Women-only spa’s ‘no male genitals’ rule ignites transgender debate

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by pylon

I have also been to all-nude beaches, and there is a massive difference in men and women at them. Just like at this spa, women aren't laying around with their legs spread wide open, in a mans case, your stuff is just all hanging out there. If a woman becomes aroused, it would be pretty damn hard to tell. With a man, well, that doesn't need explaining. And it is instantly uncomfortable, and gross for everyone not attracted to that person. If a woman were to lay with her legs splayed open, it would be equally inappropriate.

Based on this post, it kind of just sounds like you need to get more comfortable with the penis. Both the word and the form.

It's just a penis. Fairly common. Most men have them. Most women know what they look like.

It is sort of funny watching a group of guys talk about how important it is to protect women from the horrors of seeing a penis. Have a bit more pride in your body, boys. No shame in it.

(Not that I'm making a point about the topic here, just funny)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I take your point about the transgendered issue is one that affects a tiny minority of the population, but isn't it the same practical, utilitarian considerations and arguments that left more than half of the washrooms inaccessible to wheelchairs? Somehow, I would think that those two groups would be more like minded in their search for equality.

Yeah, but that's my point. There's only so much money for renovating change rooms and washrooms.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, but that's my point. There's only so much money for renovating change rooms and washrooms.

Gotcha. No need to legislate better access until the finances improve.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Gotcha. No need to legislate better access until the finances improve.

That's not the point he made though at all.

The increased media attention to transgender-related issues is more likely to result in new legislation, regulations and follow-up actions much faster than the issues of the disabled, strictly because of this attention level and not because of the number of people these actions would affect. That's the real concern. Saying, both issues are equally important is not helping. Yes, they are equally important to the people affected. But no, they are not equally important to the country, in general. The legislative action and follow-up should be directed to address the needs of the larger group first. Defining government priorities based on media attention to a juicy story of male nudity in a women-only spa would be wrong.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Based on this post, it kind of just sounds like you need to get more comfortable with the penis. Both the word and the form.

It's just a penis. Fairly common. Most men have them. Most women know what they look like.

It is sort of funny watching a group of guys talk about how important it is to protect women from the horrors of seeing a penis. Have a bit more pride in your body, boys. No shame in it.

(Not that I'm making a point about the topic here, just funny)

I personally have no qualms about it. But I understand many people do. Especially women who don't want to be exposed to them without consent. This is no different than sending unsolicited dick pics to them.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by pylon

I personally have no qualms about it. But I understand many people do. Especially women who don't want to be exposed to them without consent. This is no different than sending unsolicited dick pics to them.

Er, I don't think you understand why unsolicited dick pics are problematic. In one of these situation, an uncovered penis happens to be seen. In the other, an uncovered penis is part of an unsolicited and potentially sexually aggressive gesture.

Unless you think the mere sight of a penis in a nude setting is like going up to someone, pointing at your penis, and saying "look at my penis! look at it! sex??" and that would be a very very weird thing to do, pylon.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Makarov

All of the characteristics, with the exception of religion, you listed can be changed with some reasonable degree of effort and are not generally considered to be deeply personal enough to warrant legal protection.

In any event, the law does not unequivocally prohibit discrimination. It just requires the discriminating party to justify the action creating discriminatory adverse effect.

Money - there is massive inequity in wealth that has a massive impact
Looks - People are born looking a certain way, not equally
Physical abilities - Just like looks, some of us are poor athletes
Mental abilities - Brains leads to higher pay
Religion - We have a catholic school board!
Skill - I am a terrible guitar player, not all of us can do the same things

At some point people are going to be accusing each other of discrimination for all of the above, and it is already happening. Part of black lives matters involves redistribution of wealth, white to black. SJWs claiming it is wrong for a straight man to not date someone who is transgender. SJWs fighting discrimination due to looks. Hate across university campuses is getting increasingly volatile for a chunk of much of my list. This is getting bad.

[CliffFletcher]

As we learn more about the human genome, a growing body of evidence is revealing how heritable intelligence and other personal traits are. The science is coming under fire as a threat to social ideals and dogmas, but it's not going away. Where the denial of science fails, I think we're going to see major, major political ructions over our uneven genetic heritage.

