/u/BolshevikMuppet is so thirsty for that sweet, sweet ladycock you can feel it.

There's a funny/awful story from the Reagan administration when a journalist was asking "so about this whole AIDS epidemic" and was met with accusations of him being a homosexual.

Since, of course, the only way for human beings to give a damn about other people is when we want to fuck them.

So you're a transphobe who doesn't like feminine penis?

Noted.

I'm not sure. I'd like to think that in a modern society I'd be able to look at the person individually and how they feel about themselves, but I'm pretty sure it would just kind of weird me out.

But I also recognize on some level that it's the same gut-level discomfort Rudyard Kipling would have felt to the idea of having an interracial relationship. I am not the vanguard of social consciousness, I'm fully aware.

But we can have a pretty clear and bright line rule: regardless of whether I'm made uncomfortable I can't use that to justify discrimination.

That's nice and all but answer the question -- do u want the lady D?

Intellectually I'd like to say it wouldn't matter. But in my heart of hearts I think it would unnerve me too much.

The least I can do as someone who can't break free of a mindset likely one day to be viewed with the same "those misguided souls" view we have of a Roosevelt or Kipling is to not actively try to discriminate in areas outside of my personal life.

So you're just giving up? You're not even going to make an effort to try and change your hateful transphobic desires? Wow...

It's a reasonable question. I'm not sure what it would take it so completely break that social conditioning. I'm also married, so my ability to have sex with... really anyone other than my wife is kind of irrelevant.

social conditioning.

guys, can you believe this fucking dork?

You could become more progressive by sucking women's cocks and your wife should understand. Is she a Nazi or something?

Right? It's not like he's fucking another woman.

Bussy

Let's simplify the equation -- if u took some lady D would u like it or not?

why do you progressives always assume that future generations are the ultimate arbiters of reality? seems kinda obvious that if these future people think it's immoral to have sexual preferences then they're wrong and also crazy and so you shouldn't care about what they think.

But I also recognize on some level that it's the same gut-level discomfort Rudyard Kipling would have felt to the idea of having an interracial relationship. I am not the vanguard of social consciousness, I'm fully aware.

Lmao

But we can have a pretty clear and bright line rule: regardless of whether I'm made uncomfortable I can't use that to justify discrimination.

So does this mean if yah met a girl, liked her, wanted to fuck and then found out she had a dick you'd feel you should still fuck her ?

I don't think it is but I have a feeling that shmuck thinks it is

It is considered by some trans people as discrimination.

It actually seems to be mostly targeted at lesbians who won't have sex with gay transwomen.

That goes both ways for bashing guys who find surprise cocks.

Discrimination, judgement and discernment are virtues.

Clowns like you have taken "it is wrong discriminate based on skin color" and shortened it to "it is wrong to discriminate".

AIDS wasn't really an epidemic, just like Noah's flood wasn't a natural disaster; they are punishments by God

Man, god is getting pretty lazy with those.

First a global flood, then a set of announcements for the plagues of the exodus through a representative with magic powers.

Now he makes a virus.

It's like if David Copperfield started doing nothing but simple card tricks. God needs to step up his damned game. Burning bushes, sending down angels to smite people, lamb's blood, something big and flashy. Not this "things indistinguishable from nature happen" shit.

He sent us Donald Trump in 2016, so he's stepping up his apocalypse-game

Really gives a new meaning to the nickname "god-emperor"

It's definitely enough to destroy the world.

It's just too indirect.

Much cooler if god sends down Michael to say "wow, that was a test jackasses", and then he destroys the world.

Ultrashitpost you ignorant slut, what about the haemophiliacs? What "law" of our tyrannical demiurge did they break?

The demiurg has no power beyond that of creation fam

Then who sent the flood and scourges the sinners? Melek Taus?

That's Allah

Claiming that Allah did not create the universe, just the demiurge. That sounds like بدعة‎‎; to me.

