Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Sherkeu]

Is it really? It sounds incredibly simple to me. There are places where nudity is not appropriate and likely indicates someone up to no good and other places where it is completely normal such as when taking a shower. Regardless of biology. I'm pretty sure anyone capable of being toilet trained can handle that level of complexity.

There is also behaviour which is appropriate and inappropriate even in a shower situation. That might require a more sophisticated level of understanding but again neither sex nor gender is even relevant in that conversation.

Here's the thing Archie.

Go look at the reviews of Korean spas (there are several large ones here operating for decades)

Now...

Go and look at what the 'female' side is known for and what the 'male' side is known for. Choose any large city where they are operating. Read for yourself.

Over the years it seems the 'male' naked side of these places have grown into areas of gay cruising. Not much could be done about it other than people reporting. It is publicly available after all Mostly, the Korean husbands and straight males simply started avoiding going.

Now consider that transwomen are now going to the 'female' side which is still (to this day) mostly family of all ages, all female and ALL required to be naked.
The transgender persons are insisting to go to this side, with their fully intact male genitalia. Not an issue? Well it is a pretty big issue. Take this review:

Upon checking in, the clerk advised us that "there was a transgender male in the women's locker room" ... Ok... No problem, I'm not the type to discriminate people, but once in the women's area, I saw the mentioned "transgender" individual naked in all his glory, and he still had a male organ hanging there...ok...no fuzz... That surgery is very expensive anyways, so I go on my routine and I get to the shower room, he was almost next to me showering too when I start to overhear hearing the conversation that he is having with a lady that was also in the shower area, I clearly heard him say that he has had sex with probably one hundred women and that he was looking for a female girlfriend to share his time with.... He also mentioned that he uses cocaine and LSD to "relax" ... Ok...not my business what he uses to relax... But hey, a transgender person does not act like a guy around women nor they state how much they like women nor how much they like having sex with them! This guy is Not transgender, he seems to be just a "pervie" , and given his accent he is from another country, Europe I believe.

I heard from other ladies there that he goes there quite often.

I have nothing against gay people or transgender etc. but every gay guy I know uses the men's locker rooms when in the spa.

Management said that according to the Law there was nothing they could do.

Am I bigoted to say I won't be going to any place myself, or with my underage child when this is allowed legally? I enjoy a good Korean scrub and soak but not with the anxiety that the place is not secure from males.
Sorry. Just my biology.

If you think this is just one example, you'd be wrong.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Here's the thing Archie.

Go look at the reviews of Korean spas (there are several large ones here operating for decades)

Now...

Go and look at what the 'female' side is known for and what the 'male' side is known for. Choose any large city where they are operating. Read for yourself.

Over the years it seems the 'male' naked side of these places have grown into areas of gay cruising. Not much could be done about it other than people reporting. It is publicly available after all Mostly, the Korean husbands and straight males simply started avoiding going.

Now consider that transwomen are now going to the 'female' side which is still (to this day) mostly family of all ages, all female and ALL required to be naked.
The transgender persons are insisting to go to this side, with their fully intact male genitalia. Not an issue? Well it is a pretty big issue. Take this review:



Am I bigoted to say I won't be going to any place myself, or with my underage child when this is allowed legally? I enjoy a good Korean scrub and soak but not with the anxiety that the place is not secure from males.
Sorry. Just my biology.

If you think this is just one example, you'd be wrong.

Sounds like these Korean spas are at least tacitly permitting these places to become hook-up joints. If there is a culture of patrons using these places as hookup clubs, that's on the management that allows it to happen.

I don't see why trans people are to blame for ruining the "family friendly" atmosphere. The owners of the spa are letting it happen.

Why should the response be to make policy that is discriminatory to trans people when the more obvious, direct solution is to prohibit the bad behavior (cruising for casual sex) directly? It is well within the power of these places to take customer complaints seriously and eject people soliciting strangers for sex.

 

[Sherkeu]

Sounds like these Korean spas are at least tacitly permitting these places to become hook-up joints. If there is a culture of patrons using these places as hookup clubs, that's on the management that allows it to happen.

I don't see why trans people are to blame for ruining the "family friendly" atmosphere. The owners of the spa are letting it happen.

Why should the response be to make policy that is discriminatory to trans people when the more obvious, direct solution is to prohibit the bad behavior (cruising for casual sex) directly?

Oh boy...no ...they do not want it. Koreans are pretty conservative. But.... How do you prevent it? The same thing happens in the gyms. Maybe look up locker rooms at big gyms is West Hollywood or west LA (haha 24hr Fitness gay party time!). Think they can stop the gay cruising? It becomes impossible to weed out the offenders.
And because everyone is naked they do not have cameras. They do find the condoms.