Is it fair that the upper reaches of business and government are occupied almost exclusively by people in the top 10 per cent in intelligence or innate ambition? How would we begin to address that kind of disparity?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

As we learn more about the human genome, a growing body of evidence is revealing how heritable intelligence and other personal traits are. The science is coming under fire as a threat to social ideals and dogmas, but it's not going away. Where the denial of science fails, I think we're going to see major, major political ructions over our uneven genetic heritage.

Is it fair that the upper reaches of business and government are occupied almost exclusively by people in the top 10 per cent in intelligence or innate ambition? How would we begin to address that kind of disparity?

As an aside the lack of breeding by this group is troubling.

[Wormius]

How do you allow transgendered women in whilst controlling against some who would take advantage of the situation that would allow a regular guy to enter just to get a peek? I mean, how can you do this sensitivity and not opening yourself up to more criticism because you questioned somebody's transgenderedness?

It just seems like it is no-win unless your policy is to allow everybody in to the spa, regardless of genders identify, which defeats the purpose of it being women only.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Wormius

How do you allow transgendered women in whilst controlling against some who would take advantage of the situation that would allow a regular guy to enter just to get a peek? I mean, how can you do this sensitivity and not opening yourself up to more criticism because you questioned somebody's transgenderedness?

It just seems like it is no-win unless your policy is to allow everybody in to the spa, regardless of genders identify, which defeats the purpose of it being women only.

I don't think that would happen. It's not like pulling off transgender is easy. It's way more work than I would do. And most people aren't stupid like that. I'm sure, almost positive, someone will give it a go now just to make a point and be a goof. But it's not going to be a big issue.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

That's not the point he made though at all.

The increased media attention to transgender-related issues is more likely to result in new legislation, regulations and follow-up actions much faster than the issues of the disabled, strictly because of this attention level and not because of the number of people these actions would affect. That's the real concern. Saying, both issues are equally important is not helping. Yes, they are equally important to the people affected. But no, they are not equally important to the country, in general. The legislative action and follow-up should be directed to address the needs of the larger group first. Defining government priorities based on media attention to a juicy story of male nudity in a women-only spa would be wrong.

I know that, but as Jammie's notes on the last page, the disabled access analogy isn't really apt and it certainly isn't an either/or situation as to what group to help. The one similarity that I do see, is the thought that this is such a small group, that maybe it isn't worth the effort. Sadly, that was the attitude of many towards the disabled, not so long ago. Why retrofit stairs with ramps at say, a nightclub? "What are they going to do, dance?" I know was thought by me and many others back in the day. It was ignorant and dehumanizing. Accommodating for the disabled is a worthwhile endeavour, and I think the same can be said for the transgendered. I think we've come along way in this and the further ahead we will be with these discussions.

[CliffFletcher]

It's an either/or situation when the means of addressing the issue is infrastructure that costs money. Pretty much every organization tasked with retro-fitting change rooms or washrooms has tight budgets where tough decisions have to be made. For older buildings, budget choices are often along the lines of saving up for five years to re-pave the parking lot, re-tile the chipped floor in the main hall, or remodel the bathrooms. That's just the reality of prioritizing long lists of infrastructure requirements with limited funds.

Infrastructure aside, the original reason the physically disabled were brought up was to compare the public profile and media attention. Some issues generate way more attention that others. It's natural to ask why. When I was in journalism school, we developed lists of elements that would make a story news-worthy - make something stand out among the hundreds of things that happen every day. Did it involve violence? Corruption? A famous person? A vulnerable person, like a child? Did it elicit sympathy? Anger? Did it involve money? Sex? Check enough boxes and you have a front-page story. Check too few and the story doesn't make the paper at all.

Newspaper editors aren't gatekeepers anymore. And yet some stories, some issues, occupy far more of our public dialogue than others. It's perfectly legitimate to ask why something that affects 0.3 per cent of the population should become a hot-button political issue. If it's a matter of addressing human suffering, we don't have to look far to find issues that affect far more people. Why is the issue of transgender bathrooms - something that wasn't on anyone's radar 10 years ago - so socially and politically controversial?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

What's more, we've never seen anything remotely close to this level of controversy and media attention to the much more profound and serious issues around disabled Canadians. I am involved in advocacy for the disabled and this bothers me a lot.

