Both: What do you think about the transgender incident at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 9 fun2 insightful - 8 fun3 insightful - 9 fun -  (15 children)

If women with vaginas are allowed to be nude in the area, then I don't have a problem with allowing women with penises, or anyone else for that matter, to do the same thing. If nudity in general was not allowed in the area, then the trans woman was exposing herself and it would be no different than exposing yourself on the street. In that case, she definitely should be charged.

[–]FlanJam 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

There is literally a co-ed area why can't trans people use that? The women's section is there for women who don't want to see male bodies. And young girls should absolutely NOT be subjected to a strangers dick, this shouldn't be controversial.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 9 fun1 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 9 fun -  (13 children)

Young girls should not be subject to strangers vaginas either. Why are parents even bringing their young children to a naked spa?

[–]FlanJam 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

In many cultures its okay for women to be naked around other women. That's why spas and bathhouses have a designated women's section.

But that's diverting from my original point. Trans people are welcome to use the spa, just use the co-ed section. Meanwhile women who don't want to be around male bodies can use the women's section. The whole issue can easily be avoided if people just used the designated sections, I don't see why this is so hard.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (7 children)

Why should little kids be taken to naked bathhouses and be exposed to strange vaginas?

[–]Penultimate_Penance 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Key concept: Consent. Trans activists seem to have a really hard time understanding this. If it's not consensual it's not okay.

I have never once in my life been sexually harassed, threatened, or nearly killed by a woman. But I sure as hell have had to deal with all of that bullshit from men. Not just once, but throughout my entire life. Most women I know have experienced varying degrees of male sexual terrorism and violence. That's why I have no problem consenting to share a locker room with other women, but not with men. Do you really want to make life easier for sexual predators, pedophiles and creeps? Do you?

Allowing male bodied people into single sex spaces reserved for female bodied people does exactly that. Once that boundary is destroyed women no longer have a legal right to say no and we are fucked literally and figurately by piece of shit sexual predators who should've never been allowed in in the first place! You are arguing that we should destroy what little recourse women have when a piece of shit sexually harasses her and yes nonconsensual dick exposure is sexual harassment. In the good ol' days before this madness took off we could go to the manager and have that bastard kicked out of the establishment and put on the sex offender registry, so everyone would know that he is a dangerous rotten creep that should be kept far far away from women and children.

[–]FlanJam 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Again, you're diverting from the original point. Why can't trans people use the co-ed section? Seems like a fair solution that would satisfy everyone.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (4 children)

I feel they should be able to use any section.

[–]FlanJam 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's not how sections work...

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (2 children)

Then eliminate sections.

[–]FlanJam 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well that's a pretty fringe view. I don't think the vast majority of people would want that.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And we’re back at your real point which is fuck everyone else’s wants and needs, they should do what you want.

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

…they’re not, considering vaginas are inside of the body.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

They can still be seen, otherwise I would be allowed to walk around in public without underwear.

[–][deleted] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Which part of a vagina can be seen walking around without underwear? Here is a diagram to help you out.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I’m imagining someone running past a park, totally starkers, and doing a handstand and a leg spread to the gods. Then I realised if a woman did that nobody at the park would have seen her vagina despite the efforts.