Question about the homophobia thread

[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.

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?

I am not really sure that I am the issue here but thank you for not lumping me in with the worst examples of my gender. I understand why trans women might be eager to assert their rights, even when doing so might create controversy. But, I also believe in picking your fights and I am not convinced that a Korean Spa is really worth subjecting oneself to ridicule and anger, possibly resulting in a loss of business for the spa and its inability to survive. I think there are probably more important hills to conquer. I clearly understand that their motivations are much different than a cis man who is just trying to insert himself into a spa full of naked women. I am surprised that are discussing trans woman and cis men in the same breath. The are not the same and neither are their motivations. I can understand why the current customers and staff of the spa might be uncomfortable with either trans women or cis men joining them. The law is the law and regardless of how you or I feel about that, the spa needs to accommodate itself to it. Apparently, it is legal for them to discriminate against cis men.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

Sure, but you are avoiding the underlying question. Do you think that the current law is correct, understanding the practical outcome of the application of that law? We have an example here of the implementation: is it correct?

How exactly can women who previously used single-sex spaces to protect themselves from perverts — something we know works — now protect themselves, under current implementation of self-ID laws? What you and other trans rights advocates seem to be saying is that single-sex places are discriminatory, even if used to avoid predation. So you want them destroyed, because they are discriminating against trans people. My question is then, what is next? Single-sex spaces have historically been been created because of male predation. What replaces them for women?

And note, when I talk about predation, I mean from anyone with a penis, both trans and cis. A percentage of the population with penises, cis and trans, are horrific predators, we know that for a fact, and single-sex spaces used to protect from that. But they are now discriminatory. So what comes next?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

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?

I am not really sure that I am the issue here but thank you for not lumping me in with the worst examples of my gender. I understand why trans women might be eager to assert their rights, even when doing so might create controversy. But, I also believe in picking your fights and I am not convinced that a Korean Spa is really worth subjecting oneself to ridicule and anger, possibly resulting in a loss of business for the spa and its inability to survive. I think there are probably more important hills to conquer. I clearly understand that their motivations are much different than a cis man who is just trying to insert himself into a spa full of naked women. I am surprised that are discussing trans woman and cis men in the same breath. The are not the same and neither are their motivations. I can understand why the current customers and staff of the spa might be uncomfortable with either trans women or cis men joining them. The law is the law and regardless of how you or I feel about that, the spa needs to accommodate itself to it. Apparently, it is legal for them to discriminate against cis men.

There is quite literally no distinction between a cis man and transwomen other than their internal, unobservable feelings and their statements about their feelings. If there is anything else, please correct me. This is why the current laws, as they are written, are a problem when we have a discussion about safety issues.

[Anonymous]

I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:

When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:

When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.

I think I have expressed quite a bit of sympathy for those concerns. While I understand the motivation of trans people to fight for their rights, I don't think this was a necessary or even helpful battle to have fought.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:

When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.

This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:

When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.

I think I have expressed quite a bit of sympathy for those concerns. While I understand the motivation of trans people to fight for their rights, I don't think this was a necessary or even helpful battle to have fought.

I know you have, and to be clear I am not calling you a male supremacist. What I am saying, though, is that there is male supremacy associated with trans rights implementation and activism, and this is a discussion that should and needs to happen. But right now, women who raise the issue of male supremacy in trans rights pay enormous costs: they are threatened with violence and rape, they are doxxed, they are often hounded out of jobs. In fact, they are treated the way that violent men treated suffragettes a century ago.

Who is going to pay the price of this decision? Women who are already vulnerable. Yet women who raise those issues publicly have to decide if their personal safety is worth speaking up for those vulnerable women. That is wrong, and it is not transphobic or anti-trans anything to say that is wrong.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Sure, but you are avoiding the underlying question. Do you think that the current law is correct, understanding the practical outcome of the application of that law? We have an example here of the implementation: is it correct?

How exactly can women who previously used single-sex spaces to protect themselves from perverts — something we know works — now protect themselves, under current implementation of self-ID laws? What you and other trans rights advocates seem to be saying is that single-sex places are discriminatory, even if used to avoid predation. So you want them destroyed, because they are discriminating against trans people. My question is then, what is next? Single-sex spaces have historically been been created because of male predation. What replaces them for women?

And note, when I talk about predation, I mean from anyone with a penis, both trans and cis. A percentage of the population with penises, cis and trans, are horrific predators, we know that for a fact, and single-sex spaces used to protect from that. But they are now discriminatory. So what comes next?

I honestly don't know enough about the law in question to have an opinion on whether or not it is correct. I think there are some very obviously unfortunate and perhaps even harmful ramifications to the decision about the spa.