However, nowhere that females are naked have become any sort of lesbian 'cruising' zones. That's just not how we operate.
Males are MUCH more aggressive (and VISUAL) in their sexual proclivities.
We ALL know it even without the tons of science telling us it is true...so please do not give me some anecdote of some female you know who is aggressive!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Oh boy...no ...they do not want it. Koreans are pretty conservative. But.... How do you prevent it? The same thing happens in the gyms. Maybe look up locker rooms at big gyms is West Hollywood or west LA (haha 24hr Fitness gay party time!). Think they can stop the gay cruising? It becomes impossible to weed out the offenders.
And because everyone is naked they do not have cameras. They do find the condoms.

However, nowhere that females are naked have become any sort of lesbian 'cruising' zones. That's just not how we operate.
Males are MUCH more aggressive (and VISUAL) in their sexual proclivities.
We ALL know it even without the tons of science telling us it is true...so please do not give me some anecdote of some female you know who is aggressive!

Seems to me there's a lot these places could do if they really cared enough to do it.

You say yourself that many men already avoid these places because of the reputation as a cruising hotspot. Now a similar problem is happening on the women's side, to a much lesser extent.

Seems the root issue of these spas becoming sexual activity hotspots is permissiveness of management and and unwillingness to confront the problem. An obvious solution is to have staff attendants supervising the spa areas.

Spas and gyms exist all over the world, and the majority of them operate for their intended purpose and not as orgy hotspots.

Is this only a problem to you that that its not only impacting the male side? You say yourself that these places are basically avoided by men not wanting to be propositioned for sex, so it sounds like men experiencing a much more severe deprivation of these services.

 

[Sherkeu]

Seems to me there's a lot these places could do if they really cared enough to do it.

You say yourself that many men already avoid these places because of the reputation as a cruising hotspot. Now a similar problem is happening on the women's side, to a much lesser extent.

Seems the root issue of these spas becoming sexual activity hotspots is permissiveness of management and and unwillingness to confront the problem. An obvious solution is to have staff attendants supervising the spa areas.

Spas and gyms exist all over the world, and the majority of them operate for their intended purpose and not as orgy hotspots.

Is this only a problem to you that that its not only impacting the male side? You say yourself that these places are basically avoided by men not wanting to be propositioned for sex, so it sounds like men experiencing a much more severe deprivation of these services.

It is NOT permissiveness, it is them being required to conform to California LAW. They have denied access to persons who then go on to attest it legally. They cannot afford to bring cases to deny them access if they have no actual 'proof' of something distinctly illegal under state law. A "female" is allowed under state law.

How should they stop male cruising? Go around and look at leery males in the room? That is likely illegal in itself. No cameras allowed for naked spaces remember?

What should they do?
(I did talk to one owner but will update after another talk -whenever that is- as she thought the law would change in their favor because else they may close permanently and surely the city doesn't want closed businesses)

I think they will all go out of business pretty soon anyway, at least as culturally owned and operated Korean spas.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It is NOT permissiveness, it is them being required to conform to California LAW. They have denied access to persons who then go on to attest it legally. They cannot afford to bring cases to deny them access if they have no actual 'proof' of something distinctly illegal under state law. A "female" is allowed under state law.

How should they stop male cruising? Go around and look at leery males in the room? That is likely illegal in itself. No cameras allowed for naked spaces remember?

What should they do?
(I did talk to one owner but will update after another talk -whenever that is- as she thought the law would change in their favor because else they may close permanently and surely the city doesn't want closed businesses)

I think they will all go out of business pretty soon anyway, at least as culturally owned and operated Korean spas.

There's no reason why the spas need to exclude gay people, and you're right it would be illegal and immoral to do so. They should police behavior, not classes of people.

having attendants or just employees walking through the spa area periodically and ejecting people who are violating the rules seems like an easy step. I'm guessing nearly all these people would not enjoy being caught in the midst of sex and embarrassingly trespassed from the business. Communicate clearly to patrons that sexual activity is not tolerated on the grounds and make it clear that these areas will be monitored closely and complaints taken seriously. I'm sure word would get around that this isn't a suitable place for cruising after a few confrontations.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that these businesses are not quite so helpless as you portray them, and that they saw that allowing the male side to become a cruising spot secured them steady business. I don't see how this is a big problem that such a decision ended up biting them in the ass in the long run.


It may be too late for these businesses who have allowed themselves to acquire an unsavory reputation as places with high sexual aggression. That doesn't mean it was unavoidable, nor is it suggest that excluding trans people is the only remedy.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Yes, of course. Seriously??

Someone, for example, might experience a lived condition of being able to converse with dead people. That would be classed as an invalid lived condition.