I'm a dity kaffir

You want one bomb or two kaffir scum?

That's why Aeon Flux had to destroy it.

idk my dude, your comments in this chain could just as easily be used to advocate for allowing cis-men into a female-only nude spa. I think that sort of rhetoric would do much better in /r/mensrights rather than in feminist subreddits like SRD.

The voting really seems to go back and forth between TERFs arguing that transwomen aren't really the same as women and if they're not discriminated against it will destroy women's safe spaces, and inclusive feminists upvoting "hey, maybe don't discriminate against women in the name of feminism."

For the argument itself being applied to men: someone could try to adapt it, but as written it certainly doesn't.

My argument is that transwomen are women, and discriminating against them on the basis of aesthetics is wrong. That does not apply to men (who are women).

There are only two ways to apply it to men: (1) "well if a transwoman with a penis should be treated as a woman, a man with a penis should be treated as a woman." Which is just a nonsense statement. Or (2) "you're wrong, anything with a penis is different from a woman, therefore allowing anything with a penis requires allowing all things with a penis."

The first is just farkakte on its face. The second invalidates the argument entirely (and is contrary to the argument's stated premises). Either way it doesn't apply to men.

My argument is that transwomen are women, and discriminating against them on the basis of aesthetics is wrong. That does not apply to men (who are not women, as opposed to transwomen who are).

So it's OK to discriminate against men?

And it's OK because the discrimination is based on something more than "aesthetics" (that is, biological truths) -- on their self-identification?

Your original argument was pretty clear: unless someone can provide statistics showing that post-op transwomen are significantly less rapey than pre-op, ciswomen's discomfort at seeing their penises has no basis in reality and can't be used as a cause for real-world discrimination. The same logic applies to discriminating against cismen unless you have similar statistics re: cismen vs pre-op transwomen.

Your original argument was somewhat shaky, the way you now try to stop it from having obvious consequences is pants on the head retarded, sorry bro.

Muh biotroofs.

Biotroofs are when from someone having a penis follows that they must be a rapist or something. Pointing out that someone who has a penis indeed has a penis is just a fact.

Biotroofs are when from someone having a penis follows that they must be a rapist or something. Pointing out that someone who has a penis indeed has a penis is just a fact.

Not really. Penises have nothing to do with women or men, or rape. It's all equally irrelevant, traditionalist regressive nonsense. This isn't like the Wonder Woman screening, which was leisure and just for fun. This is applying a boatload of false and thoroughly disproved assumptions about sex and gender on a provider of holistic health care and enabling them to go full TERF in Canada with the city's blessing.

This is applying a boatload of false and thoroughly disproved assumptions about sex and gender

By whom? Radical academics within the last few decades? I know there's a lot of theory but they haven't disproven biology yet.

I know there's a lot of theory but they haven't disproven biology yet.

It has though. This is basic bio 101 stuff now. If you need remedial help, watch some Mr Wizard or Bill Nye.

I assume you're talking about the new Bill Nye show and not the episodes from 15 years ago that define gender as chromosomal?

That was a fake meme.

From the article: Learning about science is a process. Although a character on Bill Nye the Science Guy may have said that there were “only two possibilities” when it comes to gender, that episode first aired more than 20 years ago in 1996.

Doesn't really sound like it was untrue

It's also worth noting that Snopes is no longer considered reputable in most circles.

The same could be said about spouting was is, in essence, a more polite "Apache attack helicopter" meme when it comes issues of basic human rights.

It's quite simple. If you don't want to see genitals in a nude spa, stay home.

Visiting a spa is not a basic human right. If the people there don't feel safe around you, you don't have the right to be there.

If the people there don't feel safe around you, you don't have the right to be there.

That is the entire issue though. Women should feel both safe and accepted in a space for women. "Uggos need not apply" is not much of a justifiable standard of discrimination here. Finding a woman's penis too ugly to deal with might as well be finding her labia too "roastie" or her mastectomy or c-section scars too upsetting. It's arbitrary beauty standards that shouldn't apply.

