Poll of the Day > DEMOCRAT says she was HORRIFIED to see a WOMAN with PENIS at an ASIAN SPA!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dude tried SO HARD to do a "gotcha"

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Dude tried SO HARD to do a "gotcha"

Yeah. You could see it in the way they worded the questions
---

MeteoricBurst posted...

So you're more willing to believe some rando than a professional business that keeps records. I'm saying she lied because from what I've gathered the police got called in for this and haven't found evidence this thing happened like she said it did. Well that's the last I saw the story could still be updating.

No. Either could be lying. The point is that we don't actually know who is lying.
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Dude tried SO HARD to do a "gotcha"

but did he MORALLY try???

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Dude tried SO HARD to do a "gotcha"

I mean, as long as we're saying men shouldn't go into ladies' rooms, it's logically consistent to say that penises shouldn't go into ladies' rooms. The extension of that, however, is that if we can't come up with an actual reason to not allow penises into ladies' rooms, we're going to have a hard time coming up with reasons to not allow men in there. The only real reason we keep segregating these things is because it's what people are used to (which, in turn, is passed down from a long line of people being really uppity about nudity and sex for various reasons that are now generally accepted to be silly); there's no actual harm in seeing cross-gender nudity.

---

adjl posted...

I mean, as long as we're saying men shouldn't go into ladies' rooms, it's logically consistent to say that penises shouldn't go into ladies' rooms. The extension of that, however, is that if we can't come up with an actual reason to not allow penises into ladies' rooms, we're going to have a hard time coming up with reasons to not allow men in there. The only real reason we keep segregating these things is because it's what people are used to (which, in turn, is passed down from a long line of people being really uppity about nudity and sex for various reasons that are now generally accepted to be silly); there's no actual harm in seeing cross-gender nudity.

So you're a child psychologist?
---

Revelation34 posted...

So you're a child psychologist?

Apparently you are, so kindly share your bountiful research on the subject

---

What we need is a highly regarded genital psychologist

---

Revelation34 posted...

So you're a child psychologist?

What harm do you believe there is? I'm sure there's plenty of research out there to allow you to cite documented examples.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Apparently you are, so kindly share your bountiful research on the subject

I'm not the one who was making claims. Burden of proof is on him.
---

Revelation34 posted...

I'm not the one who was making claims. Burden of proof is on him.

You obviously disagree. Why?

---

Revelation34 posted...

I'm not the one who was making claims. Burden of proof is on him.

Can't prove a negative. What I can do, however, is point out that you (and anyone else) have no reason to believe it is harmful if you've never seen any evidence of harm. If you disagree, you should provide the basis for that dissent. If you can't provide a basis, then you shouldn't be disagreeing.

---

yeah naked is naked this dumb af

---

adjl posted...

Can't prove a negative. What I can do, however, is point out that you (and anyone else) have no reason to believe it is harmful if you've never seen any evidence of harm. If you disagree, you should provide the basis for that dissent. If you can't provide a basis, then you shouldn't be disagreeing.

That's not a negative. Besides that's not how the burden of proof works.
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

You obviously disagree. Why?

---

lmao "god supporters" how did i just see that

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Dude tried SO HARD to do a "gotcha"

if you're talking about me, no that's not what I'm doing. I'm just exploring the ideas.

(actually part of the explanation is that I had a pretty f***ed up upbringing and have had to teach myself this kind of thing. but it's also just that I enjoy exploring ethical problems in general, particularly when I don't have a good understanding of them.)

Mead posted...

but did he MORALLY try???

thanks a lot

---

adjl posted...

Simply entering would not inherently be wrong, but there aren't many possible non-nefarious reasons for him to enter, and entering for nefarious reasons is wrong (by simple virtue of being nefarious).

yes you're just saying it's wrong because it's wrong.

adjl posted...

Honestly, I don't see much by way of inherent moral wrong in either situation. Nudity is morally neutral and inflicts no inherent harm. The only harm or moral foul arises in how it is applied or treated, which is a set of conscious decisions from the people involved in the situation. In truth, desegregating facilities like these wouldn't be a problem at all.