Again: seriously?

I honestly don't know how to tell the difference between valid and invalid lived conditions. Reality denial doesn't seem to be a sufficient criteria by your standards.

 

[Sherkeu]

That doesn't mean it was unavoidable, nor is it suggest that excluding trans people is the only remedy.

Ok, here's the thing. The "cruising" does NOT happen on the female side. That is where the families are. Grandmas, mom's, young kids...all FEMALE. (ok, all female except for the very very young boys with their moms)

How do we keep it this way?

 

[d4m10n]

I honestly don't know how to tell the difference between valid and invalid lived conditions. Reality denial doesn't seem to be a sufficient criteria by your standards.

I think what John is saying is that valid conditions should be treated affirmatively (e.g. hormones and surgery) but invalid conditions should be cured. It's a weird ad hoc dichotomy which you won't find in the medical literature.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Ok, here's the thing. The "cruising" does NOT happen on the female side. That is where the families are. Grandmas, mom's, young kids...all FEMALE. (ok, all female except for the very very young boys with their moms)

How do we keep it this way?

I suppose if the goal was to maintain the status quo of the men's side being a free-for-all, and the women's side being family friendly, the women's side will require some level of supervision.

I suspect that such an inconsistent policy will undoubtedly lead to patrons misunderstanding the distinction and periodic confrontations with staff will be necessary. I don't see how that's avoidable if you're going to let one side be an open sex club while trying to make the other side a family friendly venue. The idea that the two could comingle in such close proximity strikes me as absurd.

Perhaps these spas should decide what kind of atmosphere they are trying to cultivate and stick to their guns. I see no reason why we should tolerate a trans discriminatory policy because some business wants to have their cake and eat it too.

If I opened a sex shop in the back of a Chuck E Cheese, I would simply not be surprised if there were problems with my clientele.

 

[Sherkeu]

I suppose if the goal was to maintain the status quo of the men's side being a free-for-all, and the women's side being family friendly, the women's side will require some level of supervision.

I suspect that such an inconsistent policy will undoubtedly lead to patrons not understanding the distinction and periodic confrontations with staff will be necessary. I don't see how that's avoidable if you're going to let one side be an open sex club while trying to make the other side a family friendly venue. The idea that the two could comingle in such close proximity strikes me as absurd.

Perhaps these spas should decide what kid of atmosphere they are trying to cultivate and stick to their guns.

Not my point. This thread is about "trans women" being "women" not about gay cruising in Los Angeles and how hard that may be to combat.

These women still have a relatively family friendly zone but with increasing problems of male bodies in their "required" naked family spaces. How do we solve that?
I dont think it can be done. The law is already set and the exhibitionists are ready for someone to deny them so they can sue. (and I am sure there could be some legitimate but why go to a Korean spa of all the spas?)

Tragic end of a cultural venue.

(and yes...the gay cruising on the mens side already ruined that part a while ago. If you know LA, you'd know proprietors of these places just cannot throw people out without one of them being a lawyer!!)

But not all the places are "all ruined" yet. Like anywhere else, certain groups have their favorites where they gather so perhaps the others could be saved.

Where I am in the OC it has not happened in any big numbers. Yet.

Maybe you could call them and give them your suggestions for how they can keep the females in their naked spaces in comfort while abiding with CA law?
Let me know what you advice would be.

 

[Ron Obvious]

I think what John is saying is that valid conditions should be treated affirmatively (e.g. hormones and surgery) but invalid conditions should be cured. It's a weird ad hoc dichotomy which you won't find in the medical literature.

I'm not a doctor, but I assumed the diagnosis should precede the treatment decision, rather than the diagnosis following from the decision how to treat the condition.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Not my point. This thread is about "trans women" being "women" not about gay cruising in Los Angeles and how hard that may be to combat.

These women still have a relatively family friendly zone but with increasing problems of male bodies in their "required" naked family spaces. How do we solve that?
I dont think it can be done. The law is already set and the exhibitionists are ready for someone to deny them so they can sue. (and I am sure there could be some legitimate but why go to a Korean spa of all the spas?)

Tragic end of a cultural venue.

(and yes...the gay cruising on the mens side already ruined that part a while ago. If you know LA, you'd know proprietors of these places just cannot throw people out without one of them being a lawyer!!)

But not all the places are "all ruined" yet. Like anywhere else, certain groups have their favorites where they gather so perhaps the others could be saved.

Where I am in the OC it has not happened in any big numbers. Yet.

Maybe you could call them and give them your suggestions for how they can keep the females in their naked spaces in comfort while abiding with CA law?
Let me know what you advice would be.

