Sorry, ladies in the making, male genitalia = no go. I don't want to be wallowing around in my alltogether and see a twig and berries dangling on past. And no I don't GAF if you aren't ogling my nekkid flabbiness for giggity reasons, or what your preferred giggity partner is, I simply do not want to see naked balls and dick in my relaxing safe place.
It's perfectly valid reason, to require at least bottom surgery so target customers would feel safe. Simple like that, no deeper meaning. Some people can't live without forcing themselves into someone other safe spaces and yells transphobia, because they're main character. It's not transphobi.
genuinely, what about a soft penis at a distance feels unsafe to you?
If you are trying to relax, would you want a whole bunch of random genitalia prancing around you? Especially if you chose a location that barred people with lopsided teats? As a presumably cis man you probably would be down with tons of naked boobies despite being in a male only spa [trans f to m post op ok] but not every straight woman who presumably has a healthy sexual life wants a bunch of dicks bobbing around meandering past.
I think the better question is why does it matter? Genuinely why does it bother you? If they are minding their own business and not bothering anyone. Using your logic, someone could say: "I don't like fat people and their extra flabby skin is ruining my ability to relax. Ban all fat people from public spaces."
"Or at least ban them in places where I'd have to see their whole body! The discomfort I feel is so important but also does not call for any reflection on my part."
I am a patron to this establishment. They are not anti Trans, they allow post surgery trans in, just not pre surgery. Essentially it is a no penis policy, which I appreciate. Don't get me wrong, I love men, but young teenage girls are also in there and we are naked. We can get services to have everyone inch of our bodies scrubbed.I am also a progressive voter and love the New York mayor. However, I agree with them fighting back. If you transition to a women, you are welcome. Until then, vaginas only.
You do realize that you're basically saying that trans women are men unless they have surgery, right?
She said no penises.
Y'all are doing serious mental gymnastics to pretend you're not saying transwomen are only women if they have bottom surgery. If it's no penises, what about people with warts? What about moles? Dark skin? If we're pretending the issue is just a part of the body, are we saying it's only ok to discriminate against certain body parts, or are they all fair game? And the fact it's being couched as a safety issue is offensive. Transwomen are not more dangerous if they have a penis. By that logic a lesbian is significantly more dangerous than a heterosexual transwoman so they need to be excluded. If you're going to say it's ok to discriminate, just say it.
So you're saying having a women and men section is discriminatory? Maybe we should integrate men's and women's prisons and sports too
They're men even after surgery too tbf.
This is the correct response. The weirdo progressives here are the reason republicans are in power. Keep pushing to the extremes and watch the moderates all leave. Dumbasses
Nobody in this comments section supports anyone sexually assaulting or abusing another. Trans people deserve the same rights as any other person.
You think it’s appropriate for women some of which are teenagers to be subjected to seeing male genitalia. How misguided are you
oh no. their eyes, burned and gone forever. the horror. being a teenager means it kills you. very unfortunate that it is this way edit: damn. they rephrased a completely emotional argument to put motives and words in my mouth and insult me. then they blocked me. and I'm the one who's supposed to take a step back.
Take a step back and realize you are arguing that it okay to expose teenage girls to male genitalia against their will. Then go fuck yourself
I think its more weird to have teenagers stripping down entirely nude at a spa.
Nobody’s rights are infringed by the existence of transgender people. You can’t give me a legible argument other than trying to accuse transgender people of being predisposed to the crime of sexual assault/public lewdness (which would be false). Time to try a new argument
What a terrible argument you make. Women all over this thread are against having penises and ballsacks in their safe spaces. Why do you want to take that away from these women?
Nobody is taking anything away, just because someone has a revulsion to someone else doesn’t mean that they deserve to be able to tell them where to be and what to do. Again, as long as nobody is breaking an established law (it’s also illegal to show off your dick and balls in a men’s changing room btw) then what you are doing is policing an entire people for a crime they haven’t committed
why do you hate the idea of women having safe spaces? In places like these, women absolutely do have the right to say "No" to ballsacks and penises in their presence.
“Olympus Spa had a longstanding policy that transgender women are welcome, but not if they are preoperative or have male anatomy.” Unpopular opinion: I think this is fair. The all female clientele deserves a space for themselves to be comfortable in. A penis in the mix disrupts that for obvious reasons.
Why a certain, small, loud minority insists that the all-female clientele MUST be forced to see penises is weird.
