She almost shouts
You’ve probably seen the Wi Spa video.
LA Magazine does not approve of the woman who doesn’t want a naked man in the women’s section with her.
Mineral salt massages and hydro-dermabrasion facials weren’t enough to calm the nerves of some patrons at Wi Spa over the weekend. The tony Koreatown health club became the scene of a showdown over nudity in gendered spaces after a customer confronted spa staff about a trans woman with male genitals being allowed to disrobe in the spa’s female section. The ruckus was caught on camera and quickly went viral on Twitter on Sunday, fueling a furious online debate—with threats of a boycott against the spa—about the rights of trans people to use women’s spaces versus the rights of cisgender females to not be exposed to male anatomy.
What “rights of trans people to use women’s spaces”? There are no such rights. The only people who have the right to use women’s spaces are women. That’s what “women’s spaces” means.
“So, it’s OK for a man to go into the women’s section, show his penis around the other women, young little girls—underage—in your spa? Wi Spa condones that, is that what you’re saying?” the woman filming the video can be heard saying to a masked spa worker. When the employee attempts to answer, saying something about “sexual orientation,” the customer, who seems to deny the existence of trans people, loses it even more. “What orientation?” she nearly shouts. “I see a dick! It lets me know he’s a man. He’s a man. He is a man. He is not no female.” Another customer is shown in video demanding a refund. “This is our first time, and then this shit happens, and we’re not coming back,” she says.
She “seems to deny the existence of trans people” LA Mag says primly. No, she does deny that a man gets to intrude into a women’s space, that’s all.
In a statement to Los Angeles about this weekend’s incident, Wi Spa points to California Civil Code 51 (b), which makes discriminating against trans and other gender non-conforming people in business establishments illegal in the state. “Like many other metropolitan areas, Los Angeles contains a transgender population, some of whom enjoy visiting a spa,” the statement goes on. “Wi Spa strives to meet the needs of all its customers.”
Which of course is just plain impossible if they let naked men intrude on the women’s spaces. California Civil Code 51 (b) is a sour joke and a reversal of women’s rights.
If women are supposed to happily accept that “woman” is a gender which can be shared by any body, then the person with a uterus who protested against this is “gender nonconforming.” She does not conform or properly identify with her gender. Discriminating against her — ignoring her needs — is therefore a violation of California Civil Code 51 (b).
I think we’re there…
Have you watched the video?
Over and over: “He’s got a penis.” “He’s a man.” “He’s got a penis.” “He’s a man.”
So mundane. So myopic. So tiresome. It’s like she’s totally mired in reality.
This got me seeing red. Not only the reference to “cisgender females” (that’s a female, or a woman. No need for modifiers). What really got me is the idea that the only issue here is women not wanting to be exposed to male anatomy. Can anyone say Prude? She’s portrayed as a typical killjoy who just wants to be in her protected space and not know male bodies exist….
Except it’s so much more than that. Not a word about the number of women that get assaulted by men every year. Not a word about rape or sexual assault or harassment. Not a word about danger. They take the d off of danger, so all that is left (in their telling) is anger, unjustified anger.
An angry woman. Yeah, such a trope. Because it is never okay to be an angry woman, any more than it is okay to be angry while black. Meanwhile, we are supposed to fall all over ourselves to accommodate angry white men.
They can go to hell. I will not call a man a woman.
Steven, I did watch it the other day, yes.
“Wi Spa strives to meet the needs of all its customers.” Yeah, I’m not seeing that.
Well, it strives, but if they’re women, it just can’t manage it.
If only there were a word for such people. Oh, well.
Seriously, though. That presentation makes it look like it was a complaint about having to share a changing-room with somebody who had a really unsightly mole or a birth defect or something, rather than an intact bloke.
How do we know that he was a predator, and not trans? False premise in that question. If a man is marching around naked in a women’s sex-segregated space, then he’s a predator. He’s already violated several boundaries, and there’s no reason to believe he’ll stop. Whether or not he claims to be trans is totally irrelevant.
Any law which prevents businesses from discriminating against people for their ‘gender’ surely means that a business only has to refrain from barring them from membership in order not to contravene the law. It doesn’t have to let men into the women’s section. That’s not unlawful discrimination, it’s in line with women’s rights.
The best part has to be the woman checking in, who asks for her money back. It’s easy for that wokebro to be all you don’t understand, “she’s” transgender, but the other women seem to understand. I bet even Laurie Penny would decide to change a little later if there was a sausage parade in the locker room.
https://www.gq.com/story/two-days-in-wi-spa
I’m willing to bet that California law doesn’t require the spa to allow trans women to use the women’s changing and shower area. I bet they can make other accomodations, including requiring male bodied people to use the male changing area. As long as they don’t refuse service or demand unreasonable accomodations.
Screechy, you know anything about this?
“deny the existence of trans people” : “deny the existence of _______”
::
“deny the existence of Jews” : “deny the existence of YHWH’s chosen (actually in reality) people”
Pretty sneaky, sis.
Rob,
It’s unclear. The Unruh Act is a very broadly written statute, and a quick look suggests that this specific issue has not been decided yet.
The spa is probably wise not to be offering itself up as a test case.
Rob@11:
I have no idea at all about California, but it’s worth pointing out that, in the UK, it’s perfectly lawful to have sex segregated spaces where that’s appropriate (including changing rooms and toilets) but that a lot of trans activists either don’t know that or pretend they don’t. This is surely at least partly due to Stonewall’s deliberate misinformation campaign on this issue. A lot of people, providers and consumers alike, are either confused or plain wrong on this point because of it.
I’ve had a lot of arguments with TAs on this subject. A lot of them seem genuinely convinced that the law doesn’t allow sex segregated spaces, although there really isn’t any legal ambiguity. Others accept that the law exists, but believe they can and should act as though it doesn’t. I’ve had very few discussions with people who accept that the law exists and believe that it’s wrong, but that everyone should abide by it until such time as it is changed. This seems to point to an overriding sense of arrogance and unfounded privilege.
Well, see, the law just protects women, so………..