In practice, the issue boils down to expectations: You don't expect a dong in the ladies' room, so when that happens, people feel uncomfortable. The thing is, you also don't expect a full-body tattoo of Spongebob. Somebody shows up in one of these spas with a full-body Spongebob tattoo, though, and you aren't going to get a public announcement about how her daughter was "scandalized" and angry protests over the "incident." Why the different standards? Why are penises so special and horrible and unexpected that seeing one warrants such a gross overreaction? Simply being unexpected doesn't explain that, especially where you're significantly more likely to see a trans woman at a spa than you are any countless number of other specific unusual aesthetic variations.

is "exposing oneself" immoral?

---

Sahuagin posted...

thanks a lot

hey no hard feelings from me, talk to anyone long enough and youll find some stuff you dont see eye to eye about

youve posted here for a long time and youve always come across as a pretty decent person to me

---

Revelation34 posted...

That's not a negative.

"There is no evidence of harm" is absolutely a negative statement. Same with the more moderate "I have seen no evidence of harm" that acknowledges the inherent subjectivity of any negative assessment.

Revelation34 posted...

Besides that's not how the burden of proof works.

You can't expect people to believe you when you present no proof just because the other person hasn't followed the Official Burden of Proof rules (which aren't a thing). I've made a negative statement, which is logically impossible to prove. It is, however, falsifiable, like any good hypothesis. So try to falsify it. This is the scientific method.

Sahuagin posted...

yes you're just saying it's wrong because it's wrong.

Yes, that tautology is the point of that phrase. People who are being bad are being bad.

Sahuagin posted...

is "exposing oneself" immoral?

Defined from their perspective, that means forcibly including others in their sexual gratification, so yes (operating from the basic moral premise that sexual activity should be consensual, which I think we can both accept). Defined from an outsider's perspective, not necessarily. Outsiders may be inclined to presume nefarious/sexual motivations and say that somebody is "exposing themselves" when they're just getting naked for the same reason everyone else that's meant to be naked in a given setting is, especially if they don't like something about the person. In such cases, it is not immoral.

Basically, once again, it's bad if it's bad, but not if it's not. As I said, nudity is morally neutral. Sometimes, people do immoral things with nudity, and that is immoral (by literal definition), but if they are not, then nudity is not immoral.

---

:( it's over, here.

---

adjl posted...

"There is no evidence of harm" is absolutely a negative statement. Same with the more moderate "I have seen no evidence of harm" that acknowledges the inherent subjectivity of any negative assessment.

You can't expect people to believe you when you present no proof just because the other person hasn't followed the Official Burden of Proof rules (which aren't a thing). I've made a negative statement, which is logically impossible to prove. It is, however, falsifiable, like any good hypothesis. So try to falsify it. This is the scientific method.

There are two official burdens of proof. The legal one which does not apply to your statement and the philosophical one which does. It doesn't matter what the statement is if you make an absolute claim. That is why the burden of proof is on you.
---

Revelation34 posted...

There are two official burdens of proof. The legal one which does not apply to your statement and the philosophical one which does. It doesn't matter what the statement is if you make an absolute claim. That is why the burden of proof is on you.

Why would you believe something is harmful if you can't find evidence of it causing harm? Heck, if anything, your inability to find evidence of harm is itself evidence in favour of my claim that it is harmless. It's not proof, since proving a negative is logically impossible, but it lends me more credence than it does you.

Basically, my "proof" is your inability to answer the question of "what harm does it cause?". It's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence.

---

this is uncannily reminiscent of does God exist

---

adjl posted...

Yes, that tautology is the point of that phrase. People who are being bad are being bad.

yeah but that's a meaningless statement; a statement of zero value. if that's your conclusion then you've obtained zero insight into anything.

adjl posted...

Basically, once again, it's bad if it's bad, but not if it's not.

good grief

---

---

adjl posted...

Why would you believe something is harmful if you can't find evidence of it causing harm?

objective harm is not necessary. showing someone something they don't want to see is immoral. even if their reasons are purely personal. spoilers, or maybe someone doesn't want to know the gender of their baby, etc. there's a degree of wrongness if you knowingly expose someone to something they don't want to know or see or hear, etc.

it doesn't even matter if you think they're "overly-sensitive" or something, it still has a degree of wrongness.

the exception would only be, like for a lot of these kinds of things, "extenuating circumstances", where some greater need overrides this issue.

---

Vader is Luke's father
Soylent Green is people
Rosebud was the sled

---

Sahuagin posted...

objective harm is not necessary. showing someone something they don't want to see is immoral. even if their reasons are purely personal. spoilers, or maybe someone doesn't want to know the gender of their baby, etc. there's a degree of wrongness if you knowingly expose someone to something they don't want to know or see or hear, etc.

it doesn't even matter if you think they're "overly-sensitive" or something, it still has a degree of wrongness.

the exception would only be, like for a lot of these kinds of things, "extenuating circumstances", where some greater need overrides this issue.

i dont want to see your posts, please stop posting.

