Way to completely misrepresent what actually happen. The spa clients didn't went to a spa where everybody is naked. Instead, the nudity takes place in sex-seggregated spaces. You know, sex, like in biological sex, there are two kinds of people, one is able to get pregnant and the other can impregnate the former. The women and girls there expected to find only female people (the kind that can get pregnat, not "gender identity") and, instead, they found a nude man (the kind that can imprenant, not "gender identity") with his intact penis and balls among them. That is not what these women and girls consented to (and whether you think this is a reasonable boundary to have is absolutely irrelevant; you're not those women and girls and you can't consent for them). This nude man (the kind that can impregnate) with his intact penis and balls could have gone to the mixed section of the spa, but that probably wouldn't have been as "validating" or sexually arousing for him. So, he went to the female section without any care for how the women and girls would feel. And this pervert is being treated as the "victim" here because some stupid policies that say that if a man (you know the kind that can impregnate, not "gender identity") say he is a "woman", then he is a "woman" and must be treated as such. And here you are twisting the situation by saying those women and girls consented to be naked around a naked man (the impregnator kind, you know), which is false. Honestly, if you think that women (the ones that can get pregnant) don't have a right to say "no" to men (the kind that can impregnate), you could be upfront about it, instead of playing dumb.