Question about the homophobia thread

[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 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.

Well, here's a thought from inside my "DCUM privilege bubble:" is this really the best way to protect vulnerable immigrant women? How about a path to citizenship? Job assistance? Increasing minimum wage? Free, reliable healthcare, including access to birth control and abortions? Food security? You really think that one of the biggest threats to "vulnerable immigrant women" is a pre-op transwoman's penis? Because otherwise, your pearl-clutching rings a bit hollow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How is a client booking manager at a spa for women (or any space for women) supposed to know any of the bolded? How does that person working the front desk decide if someone is actually a woman (thus entitling them to entry) or a man who should be barred from entry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Your comment about child bearing and a loose link to gender roles diminishes the importance of both male physical dominance and the influence of millennia of social and political dominance of males on gender roles.

You correctly point out that women who can’t give birth is still a woman. She is a women with a disability, abnormal condition, or illness. She is still a product of millennia of evolution which has caused her to have breasts and larger hips than males. She still has xx chromosomes. She still will not have muscle mass or bone density or lung capacity of a male. No male has ever had the capability to bear children. He is designed to produce sperm. He is the product of millions of years of evolution which gave him more powerful shoulders and slimmer hips than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.

Yes, but this is neither here nor there. You are stuck on sex while we are discussing gender. I think we agree that gender roles grew out of biological sex. I think we all agree that gender concepts are mutable. What was true in the past is not true now and probably not what will be true in the future when it comes to gender. The change in gender concepts is not solely due to biology, but drastically impacted by social development. Thanks to social change, we men are not out hunting sabertooth tigers and mammoths and the females here are not stuck in caves raising children that are unlikely to reach their first birthdays.

We are back to the fundamental disagreement over whether sex and gender are inextricably connected or whether they are separate. If you insist that the connection cannot be severed, there is really nothing to discuss. You are, in effect, denying the existence of an entire group of people whose existence I uphold. That is within your right, but that leaves nothing for us to talk about.

I agree with your statement that there is nothing to discuss with respect to indivisibility of gender and sex. However, your parting shot about people with whom you disagree on this subject could also be flipped to read “if you insist that man can become woman of his own volition (whether he legitimately feels this way or not), then you are denying the existence of an entire group of people who’s existence I uphold, namely women.”

Accepting the separation of sex and gender no more denies the existence of women than it denies the existence of men. I accept that there are individuals who were assigned the sex of male at birth but later discovered their gender is female. Similarly, there are those assigned female at birth who discovered their gender is male. Neither those assigned female at birth or those assigned male at birth whose genders match their assigned sex have ceased to exist.

Yeah, you lose me on the “cease to exist” language. Seems like a rhetorical trick to make you feel you have the high ground. If someone calls me something I don’t think I am (whether rightly or not) I do not cease to exist nor does the individual with whom I may differ with on transgenderism. Everyone needs to take a deep breath here.

Well, I think you are focusing too much on semantics. A poster claimed that by recognizing a separation between sex and gender I was denying the existence of women. Is that not another way of sayin that, in my mind, women have ceased to exist? Regardless, I am rejecting that notion. I obviously don't deny that there are those assigned female at birth and those assigned male at birth whose genders match. I am one of those and don't deny myself.

The point I was making earlier is that if we treat who we call “man” and “woman” as dependent upon a subjective reading of the definition of gender, then any man (read: assigned male at birth) can become a woman and claim for themselves the experience of women (from workplace discrimination, Title IX in sports, sports in general, all the way to pregnancy and childbirth) - which essentially erases women if there is no biological distinction. These to me are just some of the many reasons why modern gender theory is a bad idea and does not ring true. I do not doubt that an extremely small portion of the population struggles with their identity, I just don’t think it makes them what they biologically are not.

I can't speak for other women, obviously, but I don't base my gender identity entirely in biology. I am by no means very feminine, but most of what it means to me to be a woman has little to do with my body parts.

As far as I am concerned, call yourself whatever you feel like - doesn’t bother me. However, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is medical, society needs to have definitions for those who are biologically distinct - ie, those who are of the kind who give birth (women) and those who do not (men). If you want to call your self trans “x” then go for it. Society needs objective definitions to refer to people regardless of how they feel.

Well, of course there is trans-friendly language that does exactly that such as "pregnant people" and "people who menstruate". But, that causes mass head explosions.

"Women" sounds so much less offensive than "people who menstruate". This sort of language seems to reduce those of us formerly known as women to our reproductive capacity.

Wouldn't it be used in reference to menstruation/reproduction?

And no one has said you can't use the word "woman" anymore. Faux concern.