---

PunishedOni posted...

i dont want to see your posts, please stop posting.

valid point, if you're in a place where you can reasonably expect to see/hear certain things, it's now on you, not others. you know exactly what kinds of things you are likely and not likely to see here, and if there were unexpectedly obscene things here, then there would/should be a disclaimer of some kind. (or it should be modded away, and yes posting something particularly disturbing for others to see here is an immoral act.)

the problem, going back to the OP, is that the woman ended up in a situation that she was not expecting. she should have had an understanding of what she could encounter before entering the situation. (I don't think I said this yet, but before I read this topic I didn't know that spas had anything whatsoever to do with nudity.)

it is possible that the cultural understanding of "spa" for most people is that it involves nudity. the problem is that if being in the women's section of a spa can involve being exposed to male nudity, that should be communicated. the attitude seems to be "oh don't you know, we updated what these terms mean for everyone; you didn't expect that? haha, sucks to be you" rather than "we would prefer everyone has a clear understanding of the situation so that no one finds themselves in a situation that they don't want to be in, so we go out of our way to communicate that information to all guests".

---

Sahuagin posted...

yeah but that's a meaningless statement; a statement of zero value.

If you're discussing the morality of something that is morally neutral, you can only ever make neutral statements. Anything more, and you're bringing in concepts that can be evaluated independently and therefore don't belong in discussions of the original concept's morality.

Sahuagin posted...

objective harm is not necessary. showing someone something they don't want to see is immoral. even if their reasons are purely personal. spoilers, or maybe someone doesn't want to know the gender of their baby, etc. there's a degree of wrongness if you knowingly expose someone to something they don't want to know or see or hear, etc.

it doesn't even matter if you think they're "overly-sensitive" or something, it still has a degree of wrongness.

It has a degree of wrongness, but whether or not that wrongness justifies demands to stop doing it does depend on objective harm, specifically objective harm which outweighs whatever the cost is of stopping. The vast majority of people don't want to see bills for services they've ordered, for example, and in fact, those bills do cause them objective harm (taking some metaphorical liberties with that statement, but I'm sure you understand), but not billing them to make them feel better would cause a complete collapse of all commerce. If the harm of seeing something they don't want to see doesn't outweigh the benefit of somebody else showing it to them (or, more saliently, displaying it somewhere around them with no particular regard for them, since this is not about personally attacking somebody), there are no grounds upon which to demand that they stop showing it.

Sahuagin posted...

the problem, going back to the OP, is that the woman ended up in a situation that she was not expecting.

Again, I bring up the full-body Spongebob tattoo. I can all but guarantee that nobody goes into a change room, spa, or any other place where nudity is normal expecting to see a stranger with a full-body Spongebob tattoo. In fact, more people expect to see a penis in such places than expect to see such a tattoo. Does that mean a person with such a tattoo shouldn't be permitted there?

Sahuagin posted...

the exception would only be, like for a lot of these kinds of things, "extenuating circumstances", where some greater need overrides this issue.

Well, there is that whole thing where trans people that are accepted as their target gender in most aspects of their life are a solid 50% less likely to commit suicide. I'd call that pretty extenuating, but then I'm some kind of weird radical who thinks that being driven to suicide by systemic social exclusion is worse than seeing an unexpected but otherwise innocent dong. Part of that might be because pretty much everyone I know has a life-threatening allergy to committing suicide, so perhaps I'm injecting too much of my personal experience in there, but I am merely human, and these biases can be hard to truly eliminate.

---

adjl posted...

If you're discussing the morality of something that is morally neutral, you can only ever make neutral statements

you're just saying "it's morally neutral so it's morally neutral". you're starting with a moral conclusion and pretending that that's the starting point.

adjl posted...

It has a degree of wrongness,

that's almost all I'm looking for

but whether or not that wrongness justifies demands to stop doing

no, doesn't necessarily need to go that far. maybe, justifies the intuition that we'd rather not do that if we can avoid it.

adjl posted...

Again, I bring up the full-body Spongebob tattoo.

ok, "a situation she was not expecting and would have avoided if she had had the option and been informed about the situation"

adjl posted...

