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

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by ToewsFan

Well my dad taught me words to live by in kindergarten. Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. Son , if everyone tries to tell you different they must be bleeding heart liberals. God bless him he was right.

Your dad sounds like a very empathetic individual.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Nope. I'm saying that a person who identifies as a woman should be able to use a facility that is specified for her gender. Nothing more, nothing less. I have not made a comment on anything else.

If they want to and can legally have a women only spa, they should accommodate all women. It's a pretty simple and clear concept to me.

I don't see much difference between segregated pools back in the days. White folks back than came up with all reasons for why they were necessary and right as well.

This is a nude spa though. Huge difference. If it was a regular spa then I wouldn't agree with the spas stance. But it's a private owned business for people with lady parts to go bare said lady part comfortably. If it was a co-ed nude spa there wouldn't be an issue. I think it's fair for this business to draw a line here.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why is a Women's only facility acceptable to you and a whites only facility isn't?

Please quote me where I said a women's only facility is acceptable to me.

I have said if they can legally have a women's only spa, they should accommodate all women. At no point did I support the idea of a gender exclusive spa.

I have not because I didn't want to devolve into a men's right argument.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

This is a nude spa though. Huge difference. If it was a regular spa then I wouldn't agree with the spas stance. But it's a private owned business for people with lady parts to go bare said lady part comfortably. If it was a co-ed nude spa there wouldn't be an issue. I think it's fair for this business to draw a line here.

Even today, but especially in the past, you could find a large group of people who are not comfortable sharing facilities with people of other races, ethnicity, religions or sexual orientations.

Would you support a private owned business designed for white only swimmers as they were comfortable only swimming with white people as black people were "dirtier." That was a belief held by many during the time your father, or at the latest your grandfather, grew up in. Canada was a bit better in that regard than the States, but the last segregated school in Canada was closed in 1983, the last residential school was closed in 1996, so we're far from flawless.

The comfort of bigots is not how we should legally or morally operate.

[Oling_Roachinen]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senat...elay-1.3461359

Anyways, thankfully Bill C-16 passed today. So it's going to be interesting to see how, or if, gender-specific spas like this will continue to discriminate legally.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

This is a nude spa though. Huge difference. If it was a regular spa then I wouldn't agree with the spas stance. But it's a private owned business for people with lady parts to go bare said lady part comfortably. If it was a co-ed nude spa there wouldn't be an issue. I think it's fair for this business to draw a line here.

A thin layer of polyester or lycra and everything would be ok. Take that away and everyone is uncomfortable and transgender women arent welcome.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Even today, but especially in the past, you could find a large group of people who are not comfortable sharing facilities with people of other races, ethnicity, religions or sexual orientations.

Would you support a private owned business designed for white only swimmers as they were comfortable only swimming with white people as black people were "dirtier." That was a belief held by many during the time your father, or at the latest your grandfather, grew up in. Canada was a bit better in that regard than the States, but the last segregated school in Canada was closed in 1983, the last residential school was closed in 1996, so we're far from flawless.

The comfort of bigots is not how we should legally or morally operate.

Comparing race and wether you have a penis or not is two seperate things. Like comparing an apple to a lamp.Everything in life isn't one big blob. Distinctions in life have to be weighed and measured differently. NO a whites only club is not okay. YES a women's only club is understandable.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

NO a whites only club is not okay. YES a women's only club is understandable.

I don't think you realize how you're being unintentionally bigoted here.

I get that the debate is not entirely black and white, but when you say a "women's only club is understandable" while arguing that they should be able to prohibit transgender women from the club, you're unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) saying that transgender women are not women. Otherwise they would be permitted.

I think it would be fairer to call it a "no-penis club" to alleviate some of the discriminatory and bigoted wording.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't think you realize how you're being unintentionally bigoted here.

I get that the debate is not entirely black and white, but when you say a "women's only club is understandable" while arguing that they should be able to prohibit transgender women from the club, you're unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) saying that transgender women are not women.

I think it would be fairer to call it a "no-penis club" to alleviate some of the discriminatory and bigoted wording.

Let me clarify. I think transgendered women should be allowed in a women's only club. However in a one of its kind nude women's spa. A transgendered woman who still has her penis is going to have to understand why said penis would exclude them. All sorts of clubs have sets of requirements. Should I complain how I can't get a membership at the Glenco because it discriminates against my economic status since I can't afford a membership?

I think your forgetting that this isn't a usual spa. I can't go walk around at the GoodLife nude in the main area and expect people to be okay with it. This is meant for women to walk around nude and feel comfortable I don't get how people can't see that having a penis wether you identify as a woman or not would exclude you.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Please quote me where I said a women's only facility is acceptable to me.

I have said if they can legally have a women's only spa, they should accommodate all women. At no point did I support the idea of a gender exclusive spa.

I have not because I didn't want to devolve into a men's right argument.

