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

[QUOTE=Wii60;52354202]this thread is full of the same type of logic that fueled the civil rights protests in the 60s. denying people based on their physical attributes is wrong. the reasoning "it makes people uncomfy" is also a shit reason. People in the 50s-60s used the same exact logic. just sayin.[/QUOTE] My favorite argument in here was that they could just go somewhere else. That's the kind of shit people still use to defend racism and homophobia.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;52354243]she was already going to fucking do that[/QUOTE] chill, they were agreeing with you

[QUOTE=Turnips5;52354243]she was already going to fucking do that[/QUOTE] Right, which is why I think the rule is obtuse. If there's a no penis policy then it should be sufficient to just conceal it as a MtF trans individual

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52354201]That's all an employee can really do? It's up to the business owner to review their policy.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about individual employees, obviously they have to follow policy or risk losing their job. I'm talking about the business owner and third parties like you who back them up.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52354252]I'm saying that's a possible reason for the policy.[/QUOTE] there is no official policy, and the unofficial policy is shit

[QUOTE=Bertie;52354227]Just what the hell is the issue of a toddler being exposed to genitalia of the opposite sex?[/QUOTE] Plenty of families just think it's inappropriate. You know, the same reason they don't show dicks on television??

I agree that the policy is discriminatory, but it's also a policy that I see as fairly reasonable given the society that we live in. Thankfully there's an obvious solution and the rule should be amended to accommodate that solution.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52354264]Plenty of families just think it's inappropriate. You know, the same reason they don't show dicks on television??[/QUOTE] You shouldn't just accept "I think it is inappropriate" without exploring why they think it is inappropriate.

If she was already going to wear a bathing suit then yeah the denial was unreasonable. Again, I don't think it was out of maliciousness so much as them not really knowing what the hell to do but a bathing suit and especially one with a skirt wouldn't make anyone uncomfortable unless they specifically knew what they were looking for. Which is weirder on the person who's staring at someone else's crotch for like no reason. She's within her right to be upset.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52354264]Plenty of families just think it's inappropriate. You know, the same reason they don't show dicks on television??[/QUOTE] But WHY? "it just is" is not an argument. Give me a good reason that it's so bad for a toddler to see opposite sex genitalia. Did you not shower with your mom when you were a year old? Did seeing her icky vagoogoo make you go all funny in the head or did you stay normal, probably because a toddler does not even care about such things? Also, a TV is not remotely comparable to a setting where the whole point is people being naked.

We should not allow penises in womens' spas. We should protect women from the penises. Did you know that most rapes are committed with a penis? Also, Adolf Hitler had a penis

Why can't I, a ordinary hetrosexual male with a penis go there? Why should I be discriminated against because of how I was born?

[QUOTE=Pascall;52354292]If she was already going to wear a bathing suit then yeah the denial was unreasonable. Again, I don't think it was out of maliciousness so much as them not really knowing what the hell to do but a bathing suit and especially one with a skirt wouldn't make anyone uncomfortable unless they specifically knew what they were looking for. Which is weirder on the person who's staring at someone else's crotch for like no reason. She's within her right to be upset.[/QUOTE] it's really not the employee's fault as much as it is the business's for not having any sensible policy on it at all, I agree with that much, even if it doesn't make that much difference in the end

[QUOTE=Wii60;52354202]this thread is full of the same type of logic that fueled the civil rights protests in the 60s. denying people based on their physical attributes is wrong. the reasoning "it makes people uncomfy" is also a shit reason. People in the 50s-60s used the same exact logic. just sayin.[/QUOTE] Yeah this lady not being able to whip her dick out in the spa is compareable to the systematic and widespread use of segregation and abuse towards non-whites.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52354302]Why can't I, a ordinary hetrosexual male with a penis go there? Why should I be discriminated against because of how I was born?[/QUOTE] Because it's women only as per the businesses rules. Why can't boys join all-female schools, why can't men use female bathrooms, why can't someone who only eats meat go into a vegan-only cafe and order a steak? It's not wrong, racist or transphobic for women to be grossed out by dicks. Imagine they had come here specifically to relax and avoid men after being sexually assaulted only to see dicks everywhere, regardless of whether the person behind the dick is a female or not.

