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

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353326]Yes, but what about trans women with penises? Why do post-op trans women get to go in but not pre-op?[/QUOTE] Because they don't have male genitalia. Are you keeping up?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353326]Yes, but what about trans women with penises? Why do post-op trans women get to go in but not pre-op?[/QUOTE] Because they don't want dicks in their spa. It's a pretty easy concept to understand, even if you don't like it.

Not sure why everyone keeps bringing up the issue of women-only spaces. It's a separate, albeit linked, issue that I've already gone over. Many times.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;52353329]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?[/QUOTE] Like I said, go to any of the hundreds of spas in Toronto that don't have that policy.

If you could ban people based on certain physiological differences it would allow a rather easy way to circumvent anti transgender discrimination laws. Thus im inclined to believe that the ban would be considered unlawful if Toronto has a transgender protection bill. If we could ban people based on parts of their biology then it wpuld be equally legal to ban someone for having black skin or squinty eyes. So even without a specific transgender protection bill Im positive that numerous other anti discrimination laws would disallow this practice

This thread is an infuriating read. She has a penis. No vagina, no spa for you. I feel like I am beginning to understand how the elderly can be so jaded/cynical. :why:

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353334]Not sure why everyone keeps bringing up the issue of women-only spaces. It's a separate, albeit linked, issue that I've already gone over. Many times.[/QUOTE] Probably because you gave an answer, and then immediately contradicted it like 5 posts later. Please give us your reasoning for why one is allowable and the other is not.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353299]That's irrelevant, they still have a no male genitalia policy.[/QUOTE] But they also would allow in trans men despite advertising as women only then?

[QUOTE=Karmah;52353333]Because they don't want dicks in their spa. It's a pretty easy concept to understand, even if you don't like it.[/QUOTE] I don't care whether I like it or not. I only care about whether it's fair to trans women who either unable or unwilling to get SRS.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52353338] If we could ban people based on parts of their biology then it wpuld be equally legal to ban someone for having black skin or squinty eyes.[/QUOTE] Apples and oranges mate

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353293]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] the only ambiguity is if the no-penis policy was never mentioned anywhere before. if everything about the place said no men, but the real policy was no penises, then that would be a problem [QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353308]It's denies them service on the basis of their gender identity, a part of who they are.[/QUOTE] um, no

[QUOTE=Bradyns;52353340]This thread is an infuriating read. She has a penis. No vagina, no spa for you. I feel like I am beginning to understand how the elderly can be so jaded/cynical. :why:[/QUOTE] No one is questioning the reality of the situation. It's the morality of the rule being in place to begin with that is the issue.

[QUOTE=KillRay;52353349]But they also would allow in trans men despite advertising as women only then?[/QUOTE] How would I know? I'm not the business owner.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52353343]Probably because you gave an answer, and then immediately contradicted it like 5 posts later. Please give us your reasoning for why one is allowable and the other is not.[/QUOTE] See [url="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1567675&p=52353205&viewfull=1#post52353205"]this post[/url].

[QUOTE=Bradyns;52353340]This thread is an infuriating read. She has a penis. No vagina, no spa for you. I feel like I am beginning to understand how the elderly can be so jaded/cynical. :why:[/QUOTE] Again if we allow banning people based on anotomical features then it allows for both anti-transgender and racist discrimination. At best you could say this particular ban is a legal grey area

[QUOTE=JXZ;52353355]the only ambiguity is if the no-penis policy was never mentioned anywhere before. if everything about the place said no men, but the real policy was no penises, then that would be a problem[/QUOTE] I really don't think it would because we can recognize the reasoning behind why a policy against men would also include penises. Everything doesn't need to be totally explicit.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;52353356]No one is questioning the reality of the situation. It's the morality of the rule being in place to begin with that is the issue.[/QUOTE] The reality is that the business can do whatever they want whether you like it or not. It's not about transphobia and any other form of discrimination. It be terrible if it was and I'd be against it, but it's not until proven otherwise. Forcing this into being an issue just make transgenders look bad.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52353363]Again if we allow banning people based on anotomical features then it allows for both anti-transgender and racist discrimination. At best you could say this particular ban is a legal grey area[/QUOTE] Only if you totally ignore any nuance between why some physical traits might be different than others.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353367]The reality is that the business can do whatever they want whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE] and that is EXACTLY why we have anti-discrimination laws and etc

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52353363]Again if we allow banning people based on anotomical features then it allows for both anti-transgender and racist discrimination.[/QUOTE] Are you new to western culture or what? These things have nothing to do with each other in this context.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;52353373]and that is EXACTLY why we have anti-discrimination laws and etc[/QUOTE] Be more specific, who is 'we'? Canada? The city of Toronto? Flagdog says Finland?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353378]Be more specific, who is 'we'? Canada? The city of Toronto? Flagdog says Finland?[/QUOTE] Civilised societies.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353357]How would I know? [/QUOTE] Exactly! And how would other women identify a trans woman if she wore a bathing suit. The point of not allowing men in is because of making people uncomfortable. If the genitalia is out of sight, it's out of mind.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353378]Be more specific, who is 'we'? Canada? The city of Toronto? Flagdog says Finland?[/QUOTE] in general, dude i.e civilized societies like the person above me said

[QUOTE=sgman91;52353371]Only if you totally ignore any nuance between why some physical traits might be different than others.[/QUOTE] What nuance? The only nuance is the one you impose on certain aspects of anatomy yourself. Should a college be allowed to ban people with boobs? What about a doctor banning deformed people from going to his practice?

its just one spa who cares. go to a different one to show your support to ones who allow you with or without a penis. imagine thinking youre some leprous outcast because youre not allowed inside one single spa.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353382]Civilised societies.[/QUOTE] Agree that the people responsible of the Spa have the right to do this then. Agree that women with vaginas have the right to feel comfortable with no dicks around regardless of gender or other physical traits.

[QUOTE=LeonS;52353388]imagine thinking youre some leprous outcast because[/QUOTE] yeah, being trans often times is kinda like that

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52353377]Are you new to western culture or what? These things have nothing to do with each other in this context.[/QUOTE] Can I ban everyone with uncircumcised dicks from going to my gas station? Finding something icky is not grounds for banning it, especially when it allows for arbitrary discrimination.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353367]The reality is that the business can do whatever they want whether you like it or not. It's not about transphobia and any other form of discrimination. It be terrible if it was and I'd be against it, but it's not until proven otherwise. Forcing this into being an issue just make transgenders look bad.[/QUOTE] You've completely missed the point. Yes, the business can do whatever they want. Whether or not what they are doing is right is the problem.