I have never said that I wanted the spa destroyed and the clear implications of what I've been saying is exactly the opposite.

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention, or maybe I should say "parent" of invention. Hopefully there is enough brain power on this earth to find ways of making formerly single-sex spaces safe for all (not just cis women) in the face of changing laws. I certainly have some ideas and I'm sure those smarter than me have even better ones.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Sure, but you are avoiding the underlying question. Do you think that the current law is correct, understanding the practical outcome of the application of that law? We have an example here of the implementation: is it correct?

How exactly can women who previously used single-sex spaces to protect themselves from perverts — something we know works — now protect themselves, under current implementation of self-ID laws? What you and other trans rights advocates seem to be saying is that single-sex places are discriminatory, even if used to avoid predation. So you want them destroyed, because they are discriminating against trans people. My question is then, what is next? Single-sex spaces have historically been been created because of male predation. What replaces them for women?

And note, when I talk about predation, I mean from anyone with a penis, both trans and cis. A percentage of the population with penises, cis and trans, are horrific predators, we know that for a fact, and single-sex spaces used to protect from that. But they are now discriminatory. So what comes next?

I honestly don't know enough about the law in question to have an opinion on whether or not it is correct. I think there are some very obviously unfortunate and perhaps even harmful ramifications to the decision about the spa.

I have never said that I wanted the spa destroyed and the clear implications of what I've been saying is exactly the opposite.

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention, or maybe I should say "parent" of invention. Hopefully there is enough brain power on this earth to find ways of making formerly single-sex spaces safe for all (not just cis women) in the face of changing laws. I certainly have some ideas and I'm sure those smarter than me have even better ones.

Exactly. As gender roles/definitions/identities evolve over time, we will figure this all out.

My initial reaction was that the ruling was an overstep, primarily because it seems to violate the "privacy" of the workers. But they have genitalia in their face anyway so not sure that is consistent thinking. An easy solution is to have everyone cover genitalia.

Trying to discriminate against transgender people isn't going to fix gender inequalities. We should be banding together to lift up all women.

Instead, we get anti-trans posters here who are intentionally conflating transgender women with "predatory" cisgender men. And pushing this wedge issue will end up decreasing women's rights. Please refer to what is happening in red states.

[Anonymous]

I’m the PP you are replying to and have to be offline for awhile. I just wanted to say before I go that I appreciate your thoughtful discussion here. I know you don’t want the spa destroyed, to be clear. I also know you are very against predation of women, although I don’t think I need to say that (it is obvious). But I think clarity is important, so wanted to state the obvious.

These are just very, very hard issues.

[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.

You are forcing her out of a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Sure, but you are avoiding the underlying question. Do you think that the current law is correct, understanding the practical outcome of the application of that law? We have an example here of the implementation: is it correct?

How exactly can women who previously used single-sex spaces to protect themselves from perverts — something we know works — now protect themselves, under current implementation of self-ID laws? What you and other trans rights advocates seem to be saying is that single-sex places are discriminatory, even if used to avoid predation. So you want them destroyed, because they are discriminating against trans people. My question is then, what is next? Single-sex spaces have historically been been created because of male predation. What replaces them for women?

And note, when I talk about predation, I mean from anyone with a penis, both trans and cis. A percentage of the population with penises, cis and trans, are horrific predators, we know that for a fact, and single-sex spaces used to protect from that. But they are now discriminatory. So what comes next?

I honestly don't know enough about the law in question to have an opinion on whether or not it is correct. I think there are some very obviously unfortunate and perhaps even harmful ramifications to the decision about the spa.

I have never said that I wanted the spa destroyed and the clear implications of what I've been saying is exactly the opposite.

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention, or maybe I should say "parent" of invention. Hopefully there is enough brain power on this earth to find ways of making formerly single-sex spaces safe for all (not just cis women) in the face of changing laws. I certainly have some ideas and I'm sure those smarter than me have even better ones.

Exactly. As gender roles/definitions/identities evolve over time, we will figure this all out.

My initial reaction was that the ruling was an overstep, primarily because it seems to violate the "privacy" of the workers. But they have genitalia in their face anyway so not sure that is consistent thinking. An easy solution is to have everyone cover genitalia.

Trying to discriminate against transgender people isn't going to fix gender inequalities. We should be banding together to lift up all women.

Instead, we get anti-trans posters here who are intentionally conflating transgender women with "predatory" cisgender men. And pushing this wedge issue will end up decreasing women's rights. Please refer to what is happening in red states.

