Body Blitz Spa in Toronto denies transgender woman service due to 'male genitalia' policy - Sensationalist Headlines

If it's bathing suit optional, couldn't she just... wear a bathing suit?? Ultimately, I don't think this is a policy based out of transphobia so much as it is a general policy that they've had in place and a situation aren't sure how to approach so they just gave a "no" instead of trying to figure out how to accommodate. I think there are other options they could've taken but I can't rightfully sit here and say it was done out of maliciousness so much as out of a quick "uhhh what do we do".

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353038]Some women are uncomfortable with seeing fat, ugly women too. Conversely, some are uncomfortable with seeing thin, fit women. How do we accommodate those groups?[/QUOTE] Why is it so hard to tackle the fact that it's the lack of research on the spa done by the couple that's at fault, stop going "what if fat people and black people", you're literally avoiding this specific issue by going around in circles over other similar things but that aren't actually what's at hand here

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52353040]so should it be illegal for this spa (which markets itself as catering to women) to exclude people if they have a penis[/QUOTE] Putting aside the fact that a women-only business is silly anyway, yes. You either cater to all women or you don't bother with sex segregation.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353051]It is [I]not[/I] reasonable for them to deny entry to pre-SRS transwomen because that [I]is[/I] discriminatory. If a business has "established rules" that exclude a certain minority then those rules have to go.[/QUOTE] THAT'S IT, there's your problem here, you think the rule in place is because of minorities but it's not, it's a no male genitalia rule, that applies to men too. It's not targeting transgenders, it's not a transphobic issue, it applies to ANYONE with a penis, stop bullshitting.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353064]THAT'S IT, there's your problem here, you think the rule in place is because of minorities but it's not, it's a not male genitalia rule, that applies to men too. It's not targeting transgenders, it's not a transphobic issue, stop bullshitting.[/QUOTE] umm yeah because men are totally wanting to go there and this totally affects them too! yeah no, seriously, you're being kind of obtuse here by denying that this is specifically targeting pre-op trans women

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353051]It is [I]not[/I] reasonable for them to deny entry to pre-SRS transwomen because that [I]is[/I] discriminatory. If a business has "established rules" that exclude a certain minority then those rules have to go.[/QUOTE] Do you have a problem with it being women only? That is also discriminatory. You're failing to recognize that not all discrimination is wrong. To discriminate simply means to realize a distinction between things. The question isn't whether they are discriminating, but whether it is justified or not.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353056]Why is it so hard to tackle the fact that it's the lack of research on the spa done by the couple that's at fault, stop going "what if fat people and black people", you're literally avoiding this specific issue by going around in circles over other similar things but that aren't actually what's at hand here[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353064]THAT'S IT, there's your problem here, you think the rule in place is because of minorities but it's not, it's a no male genitalia rule, that applies to men too. It's not targeting transgenders, it's not a transphobic issue, it applies to ANYONE with a penis, stop bullshitting.[/QUOTE] Because they shouldn't have to do that sort of research in the first place? A business shouldn't be allowed to deny entry to arbitrary classes of people, apart from ejecting disruptive customers. It may not have been [I]intentionally[/I] discriminatory, but it is discriminatory nonetheless.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;52353067]umm yeah because men are totally wanting to go there and this totally affects them too! yeah no, seriously, you're being kind of obtuse here by denying that this is specifically targeting pre-op trans women[/QUOTE] I'm being obtuse? Read this outloud WOMEN ONLY, NO DICKS ALLOWED TOO, So let's see here: Women with vaginas, check Man with vaginas, NO Man with dicks, NO women with dicks, NO It's a specific business. It's not discriminatory, quit making yourself look bad. The Spa is entirely in the right here, blame the couple for lack of research.

