[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[TurkeysGhost]

Indeed. It's almost as if they treat interactions with males as something fundamentally different than interactions with females, any time either or both of the people interacting have no clothes.

That is truly a telling insight, and definitely deserves to be considered and understood.

If only there were some solution that protected against both. Alas, there is none /s

 

[LondonJohn]

As the Wi Spa incident demonstrates, no, they can't.

I'm not sure you understand the Wi Spa situation correctly.

The Wi Spa itself was happy to have a trans-inclusive policy. The problems arose after one of its female customers was unhappy with that policy.

If a person or a group of people want to set up and run a private spa in which only ciswomen are allowed entry, then they can do so with with zero repercussions*. This is akin to what ST was saying.


* And perhaps they might offer totemic complimentary memberships to the woman who made the infamous video in Wi Spa......


ETA: for further clarity, all the Wi Spa protests showed is that nobody can compel a private business like a women's spa to exclude transwomen, if the owners/management want to include transwomen. But that's an entirely different matter from claiming that nobody could own/run a women's spa that excluded transwomen, if that was what they - the owners/mgmt - wanted.

 

[LondonJohn]

If only there were some solution that protected against both. Alas, there is none /s

Indeed.

And for that matter, I'm not sure that, for example, a 5ft2 80lb ciswoman in a women's prison who found herself forcibly sexually assaulted with a pool cue butt by a 5ft11 180lb predatory gay ciswoman prisoner....

.... would be all that enamoured by any suggestion that this was a "lesser" violation than a sexual assault/rape by a transwoman prisoner.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. I personally hold the view that transwomen should not be permitted to participate in women's contact sports at any level (and transmen should probably not be permitted to participate in men's contact sports either).

And (as I've said several times previously), I personally hold the view that transgender athletes should not be allowed to participate in elite-level sports representing their trans gender. I regard elite-level sport as an entertainment first and foremost, and this to me puts elite-level sport beyond the remit of these sorts of human rights issues*

And people with intersex conditions should also be banned from all sports as well clearly. A strict no freaks allowed policy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As the Wi Spa incident demonstrates, no, they can't.

Sure they can, it just has to be an actual private club and not a public business. Like a proper country club that would never allow a jew to join it. Yet public businesses can not have a no jews policy.

 

[LondonJohn]

If only there were some solution that protected against both. Alas, there is none /s

Oh I think you entirely miscomprehend, ST.

You see, the truth (as we keep getting told forcibly) is that if/when transwomen are allowed to use women's shelters and women's changing rooms and women's prisons....

... there'll be a veritable epidemic - nay, pandemic - of assaults and degradations carried out by transwomen (or "transwomen*") upon ciswomen in these spaces.

And - here's the kicker - there's nothing anyone will be able to do about it!!! No way to minimise ex-ante risk. No way to optimise monitoring and response. No way to maximise deterrence (through things like guaranteed identification of anyone who does offend, coupled with sufficiently strong sentencing powers). No: all women are doomed, end of.


* "transwomen" (in quotation marks), because it's a racing certainty (isn't it??!?!) that allowing transwomen into these types of women's spaces will result in a torrent of cismen choosing to masquerade as transwomen in order to offend against ciswomen in some way. I mean, that's an inevitability, isn't it? We don't even need to wait and see just how much this might actually happen in real life, do we???!?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not sure you understand the Wi Spa situation correctly.

The Wi Spa itself was happy to have a trans-inclusive policy. The problems arose after one of its female customers was unhappy with that policy.

If a person or a group of people want to set up and run a private spa in which only ciswomen are allowed entry, then they can do so with with zero repercussions*. This is akin to what ST was saying.


* And perhaps they might offer totemic complimentary memberships to the woman who made the infamous video in Wi Spa......


ETA: for further clarity, all the Wi Spa protests showed is that nobody can compel a private business like a women's spa to exclude transwomen, if the owners/management want to include transwomen. But that's an entirely different matter from claiming that nobody could own/run a women's spa that excluded transwomen, if that was what they - the owners/mgmt - wanted.

My understanding of CA public accommodations law is that a spa, like WI spa, that is open to the public could not discriminate against trans women in the way that the agitators demanded. But there is no evidence that the spa wants to discriminate in this way or has a problem with trans women using their services. I would imagine many places in a liberal place like California would be trans inclusive even if the law was not in effect.

If a spa wanted to have a no trans (or no blacks, jews, whatever) policy, it would have to be a private club. There are still plenty of private organizations in this country that have all sorts of discriminatory exclusions that would be unlawful if they were public.

 

[Meadmaker]

ETA: for further clarity, all the Wi Spa protests showed is that nobody can compel a private business like a women's spa to exclude transwomen, if the owners/management want to include transwomen. But that's an entirely different matter from claiming that nobody could own/run a women's spa that excluded transwomen, if that was what they - the owners/mgmt - wanted.

This is not correct. Anti discrimination law in California would not allow a women's spa to operate if they exclude transwomen.

At least, that is my understanding, and it was cited in the video that started the Wi Spa incident, and suburban turkey said the same earlier in the thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

And people with intersex conditions should also be banned from all sports as well clearly. A strict no freaks allowed policy.