While I appreciate the good-faith comments, I must disagree. We do agree that regressive gender roles should be abolished to lift up all women (and men). We agree that there is zero way to distinguish a trans woman from a cis man aside from their statements about their feelings. We know that males have higher levels of criminality than females. We know that trans women retain male patterns of criminality. We know that male patterns of crime and sexual predation on women is inherently different than female patterns of crime. I fundamentally disagree that abolishing women’s right to create sex-based spaces in anyway helps to abolish harmful gender stereotypes.

And please explain the definition of gender identity. One thing people don’t agree on is if there is any relationship to biological sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

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?

I am not really sure that I am the issue here but thank you for not lumping me in with the worst examples of my gender. I understand why trans women might be eager to assert their rights, even when doing so might create controversy. But, I also believe in picking your fights and I am not convinced that a Korean Spa is really worth subjecting oneself to ridicule and anger, possibly resulting in a loss of business for the spa and its inability to survive. I think there are probably more important hills to conquer. I clearly understand that their motivations are much different than a cis man who is just trying to insert himself into a spa full of naked women. I am surprised that are discussing trans woman and cis men in the same breath. The are not the same and neither are their motivations. I can understand why the current customers and staff of the spa might be uncomfortable with either trans women or cis men joining them. The law is the law and regardless of how you or I feel about that, the spa needs to accommodate itself to it. Apparently, it is legal for them to discriminate against cis men.

There is quite literally no distinction between a cis man and transwomen other than their internal, unobservable feelings and their statements about their feelings. If there is anything else, please correct me. This is why the current laws, as they are written, are a problem when we have a discussion about safety issues.

Thank you for succinctly saying what most people are afraid to. This is it, exactly.

[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.

I think a DCUM rule should be no posting unless you have experience outside your DCUM bubble of privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Sure, but you are avoiding the underlying question. Do you think that the current law is correct, understanding the practical outcome of the application of that law? We have an example here of the implementation: is it correct?

How exactly can women who previously used single-sex spaces to protect themselves from perverts — something we know works — now protect themselves, under current implementation of self-ID laws? What you and other trans rights advocates seem to be saying is that single-sex places are discriminatory, even if used to avoid predation. So you want them destroyed, because they are discriminating against trans people. My question is then, what is next? Single-sex spaces have historically been been created because of male predation. What replaces them for women?

And note, when I talk about predation, I mean from anyone with a penis, both trans and cis. A percentage of the population with penises, cis and trans, are horrific predators, we know that for a fact, and single-sex spaces used to protect from that. But they are now discriminatory. So what comes next?

I honestly don't know enough about the law in question to have an opinion on whether or not it is correct. I think there are some very obviously unfortunate and perhaps even harmful ramifications to the decision about the spa.

I have never said that I wanted the spa destroyed and the clear implications of what I've been saying is exactly the opposite.

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention, or maybe I should say "parent" of invention. Hopefully there is enough brain power on this earth to find ways of making formerly single-sex spaces safe for all (not just cis women) in the face of changing laws. I certainly have some ideas and I'm sure those smarter than me have even better ones.

Exactly. As gender roles/definitions/identities evolve over time, we will figure this all out.

My initial reaction was that the ruling was an overstep, primarily because it seems to violate the "privacy" of the workers. But they have genitalia in their face anyway so not sure that is consistent thinking. An easy solution is to have everyone cover genitalia.

Trying to discriminate against transgender people isn't going to fix gender inequalities. We should be banding together to lift up all women.

Instead, we get anti-trans posters here who are intentionally conflating transgender women with "predatory" cisgender men. And pushing this wedge issue will end up decreasing women's rights. Please refer to what is happening in red states.

While I appreciate the good-faith comments, I must disagree. We do agree that regressive gender roles should be abolished to lift up all women (and men). We agree that there is zero way to distinguish a trans woman from a cis man aside from their statements about their feelings. We know that males have higher levels of criminality than females. We know that trans women retain male patterns of criminality. We know that male patterns of crime and sexual predation on women is inherently different than female patterns of crime. I fundamentally disagree that abolishing women’s right to create sex-based spaces in anyway helps to abolish harmful gender stereotypes.

And please explain the definition of gender identity. One thing people don’t agree on is if there is any relationship to biological sex.

I don't agree that we "know" either of the bolded. There are absolutely ways to distinguish a transwoman from a cis man beyond relying on their self-reported feelings. You can look at their actions -- the steps they are taking (beyond just trying to enter a Korean spa) to live their life as a transwoman. Are they in therapy? Are they living and presenting as a woman in other areas of their lives? And I don't know what you're relying on to talk about transwomen's "male patterns of criminality." What are you basing that statement on?