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?
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?
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?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is 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? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
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.
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.
Literally no one is.
“ 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.”
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?
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?
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?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is 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? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
It’s irrelevant. A trans woman could be on hormones and live as a woman 24/7. Have legally changed her name and gender marker, etc. the person you’re talking to would still consider her a man. There is no acceptable “when is a trans woman considered a woman for services?” answer that isn’t “never” for most of these people.
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?
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?
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?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is 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? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
My questions and comments are sincere. My understanding is that gender dysphoria is not required for a person to identify as transgender. Am I wrong about that?
It’s not disingenuous to state the fact that any male could say “I am a woman” and therefore expect to be treated as one. It is quite literally the premise of what trans-activists are fighting for with self-ID laws. Any male could go to that spa tomorrow and demand to be treated as a woman.
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?
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?
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?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is 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? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
My questions and comments are sincere. My understanding is that gender dysphoria is not required for a person to identify as transgender. Am I wrong about that?
It’s not disingenuous to state the fact that any male could say “I am a woman” and therefore expect to be treated as one. It is quite literally the premise of what trans-activists are fighting for with self-ID laws. Any male could go to that spa tomorrow and demand to be treated as a woman.
Do you accept gender dysphoric transgender women as women and believe they should be in women’s spaces? Should trans women with dysphoria, on hormones, and living as women be using the men’s room? Men’s locker room? Play men’s sports? Be allowed to wear women’s clothes in public even if children are present?
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.
Literally no one is.
“ 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.”
How else would one interpret this statement?
I'm saying that literally no one is forcing her to work there.
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?
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?
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?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is 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? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
It’s irrelevant. A trans woman could be on hormones and live as a woman 24/7. Have legally changed her name and gender marker, etc. the person you’re talking to would still consider her a man. There is no acceptable “when is a trans woman considered a woman for services?” answer that isn’t “never” for most of these people.
No. I am interested in finding out the belief of the trans community what specifically differentiates a biological male and a trans woman. It seems to be that the answer is his statements of his feelings, or more specifically his feelings about his gender identity. Again, please help me understand if this interpretation is not correct.
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.
Literally no one is.
“ 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.”
How else would one interpret this statement?
I'm saying that literally no one is forcing her to work there.
Oh ok. So you really are a privileged a$$hole. Thanks for clarifying.
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?
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?
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?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is 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? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
It’s irrelevant. A trans woman could be on hormones and live as a woman 24/7. Have legally changed her name and gender marker, etc. the person you’re talking to would still consider her a man. There is no acceptable “when is a trans woman considered a woman for services?” answer that isn’t “never” for most of these people.
No. I am interested in finding out the belief of the trans community what specifically differentiates a biological male and a trans woman. It seems to be that the answer is his statements of his feelings, or more specifically his feelings about his gender identity. Again, please help me understand if this interpretation is not correct.
Your question has been answered multiple times in the posts above. TL:dr it's not a cut and dried question.
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.
Literally no one is.
“ 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.”
How else would one interpret this statement?
I'm saying that literally no one is forcing her to work there.
Oh ok. So you really are a privileged a$$hole. Thanks for clarifying.
Ugh this is taking forever. Let me speed this along:
"Then who is forcing her to work there?"
"A systemic xenophobic patriarchal system that severely limits employment options for vulnerable immigrant women while simultaneously denying them access to any kind of social safety net!"
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?
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?
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?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is 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? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
My questions and comments are sincere. My understanding is that gender dysphoria is not required for a person to identify as transgender. Am I wrong about that?
It’s not disingenuous to state the fact that any male could say “I am a woman” and therefore expect to be treated as one. It is quite literally the premise of what trans-activists are fighting for with self-ID laws. Any male could go to that spa tomorrow and demand to be treated as a woman.
Do you accept gender dysphoric transgender women as women and believe they should be in women’s spaces? Should trans women with dysphoria, on hormones, and living as women be using the men’s room? Men’s locker room? Play men’s sports? Be allowed to wear women’s clothes in public even if children are present?
My thoughts on all of those questions depend on what is the difference between cis males and trans women.
So far no one has been able to tell me what that is.
Except the clothes thing. Everyone should be permitted to wear whatever they like.
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?
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?
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?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is 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? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
It’s irrelevant. A trans woman could be on hormones and live as a woman 24/7. Have legally changed her name and gender marker, etc. the person you’re talking to would still consider her a man. There is no acceptable “when is a trans woman considered a woman for services?” answer that isn’t “never” for most of these people.
No. I am interested in finding out the belief of the trans community what specifically differentiates a biological male and a trans woman. It seems to be that the answer is his statements of his feelings, or more specifically his feelings about his gender identity. Again, please help me understand if this interpretation is not correct.
Your question has been answered multiple times in the posts above. TL:dr it's not a cut and dried question.
No it hasn’t. Please repost the answer below. Long winded is fine.
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.
Literally no one is.
“ 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.”
How else would one interpret this statement?
I'm saying that literally no one is forcing her to work there.
Oh ok. So you really are a privileged a$$hole. Thanks for clarifying.
Ugh this is taking forever. Let me speed this along:
"Then who is forcing her to work there?"
"A systemic xenophobic patriarchal system that severely limits employment options for vulnerable immigrant women while simultaneously denying them access to any kind of social safety net!"
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}