There's more reasons to not feel safe around trans women than just dick aesthetics.

What it seems to boil down to is that this restriction hurts trans women's feelings because then they feel less like real women.

I'm not really sympathetic to that line of reasoning. You can't force people to want to be vulnerable around you for any reason.

There's more reasons to not feel safe around trans women than just dick aesthetics.

Such as?

restriction hurts trans women's feelings because then they feel less like real women.

In the same way that racial segregation hurts other people's feeling by making them feel less like real people, sure.

I'm not really sympathetic to that line of reasoning. You can't force people to want to be vulnerable around you for any reason.

I suppose that is up to the courts to decide, bit you seen to be tip toeing around eugenics now.

People who have gone through puberty as men are larger and have more muscle mass than women, even after hormones. Any argument you can make against allowing cis men into an establishment like this can be made equally against trans women -- especially because, in Canada, you do not need to be on hormones to legally change your gender.

I suppose that is up to the courts to decide, bit you seen to be tip toeing around eugenics now.

Eugenics? How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

Eugenics? How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

You answered me right here.

n after hormones. Any argument you can make against allowing cis men into an establishment like this can be made equally against trans women -- especially because, in Canada, you do not need to be on hormones to legally change your gender.

If you had your way, how petite and low muscle mass would women need to be to be "safe"? Women come in all shapes, sizes and even sexes. To deny otherwise denies their basic humanity.

You could say the exact same thing about cis men. Do gender-segregated facilities deny men their "basic humanity"?

One could Day a lot of crazy things. Or one could simply say the decent thing of "trandwomen are welcome here" and be done with it.

Then wouldn't the decent thing to be welcoming to all people, regardless of sex or gender identity?

At that point you might as well declare that sex and gender have no meaning at all.

"penises have nothing to do with women or men"

except, you know, being like a 99.999% reliable indicator of whether or not they're male or female. and that's what man or woman means, it's the word for an adult human male or female

As an absolute statement it's false. It doesn't follow no matter how you phrase it.

"Not all women have penises, but all those who have penises are women" is just as false as "Not all men who have vaginas are men."

These simplistic binary definitions collapse under the slightest of scrutiny.

Define 'man' and 'woman', please.

y'all are being trolled fyi.

Isn't that a good case for the argument that I am genuinely retarded?

delete this

It's fluid. Although these labels have antiquated cultural meanings, in the modern world they hold little to no meaning.

Lol k.

lol

So it's OK to discriminate against men?

Ethically? Maybe, it depends on why they're doing it and whether the benefits exceed the emotional cost for the men.

The benefits seem greater (most people are straight, straight men are more likely than straight women to objectify and sexualize naked women, there are risks of harassment), and the harm smaller (being denied access does not attack a core identity of a man).

Now, if the spa were called "the human spa for humans" (implying all humans are welcome) but there were a policy effectively denying men access I would be more sympathetic and it would be more comparable.

Denying a transwoman access to a space designated for women explicitly denies that they are women, something much more deleterious than the mere existence of spaces for women and not men.

And it's OK because the discrimination is based on something more than "aesthetics" (that is, biological truths of having a penis) -- on their self-identification?

Mmmm biotruths. Did you come straight from TRP, or was that a layover from /r/alt-right?

You've chosen to categorize people based on external genitalia. As I said, if you change my argument to "no person with a penis should be excluded", it ceases to be my argument.

Your original argument was pretty clear: unless someone can provide statistics showing that post-op transwomen are significantly less rapey than pre-op, ciswomen's discomfort at seeing their penises has no basis in reality and can't be used as a cause for real-world discrimination

Only if you ignore roughly half of what I wrote in the other thread and every response I've given you here.

Discriminating between women, transwomen, and pre-operative transwomen requires a justification beyond aesthetics. There are valid justifications for having a space for women but not men, having nothing to do with external genitalia.