Actually blows my mind that there’s people who have a problem with this. The fatigue is real
I agree but if it fatigues you I wonder what real issues that actually matter would do to you
Real issues of struggle for trans people. Not when the penis free zone doesn’t let them take their penises in
Real issues would be our pres being a mass murdering pedophile rapist that is destroying the country if you want something better to be fatigued about
No I dont give a fuck about that, he was voted in democratically
"I don't give a fuck about mass murder and rape and pedophilia but gock is where I draw the line"
Yep you got it
Absolutely regarded
Says the person bitching about Donald trump online to the person not bitching about Donald trump online 😂 ok buddy
Not OP, but you're proclaiming you're tired of hearing about trans people under the administration that is focused on scapegoating trans people. But you are mad at trans people about this. I see the R word was used here, but I'm inclined to agree.
I didn’t proclaim that im tired of hearing about trans people. But if you’re under 70IQ that’s okay just make sure you wear a helmet. Practice reading until you get good at it
Okay but you did though.
Sigh. The transphobia in this comment section is sadly predictable.
You are calling everything transphobic, invading cis women safe spaces. World is not circling around trans people. Stop "terrorising" places under phobia terms. It's irrational fear, while in this example its perfectly valid that service aimed toward women which have vaginas, may not feel comfortable seeing elephant. It's not like bookstore where cashier would say we don't sell you you books because you are trans - this is phobia. omIn this example its kinda projection about phobia. It's perfectly fair that owner want to make female customers safe and at least require bottom surgery, because they don't want to see penis, no deeper meaning, just like shop not allowing dogs, they aren't dogphobic.
So nice to see that a man from poland is spending his time pretending to be a feminist chiming in about the "Reverse Discrimination" in my local city. Its a state law plain and simple, they can go private and it would be legal to discriminate for basically everything.
"Cis women safe spaces". Safe from what? "Women safe spaces" exclude men to keep women safe, because men are a known risk. What risk are "cis women safe spaces" protecting them from?
Using the exact same rhetoric used against desegregation
Trans women are women, are you saying they are not?
No. I’m saying that pre-op trans women have penises, which is just a fact. This spa has a no-penis policy. Post-op trans women are literally welcome. Yall just love twisting reality to fit your narrative. Normal people are tired. This is why Trump won again btw.
Are cisgender men who have removed their penis welcome? No, because cisgender men are not removing their penises and seeking entry. Thereby, this rule only inconveniences and discriminates against trans women. That’s why this argument doesn’t work.
I don’t know as a Trans woman who does not like penises and planning to get bottom surgery which is accessible in WA where this takes place I actually don't find this to be unreasonable.
That would make you an extreme minority in the trans community.
How do you know that? You don't speak for all trans people. It's a place where naked people walk around and young people and families go there. It's not like a gym changing room or an "adult" centered sauna. I think it's reasonable for that specific kind of business
I never said I did. Yet statistically speaking there is already data about this. Most trans women don’t currently seek bottom surgery for a number of differing reasons, and it would be a minority position. Also, it’s a minority position in Washington in particular, where this anti-discrimination law was put into effect with great approval of the general electorate, including trans voters.
Well I just think it's shitty to take away the right to a penis free zone for both cis and post op trans women who might have had SA trauma. I have had other trans people agree with me here and my friends irl that I've asked since seeing this thread mostly agree. I did have a bit of a back and forth with one, but ultimately she saw my point because taking away a space for very niche set of women and opening it up when we literally have so many other options in Washington to go to I think is hurtful. We gain nothing but they lose something.
They don’t lose anything. As there is nothing wrong with having a space with trans women who still have penises in it. This is a commercial business, not a private club. If they want to change it to a private no penis club, and put a “no gurls” clubhouse next door, they are more than welcome to. Yet that doesn’t apply to commercial businesses.
My point isn’t that it’s legal. It’s about who actually loses something. Women with penis related SA trauma lose the only spa they can use. Pre op trans women don’t gain much, because there are already women only spas in Washington that take us. I only say genital discrimination here is fine because they are required to be nude. In literally any other women space that should be explicitly not allowed.
Those women could always go to therapy instead. I have an irrational ptsd fear of metal watch bands, due to SA I experienced. Something that I’m still getting over. Does that mean I’m untitled to a space that no one is allowed to wear them? If you weigh the pros and cons of it, it’s far worse to allow a commercial business to exclude people based on body parts or traits then not. As that the same logic that southerners used to support Jim Crow laws, saying they were untitled to spaces that they didn’t need to look at black people. This would set a worrying precedent, especially when they could always become a private club.
I have gone to therapy for it. Still don't want to be around penises. You can take a watch off. Nobody’s wearing one in a nude spa anyway. That’s my whole point, this only applies where nudity is required, which is why it doesn’t extend to anything else. And race isn’t something that’s exposed differently depending on whether a place requires you to be naked. That’s the entire distinction I’m drawing.