Uhhhhhh.

I am an advocate of transgender rights in pretty much every area of life.

But I simply don't believe that this extends - nor should extend - to elite-level sports (I've set out my own reasons a few times already in this thread).

And furthermore, I strongly suspect that this is where we will eventually end up in any case. Transwomen (and transmen, for all that) will be allowed to use all public and public-service facilities which match their trans gender. I will - and do - heartily applaud that. And transgender people will also be allowed to participate in all non-contact sports representing their trans gender at a non-elite level. Likewise I will - and do - heartily applaud that. But transgender people will not be permitted to represent their trans gender in elite-level sport (or in contact sport at any level). I will quietly applaud that as a necessary (IMO) preservation of elite-level sport as a competitive entertainment activity.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is not correct. Anti discrimination law in California would not allow a women's spa to operate if they exclude transwomen.

At least, that is my understanding, and it was cited in the video that started the Wi Spa incident, and suburban turkey said the same earlier in the thread.

A trans-exclusive spa could be private, beach themed, and named "Surf and TERF". The TERFs can have this free IP as a gesture of goodwill.

 

[Meadmaker]

If a spa wanted to have a no trans (or no blacks, jews, whatever) policy, it would have to be a private club. There are still plenty of private organizations in this country that have all sorts of discriminatory exclusions that would be unlawful if they were public.

Ninja'd.

But the private club can't charge a membership fee. If it does so, it's a business.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Ninja'd.

But the private club can't charge a membership fee. If it does so, it's a business.

Not sure about that. Most KKK chapters have dues and are perfectly legal.

Private clubs are businesses that discriminate all the time. The question is whether they are open to the public or not, not whether they are for profit.

The most immediate example that comes to mind are elite, private country clubs that still forbid women members.

At least, that is the case with federal civil rights law. No idea what's going on at the state level.

It's worth repeating that this is all likely a moot point, because there is nothing to indicate that Wi spa wants to discriminate in this way. Other business may, but that's not the case in which this agitator and likely hoaxster painted a target on this business and invited fascists to come thump some tranny skulls.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is not correct. Anti discrimination law in California would not allow a women's spa to operate if they exclude transwomen.

At least, that is my understanding, and it was cited in the video that started the Wi Spa incident, and suburban turkey said the same earlier in the thread.

If it were open to any member of the public on a "pay and play" basis, then it would fall under the definition of "public accommodation" and would indeed be required to treat transwomen as women.

But if it were to incorporate itself as a private club, it most certainly could rule that only ciswomen were allowed to use women's facilities.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not sure about that. Most KKK chapters have dues and are perfectly legal.

Private clubs are businesses that discriminate all the time. The question is whether they are open to the public or not, not whether they are for profit.

At least, that is the case with federal civil rights law. No idea what's going on at the state level.

I'm pretty sure about it (and I believe you're correct).

"Private club" in this context means a business which is predominantly open only to registered members (and members' guests, within limits). Those members most certainly can pay memberships/subscriptions/dues (otherwise most clubs simply wouldn't be able to be viable businesses!). A private club cannot accept any more than a small (specified) amount of member-of-the-public customers who turn up on spec without a membership, and can similarly accept a certain proportion of society bookings on a business-to-business basis. From my skirting of california law, its definition is broadly the same as this (but I'm obv open to correction or clarification for someone who has the cali-specific definition.


In the UK, there was a famous case of a world-renowned golf club near Edinburgh - Muirfield - which had an infamous "no women" policy up until remarkably recently. And the reason why it could be so blatantly discriminatory was that it was a private members' club (albeit one at which members' guests could also play - provided they were men of course...). There genuinely was a sign at the entrance to the club which read - in this order - "No dogs, no women".

The only thing that made Muirfield finally accept women was the threat that it would be removed from the (small) roster of clubs where the (British) Open Golf championship is played. If I recall correctly, there was a membership meeting to discuss the opening up of the club to women (with the quid-pro-quo being that the club would be allowed to continue hosting The Open), and a vote was taken in which there was a small majority for keeping the ban on women. This then got the club predictably large volumes of very bad publicity, and ultimately led to another meeting a few weeks later - in which there was a narrow majority for admitting women. And lo, the club stayed on the Open roster!

 

[Meadmaker]

Not sure about that. Most KKK chapters have dues and are perfectly legal.

Private clubs are businesses that discriminate all the time. The question is whether they are open to the public or not, not whether they are for profit.

The most immediate example that comes to mind are elite, private country clubs that still forbid women members.

At least, that is the case with federal civil rights law. No idea what's going on at the state level.

It's worth repeating that this is all likely a moot point, because there is nothing to indicate that Wi spa wants to discriminate in this way. Other business may, but that's not the case in which this agitator and likely hoaxster painted a target on this business and invited fascists to come thump some tranny skulls.

50 sets of state laws at work here. Would the KKK be allowed to operate a membership hall with a bar? Check local laws. Planet Fitness is a membership organization. Good luck trying to start up a similar "club" with a whites only membership. I think you would find yourself shut down before the doors opened.