The same logic applies to discriminating against cismen unless you have similar statistics re: cismen vs pre-op transwomen

Absolutely.

As long as you ignore all other reasons for women to want spaces without men and treat transwomen as being more equivalent to cis men than to cis women.

Neither argument holds much water.

sorry bro

You don't need to apologize for being so blindingly stupid as to think that an argument about transwomen would also apply to men because both can have penises.

But I do sympathize, it can be damned hard not to apply your own biases to someone else's argument and arrive at a different conclusion based on a premise only you believe.

Want to try out actually using my premises and attempt to derive your argument without presuming (a) transwomen are distinguishable from women, and (b) transwomen are comparable to men?

Would it be okay if it was called "no-penis spa for people without penises"? Seems like yes by your standards. Are we allowed to have spas that ban penises?

Also, "this establishment won't let me wag my penis around in front of everybody, that's unacceptable" is the clearest example of "male entitlement" I've ever heard.

Would it be okay if it was called "no-penis spa for people without penises"? Seems like yes by your standards. Are we allowed to have spas that ban penises?

Maybe, it would partially depend on why. Phrasing it that way solely to do an end-run around nondiscrimination requirements probably isn't kosher.

For the same reason the "low-melanin golf resort" is too cute by half.

Also, "this establishment won't let me wag my penis around in front of everybody, that's unacceptable" is the clearest example of "male entitlement" I've ever heard.

If you begin with the premise that transwomen are "really" men, sure.

Now, if the spa were called "the human spa for humans" (implying all humans are welcome) but there were a policy effectively denying men access I would be more sympathetic and it would be more comparable.

[..]

You've chosen to categorize people based on external genitalia. As I said, if you change my argument to "no person with a penis should be excluded", it ceases to be my argument.

So your main objection is to the wording? Like, if the spa came out and explained by "women's only" they mean "people with vaginas only" (since it's 99.9% correct anyways), so they mean no disrespect to women with penises, but they are not allowed, that would be OK with you?

And if your argument can be changed to "it's OK to exclude all people with a penis", then why are you not arguing for the spa saying that that's what they are doing really and instead seem to argue that they should allow feminine penises? That's an inferior solution, why are you arguing for that?

Discriminating between women, transwomen, and pre-operative transwomen requires a justification beyond aesthetics. There are valid justifications for having a space for women but not men, having nothing to do with external genitalia.

I'm all ears, eager to see those justifications. I expect statistics showing that people with penises identifying as men are way more likely to rape than people with penises identifying as women. Something tells me that real statistics would show one hell of an opposite trend, because of correlations, but you're welcome to try and find them.

Want to try out actually using my premises and attempt to derive your argument without presuming (a) transwomen are distinguishable from women, and (b) transwomen are comparable to men?

a) people with penises are distinguishable form people with vaginas.

b) yeah? All people are comparable to each other and the result is "equal", I'm not sure what do you mean by "comparable" here. Are you very reluctantly edging towards the oppression olympics argument?

I mean, how much of a fucking creep misogynist do you have to be to speak over and dictate what womyns feeling have to be on something as triggering as a penis. There are womyn who have legitimate PTSD from rape and sexual assault who go to womyn only spas to get away from the rape imagery of a penis. And you think you have the right to speak over these womyn as a man - a fucking part of the patriarchy - and make womyn feel unsafe in a place as vulnerable as a naked spa. How dare you

"You're a fucking white whale!" - Herman Melville

WHITE...MALE

HOLY...GRAIL!

/r/unexpectedbane

This but unironically

What made you think I was unironic?

My argument is that transwomen are women, and discriminating against them on the basis of aesthetics is wrong.

Incorrect.

Dude, you are one of the most pretentious fucks I've met in a long time, you know, shit

Just out of curiousity, has telling someone to kill themselves ever actually worked for you? Or is more just an edgy way to express adolescent rage toward someone?