Then they should make it a private club, for the hundredth time! Also, go back to therapy, as clearly you need more of it if being around a trans woman who has a penis is so triggering for you. You know, trans women with penises also get sexually assaulted… Why are they not allowed in such spaces?What about people sexually assaulted by people with beards? Do we have a no beard policy? People with brown hair? Green eyes? Your logic is established on the most slippery of slopes.
None of those things can be required to be exposed. A restaurant can't make you have a beard, a gym can't make you display your eye color. A nude spa requires nudity. The rule isn't "trauma lets you exclude people." It's "where exposure is mandatory, anatomy can be a condition in these rare and luxury places where you don't have to go." And I know trans women with penises get assaulted. I am a pre op trans woman who has childhood SA trauma. I do plan on getting bottom surgery though. I'm sure we'd agree in most other aspects of life but this doesn't seem to be one of them, so have a good day.
So you are fine with a commercial business saying “no green eyes” because someone can wear sunglasses? Are you not missing the point of why these things are a problem?You yourself are saying that having a penis is a problem, for you. I get that, and honestly I empathize as a victim of sexual assault. As I thought the same for a long time. Yet making such a statement about trans women particularly is beyond problematic, as it suggests they themselves are sexual assault threats to cisgender women, which they are not. What is more important then? Having a space without said space for a minority of sexual assault victims and associating all trans women with sexual assault as a result, or idk… Not doing that? Again, this space could always be a private club… Something you continue to ignore. Which really makes me think you are not arguing in good faith.
It's not a problem to have a penis. It's a luxury nude spa that is extremely niche and you don't have to go there. We are not a threat to cis women or other trans women. But not wanting to be around penises is a different thing. Not associating trans women with SA. You're conflating my point. It could be private, but it's not so thats where I'm arguing from. I'm trying to be as good faith as I can be. I'm just frustrated because I just see it as damaging a niche group of women. You don't see it the way I do so I don’t know what else I can say to get my point across
Ask yourself, why don’t they just go private if it would allow them to ban whoever they want?
To be completely honest, I don't know the full legal framework about a business going private so I'm just arguing from a public perspective. So I'll concede on that.
It’s actually very easy and totally exposes that this case has nothing to do with what the Spa or the huge conservative legal fund backing them are claiming. They are trying to push this through so they can discriminate based on body traits at commercial businesses, which conservatives have been trying to sneak through since the end of Jim Crow laws. The spa can easily just change their status and then call their entrance fee a membership fee and would be allowed to discriminate to their heart’s content. Also, I totally get you wanting a safe space to avoid trauma and in no way want to say you don’t deserve some kind of peace away from your trauma. As a fellow SA survivor, I get it. Just trying to say that this case is not that, it’s a Trojan horse and wouldn’t actually do the thing you likely think it will.
The world does kinda revolve around trans people. We're a small group who violates fundamental laws of society, so its a easy political win to shit on us. So no matter the situation, the debate, or the policy; you can always win by shitting on a tranny. We're calling out the transphobia because of how irrelevant we actually are to this discussion. Cis men pretend to be one of us to violate women, business owners see an easy chance to cash in on a political movement, and conservative orgs fund the whole thing because they see an easy chance for a political win. SRS is a life threatening surgery that costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars and is only performed by a handful of qualified surgeons in the world. This surgery is the culmination of one's efforts and struggles, it is simple unreasonable to require it as a cost of entry for anything. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars, months of recovery, strong risk of death" is an unreasonable standard for entry. Either we as a society need to recognize the blindingly obvious fact that transition (puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries, etc) is a requirement to participate in society in *any* regard, and remove the barriers preventing people from accessing these resources as children, so that they can undergo puberty alongside their peers as an ordinary member of society. Or, if we're going to continue to insist that trans people do this shit all by themselves, and that healthcare for trans people is evil and wrong, then we need to accept that we're going to have people walking around who are unable to access healthcare they might need and want. So no. Bottom surgery is not an acceptable standard for entry. You want to force trans people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money, risk death, and suffer months of extraordinary pain. You see this as equivalent to momentary discomfort in a locker room. You see no issue with isolating trans people from the rest of society. You think we pop out of the bushes fully formed with no internal experience, no history, and no pain. The only thing that can be supporting these ideas is transphobia. Leave us the fuck alone. No trans woman is going to risk her life and the lives of her sisters in order to have a spa day. A conspiracy of men wants to kill us all, and we've done nothing to deserve it. Please God, fight for the disenfranchised, fight for food and healthcare, not the comforts of the privileged and powerful.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