My advice would be to have attendants to supervise these rooms and remove people who engage in sexually aggressive behavior. Or just embrace the business model as sex-venue and accept that those seeking a family friendly vibe will not return.

Trying to simultaneously run a men's cruising club and family friendly spa on the same premises sounds like an exercise in futility. If I were advising the owner, I'd tell them to pick which clientele was more important to their business and set clear behavior expectations, none of which need be unlawfully discriminatory, and enforce them.

There's a reason why many video rental chains decided not to have a pornographic films section in the back room. They decided it was bad for their brand image and might drive off customers not interested in a sexualized atmosphere.

Despite your claims about litigation, throwing out people engaged in any public activity that requires a condom is not unlawful discrimination. Throwing out a patron telling strangers they are looking for drug-fueled sex is not unlawful.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The idea that transpeople basically function as a "hedge fund" so you don't have to account for the "sins" of your sex is icky from every possible level. It's insulting to transpeople, and "No True Scotsman" from everyone else.

Again you can't turn "rapist" into its own gender.

"Which side has to take ownership of this bad person" is adding nothing to this discussion.

The question of where lines are drawn is difficult and nebulous enough as it is without the baggage of people using it to maintain their narratives that the other side is evil and predatory.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The idea that transpeople basically function as a "hedge fund" so you don't have to account for the "sins" of your sex is icky from every possible level. It's insulting to transpeople, and "No True Scotsman" from everyone else.

Again you can't turn "rapist" into its own gender.

"Which side has to take ownership of this bad person" is adding nothing to this discussion.

The question of where lines are drawn is difficult and nebulous enough as it is without the baggage of people using it to maintain their narratives that the other side is evil and predatory.

It seems to me the idea that men are inherently predatory and women can only be safe if isolated from them is deeply baked into TERF opposition to trans rights.

There's a reason why TERFs are almost entirely focused on trans-women and could not care less about trans men. It's an ideology driven deeply by hatred of men.

 

[theprestige]

Since we're doing the definitions thing (yet again) here are mine:

Female: Mammals born with ova

Femininity: Cultural expectations assoc. w/ human females

Girls/Women: Individuals generally expected to perform femininity

ETA: Please note that I'm not endorsing the abovementioned expectations, certainly not for women alone.

I think this is disingenuous. You define women according to expectations. This is a de facto endorsement of the expectations.

Not only that, but we are "doing the definitions thing" in the context of setting criteria for public policy. You may be intending to endorse your expectations in a vacuum, but you're actually doing it in the context of segregation.

Are you sure these are the definitions you actually use? Are you sure they're the definitions you want to use?

Can you explain how you are able to use a definition without endorsing it?

 

[theprestige]

Then it's quite clear that Stonewall is transphobic. We have a similar problem in the U.S. with antisemitic groups posing as Jewish lobbies. (It's possible to be phobic of oneself.)

Just because they're doing something wrongheaded and counter-productive, that doesn't mean they're transphobic. It's also not clear to me that what they're doing is wrongheaded and counter-productive. If their top priorities are to normalize the idea that transwomen are women, and to erase biological sex as a meaningful segregator, then changing how crime statistics are recorded for transwomen is a good and necessary step. One could even argue that you are the transphobe for opposing their work.

But I apologize for being so argumentative with you the past few days. It seems that you and I agree about almost everything, on the topic of this thread.

 

[Olmstead]

It seems to me the idea that men are inherently predatory and women can only be safe if isolated from them is deeply baked into TERF opposition to trans rights.

There's a reason why TERFs are almost entirely focused on trans-women and could not care less about trans men. It's an ideology driven deeply by hatred of men.

So it's misandry, not transphobia.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So it's misandry, not transphobia.

One feeds into the other. It's both.

 

[Butter!]

Lithrael, next time you pop into the thread, please acknowledge my response to your prior post so I can know that you've seen it. The insinuation that I'm being somehow radicalized because I grew annoyed with people's doublespeak on a few aspects of a single issue is, admittedly, sort of eating at me. It's a pretty big matzah ball hanging out there. (ETA - Nevermind, she's seen it and responded, ninja'd!)

It's also silly. People who claim that they've turned to the other side (far right, anti-progress, whatever) because their own side was being too disagreeable are either morons or they're liars. Why would an annoyingly extreme version of my own view cause me to champion opposite views? It's stupid. It's like the scores of people who go around claiming they USED to be a liberal who happily voted for Obama, oh but then the terrible feminists and SJWs were just so mean and unreasonable, so now they're a Nazi. Uh-huh. Sure, Jan.

I don't deny it might be able to happen with a young person whose views aren't fully fleshed out yet. But I'm the cryptkeeper over here, and I'm just not that dumb and malleable.