As a Kraut, I have no idea what you're implying, Samuel.

Every "no" brings one closer to a "yes."

I don't know anything about your Reagan story, but it reminds me of this recent back-and-forth between a Finnish reporter and the Russkan Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman. Reporter asks about gays in Chechnya and she gets all huffy and starts slamming him for the question. Much use of euphemism to avoid directly referring to gays being murdered.

His(her?/xir?/whateveryoulike?) masculine vagina is craving for that feminine penis.

They didn't even kick her out - she never got to go. They called before the appointment

I googled and read some more articles, and plenty of trans women have said they went there pre and post op no problem, with some saying the staff were actually welcoming, so it's actually unclear if it was a recent policy change or what.

Oregon Gay Cake 2.0 how surprising that people put tons of effort into finding something to be offended and victimized by.

Why allow women to be naked but forbid transwomen?

a women's only spa

Separate But Equal Spas

would David Reimer have been allowed in this Spa?

David Reimer

David Peter Reimer (August 22, 1965 – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man born biologically male but reassigned as a girl and raised female following medical advice and intervention after his penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision in infancy.

Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. Academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer failed to identify as female since the age of 9 to 11, and transitioned to living as a male at age 15. Well known in medical circles for years anonymously as the "John/Joan" case, Reimer later went public with his story to help discourage similar medical practices. He later committed suicide after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and a troubled marriage.

^{[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information ] Downvote to remove | v0.2}

Academic Sexologist.

You see a naked pre-op trans woman, many people only see a penis.

I think we have a genius at work here.

But then it’s SRD so one has to work really hard to distinguish oneself.

That begs the question. Do these people have a stamp somewhere on there body which says that they are "pre-op/post-op/between-op" transwoman?

This might surprise you, but people in general don't have a stamp saying "man" or "woman" anywhere on their bodies, unless they paid a tattoo artist to put it there.

That's what I'm saying. A person with a penis is a man, a person with a vagina is woman.

But how do you know without a stamp?

I'll tattoo a vagina onto my dick and leave you to figure it out

Well shit, so many transphobes in that thread......it seems that these people have been drinking too much of that gendercritical kool-aid.

lol. yes, we must drink a cult drink and be totally crazy to think a penis is not female and should not be in a naked spa full of females

You do realise that this is r/drama level shit post or should I add /s on everything.

it is so hard to tell these days my dude

Did you seriously just assume their gender?

dear god I am so sorrry please don't make a call out post I will only write dudx from now on oh god

vaginal Americans

Literally every single time any transgender person is mentioned, these cretins crawl out of woodwork like corkroaches.

Anyway, aren't TERFs awful? Don't you agree it's disgusting how they love to fuck over trans people for no apparent reason other than to make their insane lies seem true. Let's discuss the fact that Janice Raymond is subhuman garbage who forced her position of authority onto scientists.

Strangely enough, I haven't seen in any of the multiple threads (I didn't read them) but so many idiots keep harping on "being kicked out". The person in question wasn't kicked out, this was all a manufactured outrage machine in action. The person in question just happens to have recently released a book ... something about memoirs of being a bi racial trans woman growing up in a rural town.

It's all about the book sales.

To be fair, I don't want to see their hairy tits when I'm getting changed either.

I believe most of them would be safe in there since most men would. It's only a minority of people that are rapey. And that includes a few women anyway. I can see why they aren't wanted, but it shouldn't really be a big deal.

Actually 1 in 5 men is a rapist

Where's that from?

My ass

u/livedadevil You sick fuck what do you have against bussy?

They try to call themselves a women only spa while also banning people based off their genitals. If they wanted a vagina only spa then they should call themsleves a vagina only spa.

flutterguy123 deal with it

bitch u stealing my flair

delet it

now

Make me, ho

On some days, I look forward to the onslaught of the armies of Allah.

Can we leave the tranny drama to SRD? Shit's so stale.

Gas trannies tbh