The conflict

Kara Dansky a few weeks ago:

I have been thinking about the potential conflict between laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” in places of public accommodation and criminal laws that prohibit voyeurism and indecent exposure at least since 2021, when a man named Darren Merager decided to parade his naked body (complete with erection) around the women’s section of Wi Spa, a Korean-style nude spa in Los Angeles.

You remember that incident, I’m sure.

video of a woman named Cubana Angel complaining about the incident went viral. In the video, she is seen asking staff: 

I just want to be clear with you: It’s okay … for a man to go into the women’s section … He’s a man … HE IS A MAN … He’s not no female. 

The staff member refers to a law and Cubana Angel replies:

Really? What law?

The law the staff member was referring to is California Civil Code § 51, also known as the Unruh Act. That law, among other things, prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation (like spas, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) on the basis of sex. Section (e)(5) of the Act states that sex includes, but is not limited to:

a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

Ok but I was just reading about the Unruh Act, before I read Kara’s post, and here’s the thing: it was passed in 1959. Legislators weren’t burbling about “gender expression” and similar bullshit in 1959. Section (e)(5) must be a very recent update, perhaps written by the ACLU and smuggled in in a box of cough drops.

At any rate the point of it, of course, is that all these driveling idiots have made it, or are trying to make it, legal for men to prance naked into women’s locker rooms and illegal for women to insist on locker rooms without naked men prancing around, and the ACLU simply cannot contain its joy.

Can a gym or spa deny me service, or exclude me from gender-segregated spaces, because I’m transgender and/or nonbinary?

No. Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51), business establishments in California may not deny anyone “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services” because of their sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression (as well as other traits like race, national origin, religion, and disability). This means people who are transgender or nonbinary have the right to full and equal participation in a gym or spa experience, including access to locker rooms and other spaces based on their gender identity.

But it also means that people who are women or girls do not have the right to full and equal participation in a gym or spa experience, including access to locker rooms and other spaces without boys and men in them.

I hate the ACLU with such a passion.

6 Responses to “The conflict”