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

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353206]Is this parody or do you really think that [editline]13th June 2017[/editline] What does any of this have to do with having a no-male genitalia policy?[/QUOTE] Because a no-penis policy discriminates against trans women. Also that particular line of discussion somehow veered to women-only spaces for some reason so I was explaining that.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353206]Is this parody or do you really think that[/QUOTE] dude, just imagine being a woman and then being told that you can't go to a womens only place it sounds kinda wrong and it feels wrong too

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353219]Because a no-penis policy discriminates against trans women. Also that particular line of discussion somehow veered to women-only spaces for some reason so I was explaining that.[/QUOTE] But a trans women without a penis wouldn't be denied service so your whole being-offended-on-others-behalf shtick kind of goes out the window there.

This is a shoddy situation all around.

[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] Shelters deny services to men, and shelters that are made for men specifically get shut down by public outrage because sexist.

I don't really think it's specifically trans denying because they wouldn't allow transmen with vaginas in either. You can critique the sexed and gendered policies but transphobia wouldn't be my angle.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;52353221]dude, just imagine being a woman and then being told that you can't go to a womens only place it sounds kinda wrong and it feels wrong too[/QUOTE] A women's only place WITH A NO MALE GENITALIA POLICY Quit ignoring the specification

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52353153]A penis is a little bit more than just a "manly characteristic", especially as compared to short hair and being buff, I think.[/QUOTE] Maybe more than any one of those things individually, but would you look at someone like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Angel"]Buck Angel[/URL] and say they look feminine, just because they have a vagina?

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353206]Is this parody or do you really think that [editline]13th June 2017[/editline] What does any of this have to do with having a no-male genitalia policy?[/QUOTE] Im not a parody, but I have been denied access to "womens only" spaces before and can explain how i feel about it. While I understand the situation of the spa being a place where there is nudity, their own policy of allowing bathing suits should make it so genitalia shouldn't matter.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353227]But a trans women without a penis wouldn't be denied service so your whole being-offended-on-others-behalf shtick kind of goes out the window there.[/QUOTE] Denying service to a subset of a minority is still denying service, just to a smaller minority. [editline]13th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Combine 177;52353232]Shelters deny services to men, and shelters that are made for men specifically get shut down by public outrage because sexist.[/QUOTE] See the bolded parts: [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. [B]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.[/B] Also, all that is about discrimination against transgender people. How is it not relevant?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353239]Denying service to a subset of a minority is still denying service, just to a smaller minority.[/QUOTE] They deny service to everybody with a penis, not exactly a minority.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353251]They deny service to everybody with a penis, not exactly a minority.[/QUOTE] And that policy just so happens to affect pre-op trans women.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353256]And that policy just so happens to affect pre-op trans women.[/QUOTE] Boo fucking hoo?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353129]See: I think it's silly, but excluding men isn't as damaging to men as excluding transgender women is to them.[/QUOTE] Here's the problem: We don't decide discrimination legislation based on people getting really offended.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52353267]Here's the problem: We don't decide discrimination legislation based on people getting really offended.[/QUOTE] but we do?

[QUOTE=Saturn V;52353272]but we do?[/QUOTE] No, we really don't. We decide discrimination legislation based on arguments about whether the differences are relevant or not, not based on whether the group in question feels bad.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52353267]Here's the problem: We don't decide discrimination legislation based on people getting really offended.[/QUOTE] And I'm glad we don't, because then we'd be stuck in the age where it was okay to put up a "whites-only" sign in front of your shop because most white people got really offended over sharing a space with black people.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52353267]Here's the problem: We don't decide discrimination legislation based on people getting really offended.[/QUOTE] Well thats a bold faced lie, if I ever read one.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353234]A women's only place WITH A NO MALE GENITALIA POLICY Quit ignoring the specification[/QUOTE] Women have dicks in 2017

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353281]And I'm glad we don't, because then we'd be stuck in the age where it was okay to put up a "whites-only" sign in front of your shop because most white people got really offended over sharing a space with black people.[/QUOTE] ... So what is your argument? So far you've said that this type of discrimination ought to be illegal because it effects non-srs trans-people emotionally. If that's not a valid reason, then what is your reasoning?

This is going in circles and no one will budge on it, I'll double down. The rules are in place and specific, it is not transphobic or discriminatory in any way as it was not created to target transgenders or any other minority, I'll support the women that want to feel comfortable in their space with no penises around. Despite it being an unfortunate situation, the couple should've known about the place before visiting, pushing forward as an argument the past history of transgender is bullshit. So is pulling "what-ifs" when what happened here is very clear, trying very hard to push this into an unnecessary controversy is, again, total bullshit. The Spa is entirely in the right.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353251]They deny service to everybody with a penis, not exactly a minority.[/QUOTE] Bathing suit. Cis women can't magically detect dicks around them.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52353287]Women have dicks in 2017[/QUOTE] That's irrelevant, they still have a no male genitalia policy.

It's their place, they can set their own rules. People act like these sorts of things are a huge travesty but we don't have procedures in place to deal with these sorts of things. Society has norms, cis women in a spa don't expect to see dicks in their spa. They're maintaining the status quo for their clientele such that they keep their business.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52353289]... So what is your argument? So far you've said that this type of discrimination ought to be illegal because it effects non-srs trans-people emotionally. If that's not a valid reason, then what is your reasoning?[/QUOTE] It's denies them service on the basis of their gender identity, a part of who they are.

[QUOTE=KillRay;52353294]Bathing suit. Cis women can't magically detect dicks around them.[/QUOTE] So what? It's still the establishment's policy. [editline]13th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353308]It's denies them service on the basis of their gender identity, a part of who they are.[/QUOTE] Stop saying this. I'm sure trans-woman without male genitalia can go in willy nilly.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353308]It's denies them service on the basis of their gender identity, a part of who they are.[/QUOTE] Firstly, that is factually incorrect. They are being denied based on their genitalia, not their gender identity. Secondly, men are being denied in the exact same way. I previously asked how you justify one, but not the other for this very reason. You need to establish a non-emotional basis for why they ought to be allowed to disallow men, but are not allowed to disallow male genitalia for any sort of real discussion to take place. We can't work off of some nebulous idea of it being offensive. So it's therefore wrong, but only sometimes.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353308]It's denies them service on the basis of their gender identity, a part of who they are.[/QUOTE] It also excludes half of the population, what's your point?

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353315]So what? It's still the establishment's policy. [editline]13th June 2017[/editline] Stop saying this. I'm sure trans-woman without male genitalia can go in willy nilly.[/QUOTE] Yes, but what about trans women with penises? Why do post-op trans women get to go in but not pre-op?

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353315]Stop saying this. I'm sure trans-woman without male genitalia can go in willy nilly.[/QUOTE] okay what about trans women who for any reason whatsoever cant get srs? they'll just have to suck it up and continue on with their cast-out lives?