Genitals shouldn't matter but I get why the spa is doing this, I can guarantee customers would freak out if they saw a penis in a women's only spa. It's pretty crappy but until society starts accepting people by their gender instead of their genitals, this sort of shit is going to keep happening.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52353055]If it's bathing suit optional, couldn't she just... wear a bathing suit?? Ultimately, I don't think this is a policy based out of transphobia so much as it is a general policy that they've had in place and a situation aren't sure how to approach so they just gave a "no" instead of trying to figure out how to accommodate. I think there are other options they could've taken but I can't rightfully sit here and say it was done out of maliciousness so much as out of a quick "uhhh what do we do".[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be malicious, and in all likelihood it wasn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory.

I think the fact she can wear a bathing suit would make this a non issue. They don't even have to announce it. Just ask her to wear a bathing suit because of her genitalia. I think it's absolutely shitty but a hardline no seems wrong.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52352830]Really? I'm not sure how different this is to the issue of transgender people using the toilet of their choice.[/QUOTE] Bathrooms have stalls that give you full privacy. You're not gonna see anyone's dicks in the female restrooms like you would at this bathing-suit optional spa. [QUOTE=Headhumpy;52352830]Gender/sex-segregated facilities are silly anyway[/QUOTE] This we can agree on.

This is such a dumb controversy. Just go to a different spa. There are hundreds in Toronto.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353083]It doesn't have to be malicious, and in all likelihood it wasn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory.[/QUOTE] Yes, of course it's discriminatory (to discriminate is simply to recognize differences between two things), but having it be women's only is also discriminatory. The question is whether it's justifiable or not. I would argue that the genital rule is justifiable for the same reason that making it women only is justifiable. I'm not sure how you could argue that the latter is just fine, but the former is not.

It can't [I]really[/I] be that difficult to see why a place that states to be a women's only clothing-optional spa doesn't want people with their cock and balls flopping around, can it? I may be wrong but I have always considered the penis and testicles pretty manly things. I can see why a women's only spa that is going for a pressure free, safe, feminine area type of feel would not want dongs hanging around.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52353092]Yes, of course it's discriminatory (to discriminate is simply to recognize differences between two things), but having it be women's only is also discriminatory. The question is whether it's justifiable or not. I would argue that the genital rule is justifiable for the same reason that making it women only is justifiable. I'm not sure how you could argue that the latter is just fine, but the former is not.[/QUOTE] See: [QUOTE=Headhumpy;52352830]Really? I'm not sure how different this is to the issue of transgender people using the toilet of their choice. Gender/sex-segregated facilities are silly anyway, except in cases where health and safety is threatened (e.g. shelters, clinics, women's-only public spaces in societies where harassment from men is widespread).[/QUOTE] I think it's silly, but excluding men isn't as damaging to men as excluding transgender women is to them.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52353102]It can't [I]really[/I] be that difficult to see why a place that states to be a women's only clothing-optional spa doesn't want people with their cock and balls flopping around, can it? I may be wrong but I have always considered the penis and testicles pretty manly things. I can see why a women's only spa that is going for a pressure free, safe, feminine area type of feel would not want dongs hanging around.[/QUOTE] Would a tall butch woman with short cropped hair, huge muscles and a resting angry face also ruin the "pressure free, safe, feminine area type of feel" because she looks manly? There is more to being masculine than just having a dick. If they're a woman they should be allowed in, regardless of what manly characteristics they have.

They could be a spa that don't allow shaved haircuts and it would be the same. Imagine a cancer patient planning to go there and sparked a controversy because she didn't read the rules of the place. It's discriminatory, but it's their business. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353129]excluding men isn't as damaging to men as excluding transgender women is to them.[/QUOTE] Men don't have feelings but if they realize they are better off a woman they are automatically fragile little flowers? Like what is this? Just because they are transgender that means they can't handle a business's discretion?