Nope. For millennia, the terms men and women have referred to biological sex, aka males and females. However, recently gender activists have attempted to change the definition of men and women to refer not to biological males and females, but gender identity, which is a belief based on their feelings.

So you are being disingenuous. While no one has said that you can’t say woman, what they are saying is that the meaning of the word woman has changed from a reference to observable human characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species, to a reference to individuals personal feelings and beliefs.

Language changes constantly.

There is zero harm in being inclusive. Unless you're just too rigid to handle change.

Changing language to include a staggeringly small percentage of the population really doesn’t make much sense. Sometimes, you just have to be the outlier.

The only time this is relevant is in the very rare circumstance when an AFAB person that does not identify as a woman is pregnant and in a group. Let’s say there’s a group of pregnant women. You can call them pregnant women or pregnant people. If a trans man joins that group, pregnant people would be the correct term at this point but if you call them pregnant women and don’t care if you offend the trans man, I doubt he would say anything. You would just make him feel bad. While pregnant trans men are a thing that does happen, it’s an incredibly rare occurrence. Most trans men don’t want to get pregnant and have a hysterectomy.

You are free to upset a trans man in this situation. No one is forcing you to call them pregnant people. Realistically speaking, you are unlikely to ever meet a pregnant trans man and you’re raging against language changes that are almost never needed.

Who is concerned about offending the women who don’t appreciate being called pregnant people?

Why don’t those women’s feelings matter?

[Different PP]

The pregnant women are still people! You don't need to deny another's personhood in order to celebrate your own.

So, shut up and take it, woman!

Stop trying to dismiss women’s feelings.

Many of us women do not like being referred to by biological characteristics. We are women.

Why don’t our feelings matter?

You are proving how misogynistic the trans movement is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Fixing the comment below to address typos and accidental misgendering of a hypothetical male.

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from them saying that they are one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Well, here's a thought from inside my "DCUM privilege bubble:" is this really the best way to protect vulnerable immigrant women? How about a path to citizenship? Job assistance? Increasing minimum wage? Free, reliable healthcare, including access to birth control and abortions? Food security? You really think that one of the biggest threats to "vulnerable immigrant women" is a pre-op transwoman's penis? Because otherwise, your pearl-clutching rings a bit hollow.

Exactly. It's all faux outrage. They DGAF about immigrants, women's sports, inmates, or heck, even people with uteruses (abortion - hello?).

All weak attempts to hide their bigotry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Fixing the comment below to address typos and accidental misgendering of a hypothetical male.

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from them saying that they are one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

In reality, there are a small % of transgender people who are just trying to live their lives and fit in. Portraying them as invasive criminals taking over spaces everywhere is a such a strawman.

Or punishing them for the possibility that “predatory” cisgender men may commit crimes?

This whole narrative is 100% intentionally conflating “predatory” cisgender men with transgender women.

Fearmongering 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Well, here's a thought from inside my "DCUM privilege bubble:" is this really the best way to protect vulnerable immigrant women? How about a path to citizenship? Job assistance? Increasing minimum wage? Free, reliable healthcare, including access to birth control and abortions? Food security? You really think that one of the biggest threats to "vulnerable immigrant women" is a pre-op transwoman's penis? Because otherwise, your pearl-clutching rings a bit hollow.

This comment is a derail. Both people and society as a whole can seek different ways to protect vulnerable immigrant women. This thread is not discussing food security, minimum wage, or abortion. We are discussing the intersection of women's (biological females) rights as a class of people defined by biological sex and so-called gender identity. In this particular example, some people feel the immigrant woman is being oppressed because she legally does not have the ability to offer massage services to exclusively to biological females. In order to maintain her employment, she must provide her massages services to biological males. You may agree or disagree, but that is what we are discussing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Fixing the comment below to address typos and accidental misgendering of a hypothetical male.

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from them saying that they are one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

You're moving the goalposts. The question was not "what is required for a biological male to identify as a transwomen." It's "how do other people distinguish between cis men and transwomen?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Well, here's a thought from inside my "DCUM privilege bubble:" is this really the best way to protect vulnerable immigrant women? How about a path to citizenship? Job assistance? Increasing minimum wage? Free, reliable healthcare, including access to birth control and abortions? Food security? You really think that one of the biggest threats to "vulnerable immigrant women" is a pre-op transwoman's penis? Because otherwise, your pearl-clutching rings a bit hollow.

This comment is a derail. Both people and society as a whole can seek different ways to protect vulnerable immigrant women. This thread is not discussing food security, minimum wage, or abortion. We are discussing the intersection of women's (biological females) rights as a class of people defined by biological sex and so-called gender identity. In this particular example, some people feel the immigrant woman is being oppressed because she legally does not have the ability to offer massage services to exclusively to biological females. In order to maintain her employment, she must provide her massages services to biological males. You may agree or disagree, but that is what we are discussing here.