So would you be okay with a no penis spa. This one would just exclude Peni. Regardless of the gender the person. To me the logical end point of this spa is to allow Hetero women, gay men, pre/post op transgender hetero women, and two spirit who prefer men sexually based on the concept of avoiding objectification. Otherwise I can't come up with a logically consistent argument here.

I actually shouldn't be arguing this one because the simple solution for everyone to be reasonably accommodating would be don't hang your #### out if you got one. And I don't really care and this issue will never affect me. I just enjoy the logic problem.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Let me clarify. I think transgendered women should be allowed in a women's only club. However in a one of its kind nude women's spa.

I do get your argument, I disagree with it but I get it, I just think some of the wording people are using are unintentionally (or intentionally) being needlessly insulting.

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

A transgendered woman who still has her penis is going to have to understand why said penis would exclude them.

Actually, thanks to Bill C-16, that transgendered woman may not have understand why her penis would exclude her.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I do get your argument, I disagree with it but I get it, I just think some of the wording people are using are unintentionally (or intentionally) being needlessly insulting.



Actually, thanks to Bill C-16, that transgendered woman may not have understand why her penis would exclude her.

Well that's the joys of living in our country is we get to have different opinions and still be entitled to them. I think no one has a right to be discriminated against. However I feel what's considered discriminated against has become too big of a brush. By your viewpoints a place such as the YWCA is a sexist institution?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

So would you be okay with a no penis spa. This one would just exclude Peni. Regardless of the gender the person.

Absolutely not. But my point was how people we're unintentionally insulting the community with their word choice. Let's call it what it is so as not to insult the transgendered women. People are arguing in support of banning transgender women from a spa by saying they are in favour of a "women's only spa." Essentially they are saying that transgender women are not women, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue. I don't see the need to be insulting. Even calling it a "biological women's only spa" or "women without penis' spa" (depending on what you're actually advocating) would be far fairer.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Absolutely not. But let's call it what it is so as not to insult the transgendered women. People are arguing in support of banning transgender women from a spa by saying they are in favour of a "women's only spa." Essentially they are saying that transgender women are not women, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue. I don't see the need to be insulting.

Your stance does not acknowledge the symbolic power of a Penis.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your stance does not acknowledge the symbolic power of a Penis.

Okay thanks GGG, glad we cleared that up.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I haven't checked your post history OMG!WTF!, but I'm wondering if you've been in a coma for the past decade. I don't know how else you could draw the conclusion that transgender women wouldn't care about being banned from their specific identified gender facilities. It's been a huge thing about the LGBT community fighting for the rights of transgenders to have the opportunity to be included in situations like this. Bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, I don't know why you would think they would draw the line at a spa

Because they're totally 100% different things. Public bathrooms are not a matter of choice. Their use is not optional and it is of course very dangerous for a trans woman to use a male bathroom. As a matter of safety it should be mandatory to allow people to use the bathroom they identify with. Equating a spa to a bathroom isn't an honest comparison. As a matter of social equality and justice your motion falls flat. Women have legitimate concerns in regards to their privacy, cultural, behavioral or otherwise, they are valid concerns. And while those concerns are subordinated to safety in regards to public restrooms, there is no reason to preclude them in a spa.

This is such a simple fix. Just wear a bathing suit bottom. I'm sure Margaret and Jia Qing would be cool with that because frankly any trans woman who isn't is just being a ######. And likewise any woman who objects to that is equally #####y.

---Got a text back from my trans friend..."Oh yeah, I love showing off my big ole dick to the ladies!" Not sure what that means but I'm thinking it's not an issue for her.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Everything in life isn't one big blob.

I bet if you visited this or any nude spa you'd change your mind about that.

[pylon]

How is this even a debate? Women have the right to have their nude club, without a big floppy anteater wagging around the room. I understand that a transgendered individual feels trapped in a male/female body, and I have no issue with that. But they still have the body of the gender they think they aren't whether they like it or not.

Yes we have to do what we can to accommodate transgendered individuals within reason. But they should also extend that same courtesy, and accommodate non-transgendered people within reason. And not exposing your male penis in a women's facility would be one of those accommodations.

[zamler]

Doesn't it say in that bill whatever it is that gender identity is what you choose it to be? Meaning anyone can go into the spa or discrimination. Maybe I'm wrong.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Even today, but especially in the past, you could find a large group of people who are not comfortable sharing facilities with people of other races, ethnicity, religions or sexual orientations.

Would you support a private owned business designed for white only swimmers as they were comfortable only swimming with white people as black people were "dirtier." That was a belief held by many during the time your father, or at the latest your grandfather, grew up in. Canada was a bit better in that regard than the States, but the last segregated school in Canada was closed in 1983, the last residential school was closed in 1996, so we're far from flawless.

The comfort of bigots is not how we should legally or morally operate.

So if I walked into the womens/girls change room at the Southland Leisure Centre and stripped naked, any women or girls who got upset would be bigots?