[QUOTE=squids_eye;52353141]Would a tall butch woman with short cropped hair, huge muscles and a resting angry face also ruin the "pressure free, safe, feminine area type of feel" because she looks manly? There is more to being masculine than just having a dick. If they're a woman they should be allowed in, regardless of what manly characteristics they have.[/QUOTE] A penis is a little bit more than just a "manly characteristic", especially as compared to short hair and being buff, I think.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353129]I think it's silly, but excluding men isn't as damaging to men as excluding transgender women is to them.[/QUOTE] It's not damaging to anyone, quit making it seem like it was made to target transgenders. There's women that want to feel comfortable semi-naked/nude in a dick free environment and this spa is for them. It's unfortunate but they have as much of a right to be able to do this. It's total bullshit to call discrimination here. You're actively victimizing yourself at this point when there's clear intent on what this business really is.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353149]Men don't have feelings but if they realize they are better off a woman they are automatically fragile little flowers?[/QUOTE] No, men haven't historically been denied service, housing, employment, or been raped and killed solely on the basis that they were men.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353164]No, men haven't historically been denied service[/QUOTE] Women's only places have existed for a very long time now, stop. bullshitting. [QUOTE], housing, employment, or been raped and killed solely on the basis that they were men.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with the situation at hand, holy shit

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353149]Men don't have feelings but if they realize they are better off a woman they are automatically fragile little flowers?[/QUOTE] Telling trans women they are excluded from "women only" spas is equivalent to telling then they aren't women. It's a bit different than being "sensitive"

[QUOTE=KillRay;52353178]Telling trans women they are excluded from "women only" spas is equivalent to telling then they aren't women. It's a bit different than being "sensitive"[/QUOTE] Except this has nothing to do with her being trans, it's the fact that she has a penis in a place with a no penis policy, why's it so hard to understand

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353164]No, men haven't historically been denied service, housing, employment, or been raped and killed solely on the basis that they were men.[/QUOTE] I don't think this spa is denying service based on them being transgender. Though, this business [I]does[/I] deny service solely on the basis that they are men (not saying that that's a bad thing, just countering your point) so??

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353187]Except this has nothing to do with her being trans, it's the fact that she has a penis in a place with a no penis policy, why's it so hard to understand[/QUOTE] Because she could wear a bathing suit, which is allowed, and her genitalia would be a non issue.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353164]No, men haven't historically been denied service, housing, employment, or been raped and killed solely on the basis that they were men.[/QUOTE] you go from someone being denied service at a spa to murder and rape nice Men have been pressured into joining the military by women in the past and killing and being killed because its the manly thing to do. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#World_War_I[/url] See, I can make dumb arguments too.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353170]Women's only places have existed for a very long time now, stop. bullshitting. This has nothing to do with the situation at hand, holy shit[/QUOTE] Yes, and historically those women-only spaces were a product of traditional notions of chastity and modesty, which is exactly why I said sex segregation is silly in my [I]very first post[/I]. As it stands right now, women-only spaces exist more or less as a safe space for women who have historically suffered oppression in society. For example there are women-only carriages on trains in India because sexual violence is so horrifically widespread there that a stopgap measure like that has to be implemented while societal views slowly change. Shelters for battered wives are set up because those women (and their children if they have any) have suffered from domestic abuse and are likely to have some sort of PTSD that is triggered by the presence of men. Before you go on about how that's sexist let me just say that I think more attention needs to be paid to the needs of men who have suffered domestic abuse as well. Also, all that is about discrimination against transgender people. How is it not relevant?

[QUOTE=KillRay;52353178]Telling trans women they are excluded from "women only" spas is equivalent to telling then they aren't women. It's a bit different than being "sensitive"[/QUOTE] Is this parody or do you really think that [editline]13th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353205]Yes, and historically those women-only spaces were a product of traditional notions of chastity and modesty, which is exactly why I said sex segregation is silly in my [I]very first post[/I]. As it stands right now, women-only spaces exist more or less as a safe space for women who have historically suffered oppression in society. For example there are women-only carriages on trains in India because sexual violence is so horrifically widespread there that a stopgap measure like that has to be implemented while societal views slowly change. Shelters for battered wives are set up because those women (and their children if they have any) have suffered from domestic abuse and are likely to have some sort of PTSD that is triggered by the presence of men. Before you go on about how that's sexist let me just say that I think more attention needs to be paid to the needs of men who have suffered domestic abuse as well. Also, all that is about discrimination against transgender people. How is it not relevant?[/QUOTE] What does any of this have to do with having a no-male genitalia policy?