[QUOTE=Bertie;52354213]I'm not advocating for unisex changing rooms. I'm advocating for people to realize the non-importance of the dick in the discussion, how in real life a transgender woman with a dick will be so negligible in anyone's practical affairs in a naked spa that people will wonder why this was ever an issue in the first place.[/QUOTE] What you were saying is that women who respect transgender women should ignore their genitilia; but that's what unisex areas are, since you can't necessarily even tell who's transgender. To be clear I'm only talking about nudity now, which there was none of in this case.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52354302]Why can't I, a ordinary hetrosexual male with a penis go there? Why should I be discriminated against because of how I was born?[/QUOTE] Personally I think you should be able to go, although I appreciate that elements of society make women feel the need for spaces like this away from men. Although I think that is a separate discussion.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52354302]Why can't I, a ordinary hetrosexual male with a penis go there? Why should I be discriminated against because of how I was born?[/QUOTE] Because you don't really want to go to a womens' spa, wouldn't go even if you could because it's "gay", and are just making this post to make a point about how leftists are hypocritical

for some reason I find it kinda funny breaking this thread to it's bare roots, only because there's 7 pages of heated discussion about penises

[QUOTE=Sky King;52354302]Why can't I, a ordinary hetrosexual male with a penis go there? Why should I be discriminated against because of how I was born?[/QUOTE] Because this thread isn't about heterosexual men, this topic isn't about heterosexual men, and the spa was not created for heterosexual men.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52354316]Yeah this lady not being able to whip her dick out in the spa is compareable to the systematic and widespread use of segregation and abuse towards non-whites.[/QUOTE] You can compare two things without seeing them as equal.

[QUOTE=Talvy;52354327]What you were saying is that women who respect transgender women should ignore their genitilia; but that's what unisex areas are, since you can't necessarily even tell who's transgender. To be clear I'm only talking about nudity now, which there was none of in this case.[/QUOTE] That's a good point and I don't have a clear answer. I think generally transgender women will make an effort to distinguish themselves as women rather than men, and any cases of just some dude saying "hey I'm transgender let me in" to peep on all the women are going to be close to nonexistent. I guess you could call what I'm talking about a unisex (with regards to genitalia), one-gender changing room. There are inevitable problems to go along with it, but I prefer trying to deal with them than banning pre-op transgender women.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;52354286]You shouldn't just accept "I think it is inappropriate" without exploring why they think it is inappropriate.[/QUOTE] That's a different discussion, we're discussing why such a policy is in place to begin with. I'm just arguing that it's a policy against male genitalia and not a policy against transgendered people.

[QUOTE=Wii60;52354202]this thread is full of the same type of logic that fueled the civil rights protests in the 60s. denying people based on their physical attributes is wrong. the reasoning "it makes people uncomfy" is also a shit reason. People in the 50s-60s used the same exact logic. just sayin.[/QUOTE] Intimate private parts are different. I do agree that the denial was unreasonable in this case, but not if nudity were involved.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52354373]That's a different discussion, we're discussing why such a policy is in place to begin with. I'm just arguing that it's a policy against male genitalia and not a policy against transgendered people.[/QUOTE] I can say for myself that I never thought it was a policy specifically meant to target transgender people. I understand why this policy would exist in the first place. But I don't think it can stand up to logical scrutiny.

[QUOTE=Talvy;52354156]In that case the denial was unreasonable. For obvious reasons, a society with unisex only changing rooms etc. will never work, at least not anytime soon.[/QUOTE] Most of the hockey rinks I play at have gone from separate mens/women's locker rooms to a unisex locker room plus an additional locker room for anyone who isn't comfortable changing in the main one. I think that's mostly because the women's locker room was rarely getting used since we're a team and no one gives a shit.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52353308]It's denies them service on the basis of their gender identity, a part of who they are.[/QUOTE] It denies them service on the basis of whether or not they have a fucking penis You're flat out lying here, it has nothing to do with identity

[QUOTE=sgman91;52353371]Only if you totally ignore any nuance between why some physical traits might be different than others.[/QUOTE] Not really. If you allow banning specific anatomical features, you could ban certain skin colors, nose sizes/shapes, pretty much anything... so it really is legally gray, and definitely is discriminatory. Your first reaction may be "Well it's not the [I]same[/I]" but when you really get down to what they are discriminating upon it is actually the [I]exact[/I] same and laws about one will inherently affect the other. "Nuance" is completely arbitrary when it comes to the law. [QUOTE=Gwoodman;52353367]The reality is that the business can do whatever they want whether you like it or not. [/QUOTE] lmao no it fucking can't, there are a ton of laws about what businesses can and can't do legally.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52353402]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] what kind of gas station are you running where people are naked all the time

[QUOTE=phygon;52354458]Not really. If you allow banning specific anatomical features, you could ban certain skin colors, nose sizes/shapes, pretty much anything... so it really is legally gray, and definitely is discriminatory. Your first reaction may be "Well it's not the [I]same[/I]" but when you really get down to what they are discriminating upon it is actually the [I]exact[/I] same and laws about one will inherently affect the other. "Nuance" is completely arbitrary when it comes to the law. lmao no it fucking can't, there are a ton of laws about what businesses can and can't do legally.[/QUOTE] So you would argue that there is no distinction between sexual body parts and non-sexual body parts?