I see "zomg WHAT ABOUT THE VULNERABLE IMMIGRANT WOMEN???!!" as the derail, since it doesn't seem like a genuine concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Fixing the comment below to address typos and accidental misgendering of a hypothetical male.

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from them saying that they are one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

In reality, there are a small % of transgender people who are just trying to live their lives and fit in. Portraying them as invasive criminals taking over spaces everywhere is a such a strawman.

Or punishing them for the possibility that “predatory” cisgender men may commit crimes?

This whole narrative is 100% intentionally conflating “predatory” cisgender men with transgender women.

Fearmongering 101.

I'm not portraying anyone as anything, and I certainly never called anyone an invasive criminal. I'm sorry if that is how you interpreted my comment. I am sharing statistics which are based on facts, such as criminal convictions.

I'm a bit confused about your point of view here. You believe that crime statistics should not be collected, gathered, and published? Or are you saying that there is no difference in the nature of crime and violence between biological males and females?

Either way, the crime discussion is a bit of a derail. Everyone, including our moderator, acknowledges that male and female patterns of violence are crime are extremely different. Which brings us to the real question. What is exactly is the difference between a biological male and a transwoman, other than statements about their feelings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Fixing the comment below to address typos and accidental misgendering of a hypothetical male.

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from them saying that they are one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

In reality, there are a small % of transgender people who are just trying to live their lives and fit in. Portraying them as invasive criminals taking over spaces everywhere is a such a strawman.

Or punishing them for the possibility that “predatory” cisgender men may commit crimes?

This whole narrative is 100% intentionally conflating “predatory” cisgender men with transgender women.

Fearmongering 101.

I'm not portraying anyone as anything, and I certainly never called anyone an invasive criminal. I'm sorry if that is how you interpreted my comment. I am sharing statistics which are based on facts, such as criminal convictions.

I'm a bit confused about your point of view here. You believe that crime statistics should not be collected, gathered, and published? Or are you saying that there is no difference in the nature of crime and violence between biological males and females?

Either way, the crime discussion is a bit of a derail. Everyone, including our moderator, acknowledges that male and female patterns of violence are crime are extremely different. Which brings us to the real question. What is exactly is the difference between a biological male and a transwoman, other than statements about their feelings?

From who's perspective? From the individual themselves, it's fundamentally internal. From the perspective of other people, you'd look to their statements and actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Fixing the comment below to address typos and accidental misgendering of a hypothetical male.

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from them saying that they are one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

You're moving the goalposts. The question was not "what is required for a biological male to identify as a transwomen." It's "how do other people distinguish between cis men and transwomen?"

Fair enough!

You're position is that biological males identify as transwoman, based on statements they make about their feelings. Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Fixing the comment below to address typos and accidental misgendering of a hypothetical male.

No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from them saying that they are one.

Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

In reality, there are a small % of transgender people who are just trying to live their lives and fit in. Portraying them as invasive criminals taking over spaces everywhere is a such a strawman.

Or punishing them for the possibility that “predatory” cisgender men may commit crimes?

This whole narrative is 100% intentionally conflating “predatory” cisgender men with transgender women.

Fearmongering 101.

I'm not portraying anyone as anything, and I certainly never called anyone an invasive criminal. I'm sorry if that is how you interpreted my comment. I am sharing statistics which are based on facts, such as criminal convictions.

I'm a bit confused about your point of view here. You believe that crime statistics should not be collected, gathered, and published? Or are you saying that there is no difference in the nature of crime and violence between biological males and females?

Either way, the crime discussion is a bit of a derail. Everyone, including our moderator, acknowledges that male and female patterns of violence are crime are extremely different. Which brings us to the real question. What is exactly is the difference between a biological male and a transwoman, other than statements about their feelings?

From who's perspective? From the individual themselves, it's fundamentally internal. From the perspective of other people, you'd look to their statements and actions.

OK! We've already established that a biological male stating that he is transwoman is what makes them one. You say actions are part of this too. What actions should one look at to make this determination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Well, here's a thought from inside my "DCUM privilege bubble:" is this really the best way to protect vulnerable immigrant women? How about a path to citizenship? Job assistance? Increasing minimum wage? Free, reliable healthcare, including access to birth control and abortions? Food security? You really think that one of the biggest threats to "vulnerable immigrant women" is a pre-op transwoman's penis? Because otherwise, your pearl-clutching rings a bit hollow.

Way to divert and ignore the fact that you literally said no one is forcing her to work there.