customers begin avoiding it. So, another solution might be to turn the spa into a private club that has more leeway to be selective of its members.

Moreover, I would hope that a trans woman who has not undergone bottom surgery would be sympathetic to the spa's and spa's customer's concerns and cooperate to find ways of alleviating those issues. I don't necessary believe that trans woman should summarily banned from the spa.

As for men who might simply be taking advantage of the ruling, I am not sure what to do. Maybe introduce a policy of welcoming all new members by posting their photo on the spa's website with the emphasis that the spa only serves women.

I think the bolded is at the heart of a lot of the disagreement here. I am sure that you are a good guy who respects women, does not abuse them, and does not non-consensually physically or visually force women into unwanted sexual acts. You are wholly unaware of the levels of predation on women at the expense of males. You believe it is rare that a male would enter a nude female spa for nefarious purposes. You "don't understand the reasons why" a transwoman or any other males would want to enter the spa and how these motivations are different between biological males and females. Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

So I take it you think the Washington case was correctly decided and you think vulnerable immigrant women should be forced to provide spa services to naked people with penises, and their safety is not an issue for you. Do I have your position correct?

NP here, but no one is forcing the vulnerable immigrant women to do anything. It's a job. If they don't like the parameters of that job, they can always get a different job.

Thank you for neatly demonstrating how privileged and entitled trans rights activists are.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I think that vulnerable immigrants are potentially subject to a number of types of abuses and I am concerned about their rights across the board. I would not assume that absent this ruling, they would otherwise be safe from abuse. Obviously, this ruling presents more challenges. Your or my feelings about the law are irrelevant given that it appears to be the law and the spa has to live with it. One obvious solution is to not allow a spa worker to be alone with a client regardless of the gender identity of the client. Another possibility is to have some sort of "panic button" either installed in the room or provided to the workers so that if they faced a dangerous situation, they could quickly summon help. I am also concerned that this ruling might threaten the survival of the business if its regular customers begin avoiding it. So, another solution might be to turn the spa into a private club that has more leeway to be selective of its members.

Moreover, I would hope that a trans woman who has not undergone bottom surgery would be sympathetic to the spa's and spa's customer's concerns and cooperate to find ways of alleviating those issues. I don't necessary believe that trans woman should summarily banned from the spa.

As for men who might simply be taking advantage of the ruling, I am not sure what to do. Maybe introduce a policy of welcoming all new members by posting their photo on the spa's website with the emphasis that the spa only serves women.

A brilliant idea in some respects, but again it is women who pay the price for predatory men by having to advertise their face and name in order to get spa services.

In general, and please let me know if I am misunderstanding you, you seem to be taking the position that spa workers and spa clients will potentially be hurt by predatory men abusing the ruling, but that is less important to you than getting the legal position on trans rights correct here.

I don't know enough about the particulars of the law to have a valid opinion of it. I am noting that a court upheld the ruling and, therefore, it is current law regardless of our feelings about it. I am sympathetic to the spa workers and I am sympathetic to trans women customers (though, if I were them I would probably avoid it). I am not sympathetic to cis perverts.