As for what wi spa wanted, we cannot look into their hearts, but fortunately, we don't have to. It doesn't matter what they wanted. The point is that when challenged, they, correctly, cited California law saying that they had no choice but to allow the transwoman to use the facilities. Had they had a choice, their statements suggest they would have made the same choice, but that question is moot. They had no choice.

And that is the point. All of this talk about private clubs and nitpicks about exactly when discrimination is allowed is just one more diversion. The reality is that the government in California is stepping in and saying that a space where women are routinely undressed cannot be female only. It is conceivable that someone could come up with a way to skirt that law, but not in any way that uses a sustainable business model.

As best I can tell, you like that law. So own it. Don't run away from it. In California, that's the law, and you think that ought to be the law.

Right?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

50 sets of state laws at work here. Would the KKK be allowed to operate a membership hall with a bar? Check local laws. Planet Fitness is a membership organization. Good luck trying to start up a similar "club" with a whites only membership. I think you would find yourself shut down before the doors opened.

As for what wi spa wanted, we cannot look into their hearts, but fortunately, we don't have to. It doesn't matter what they wanted. The point is that when challenged, they, correctly, cited California law saying that they had no choice but to allow the transwoman to use the facilities. Had they had a choice, their statements suggest they would have made the same choice, but that question is moot. They had no choice.

And that is the point. All of this talk about private clubs and nitpicks about exactly when discrimination is allowed is just one more diversion. The reality is that the government in California is stepping in and saying that a space where women are routinely undressed cannot be female only. It is conceivable that someone could come up with a way to skirt that law, but not in any way that uses a sustainable business model.

As best I can tell, you like that law. So own it. Don't run away from it. In California, that's the law, and you think that ought to be the law.

Right?

Sure, generally speaking the CA law is pretty good. At least a step in the right direction, i'm not intimate with the finer details.

It's interesting that the approach to protesting a law they don't like is to sic a bunch of fascists on a small business that is powerless to break the law and club people in the streets rather than engage in legitimate political processes. Perhaps it's a tacit acknowledgement that they know the public is not on their side and success through the democratic process is unlikely.

 

[Ziggurat]

And furthermore, I strongly suspect that this is where we will eventually end up in any case. Transwomen (and transmen, for all that) will be allowed to use all public and public-service facilities which match their trans gender. I will - and do - heartily applaud that.

What counts as a transwoman?

That isn't a flippant question, BTW. I'm being quite serious. I presume that you do not want cismen to be able to access all facilities of any gender, for example. But how do you distinguish between a cisman and a transwoman? There are a number of possible answers, and they have considerable consequences if transwomen are allowed access to women-only spaces but cismen are not.

One possible answer, and the one preferred by certain posters here, is that people get to self-declare what they are. This position is problematic, to say the least. It essentially means that there are no women-only spaces, because anyone can declare themselves to be a woman (trans or otherwise), so anyone can access women-only spaces, and so they are not actually exclusive in any real sense.

Another possible answer is that people have to get some sort of official declaration of trans status. I believe that's the case in the UK, at least officially if not in practice. But depending on the requirements to get such a declaration (and apparently it's trivially easy in Canada), this may end up being little different than our first scenario. But if you were required to get a full evaluation by experts who can and do reject applications, that would be considerably different.

Another possible answer is that people have to be passing. In other words, a transwoman has to look like a woman (maybe not perfectly, but at least in large part) in order to access such spaces. So no walking into the locker room with a beard, for example. This one has fuzzy boundaries, which will cause problems for judging edge cases.

Another possible answer is that you require people to have medically transitioned. A fully post-operative transwoman is likely to be viewed by most females much differently in a shared clothing-free space than a transwoman who has not transitioned at all. But that answer isn't acceptable to many trans activists.

In other words, even if I agree with your statement as phrased, that's far from the end of the discussion. It's really only the start. So how do you think transwoman should be defined for the purpose of access? And there doesn't even have to be one answer. It can even be different answers for access to different things.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ninja'd.

But the private club can't charge a membership fee. If it does so, it's a business.

No private clubs certainly can, country clubs are the perfect example of discriminatory clubs that you have to pay dues for. Not sure if they can be organized as a for profit venture but that is not about membership fees.

 

[Meadmaker]

Uhhhhhh.

I am an advocate of transgender rights in pretty much every area of life.

But I simply don't believe that this extends - nor should extend - to elite-level sports (I've set out my own reasons a few times already in this thread).

I never understood your reasoning on why it should only apply at the elite level. As best I could tell, it came down to high school girls weren't important enough to care about who wins and who loses.

 

[ponderingturtle]

50 sets of state laws at work here. Would the KKK be allowed to operate a membership hall with a bar?

Sure why not, private club and all. Plenty of bigoted country clubs have bars after all.

Check local laws. Planet Fitness is a membership organization. Good luck trying to start up a similar "club" with a whites only membership. I think you would find yourself shut down before the doors opened.

I don't think Planet Fitness considers itself a private club, though you certainly could organize such a thing. People are certainly more resistant to less popular forms of bigotry like racism and antisemitism than they are do transphobia but that is a social not legal issue.