There are no good stats, but Canada LGBT population is loosely estimated at 30,000-40,000 people. Of those, transgendered population is a very small proportion, a few hundred to a thousand at most, I am guessing. There are 3,800,000 (!) disabled people in Canada going through an enormous physical and mental struggle every day of their lives; many of them surviving only on $1,500/month government assistance. I guess, their issues are just not sexy enough to be of interest to social media.

Sorry, this needs to be corrected. There are good stats.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/smr...smr08_203_2015

1.7% The percentage of Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported in 2014 that they consider themselves to be homosexual (gay or lesbian).
1.3% The percentage of Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported in 2014 that they consider themselves to be bisexual.

Which, given Canada's population of about 36 million is about 600 000 and 470 000 respectively. I thought your number sounded exceedingly low, so I had to look it up.

I couldn't find numbers for transgender in Canada, but in the states it ranges from 0.3 to 0.78%.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/h...opulation.html

So if we go with, say, 0.5% that is 180 000 people. That's not nothing.

[ToewsFan]

Originally Posted by Wormius

How do you allow transgendered women in whilst controlling against some who would take advantage of the situation that would allow a regular guy to enter just to get a peek? I mean, how can you do this sensitivity and not opening yourself up to more criticism because you questioned somebody's transgenderedness?
.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5...prestigiacomo#

Even at Disneyland:

http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by ToewsFan

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5...prestigiacomo#

Even at Disneyland:

http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom

So with these two "sources" you've proven the point that this doesn't really ever happen. 5 claims out of what would be literally billions of bathroom, change room and spas uses every year for the past several decades. It's not an issue.

On the other hand, 70% of trans people report experiencing violence or discrimination when using their gender assigned bathrooms. I'm just not even sure what to say.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/health...ths/index.html

CNN found one case of a Seattle man who allegedly undressed in a women's locker room in 2016, citing Washington's anti-discrimination law as motivation. Otherwise, whenever the topic comes up in the news, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and state human rights commissions have consistently denied that there is any correlation between such policies and a spike in assaults. CNN reached out to 20 law enforcement agencies in states with anti-discrimination policies covering gender identity. None who answered reported any bathroom assaults after the policies took effect. Michael Dunton, chief records clerk of Rhode Island's Cranston Police Department, told CNN his department was "hard-pressed" to find such a case: "We track our sex offenders very carefully and we haven't seen any instance of sexual predators assaulting in bathrooms."

I'm not saying cnn is the greatest of reliable sourcing, but when your dailywire article shows up on Breitbart et al, it's likely not terribly unbiased.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ToewsFan

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5...prestigiacomo#

Even at Disneyland:

http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom

The Daily Wire and a mom blog are not credible resources for any information.

But looking at the claims made, none of them involve transgender people. In fact, one of them (the mom blog) just involves some "burly man" walking into the women's washroom, making a loop, and the mom saying nothing because she was scared he would say "I'm transgender." He never claims it, but she cites it as a transgender issue simply because he was there and because she was scared to even talk to him, despite him being obviously not transgender.

In fact, 90% of the issues presented in these two links are men dressed as men, one which is a political stunt (showing that ###hole conservatives are at least as likely as a pervert to abuse transgender bathroom laws).

Why do bad posters continue to spread mis-information that at best dumbs us down, and at worst spreads ignorant hate? Investigate your sources before you post, people! Ignorant info sourcing is a plague on both sides of the political spectrum. Don't be lazy.

[Nage Waza]

Should homeless people have access to private bathrooms? What about change rooms? They cannot afford to use the facility, but shouldn't everyone have access?

[AltaGuy]

I think being transgendered just hasn't become accepted in society yet and that's the issue here. It costs nothing (unlike, say, disabled access), the "sexual predation" angle is a screen for discomfort and unfamiliarity, and in 10 years everyone will wonder what the big deal was. If you identify as a woman or man but weren't born that way, you'll just go where you ought to and no one will bat an eye.

[Wormius]

I suppose what I find would be troubling is still how does the front line staff identify who to let in? "You don't look like you are trying hard enough to look like a woman, so you can't come in" isn't going to go over well. I mean, you will probably have a share of trolls playing that angle, but is that the position some companies take? If yo don't look like you are putting in some standard level of effort to appear feminine then you aren't permitted? Then you are just creating divisive classes based on physical appearance.