Does that mean a person with such a tattoo shouldn't be permitted there?

I don't ever recall saying anything about the person not being permitted to be there. I have repeatedly said that the woman should have been made to understand the situation.

adjl posted...

Well, there is that whole thing where trans people that are accepted as their target gender in most aspects of their life

I don't think I've said anything about that. the trans person is not at fault. the presence of a trans-inclusive spa is fine. allowing a woman that is not comfortable being there to experience the situation that she experienced, when she would have chosen not to given all the information, is not ok.

---

she gotta accept that women have penises

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Vader is Luke's father
Soylent Green is people
Rosebud was the sled

That's not true! That's impossible!
---

Sahuagin posted...

you're just saying "it's morally neutral so it's morally neutral". you're starting with a moral conclusion and pretending that that's the starting point.

That is the starting point. If you wish to challenge the premise that nudity is morally neutral, you're welcome to make that argument, but so far everything you've done toward such a goal has relied on bringing in other acts and intentions that are not neutral and trying to conflate nudity itself with them.

As said before, I can't prove a negative, but I have no reason not to believe it if I've never been given a reason. So give me a reason. Demonstrate how/why nudity is not inherently morally neutral.

Sahuagin posted...

that's almost all I'm looking for

It's not exactly a particularly meaningful statement on its own. Virtually everything we do with any chance of affecting other people has some degree of wrongness, since there's a chance it will somehow bother or inconvenience somebody else. From the basis of "it has a degree of wrongness," you could try arguing that making a left turn (or right turn, in LHD areas) from a non-dedicated left turn lane is morally wrong because it holds up people behind you that want to go straight, but that would just be silly.

Sahuagin posted...

no, doesn't necessarily need to go that far. maybe, justifies the intuition that we'd rather not do that if we can avoid it.

However strong the "don't do it" sentiment is, that assessment is going to rely on a cost-benefit analysis. You will always weigh the benefits of continuing the practice against how much harm is caused by it and make your decision accordingly. "Somebody objects to this" is never going to be enough to justify avoiding a practice on its own. You need to assess some measure of objective harm (bearing in mind that somebody not liking it can end up qualifying as objective harm, such as cases where that dislike is so intense as to cause psychological trauma) and compare that to what benefit it provides.

In this case, you have "I don't want to see a penis here" being weighed against the profound psychological benefit of accepting trans people as their target gender. Me, I think a 50% reduction in suicide risk is more important than the complete lack of harm anyone has been able to demonstrate as being associated with seeing a penis. This leads to the conclusion that lady needs to chill (and also punch herself for being such an abject hypocrite, but that's a separate issue). I would reevaluate this conclusion if anyone were to demonstrate some sort of harm, but that's not looking particularly likely, so on we go.

Sahuagin posted...

ok, "a situation she was not expecting and would have avoided if she had had the option and been informed about the situation"

So replace "transphobe" with "somebody that really doesn't like Spongebob." There are plenty of people out there that would see that bright yellow face and oversized eyes and be unable to stop themselves from hearing that piercing, nasal laughter ringing in their heads, filling them with rage and completely ruining their nice day at the spa. Should we not act to protect them from such a traumatic experience?

Sahuagin posted...

I don't ever recall saying anything about the person not being permitted to be there. I have repeatedly said that the woman should have been made to understand the situation.

Here's the thing: People are different. There's a near-infinite variety of unexpected physical features you can encounter when you walk into a room full of strangers (naked or otherwise), such that it's never going to be anywhere close to remotely possible to keep people informed of everything they can expect to see. The only way to achieve anything close to that here would be to have a staff member that sat in the room and listed notable physical features of every single guest that came in, displaying that list outside of the room so each new visitor would know exactly what to expect. That's just a ridiculous idea, even without considering that it ultimately wouldn't work all that well because the observer would inevitably ignore some traits that some customer or other would consider notable.

I understand that you're talking about identifying unusual people and not outright banning them, but my point is that there's ample precedent for that not being necessary or expected. What makes trans women so special that they do warrant a personal warning label, when countless other physical traits that are far more uncommon than penises get a free pass?

Sahuagin posted...

I don't think I've said anything about that. the trans person is not at fault. the presence of a trans-inclusive spa is fine. allowing a woman that is not comfortable being there to experience the situation that she experienced, when she would have chosen not to given all the information, is not ok.

Saying "I think it's great that you're so obviously different from everyone else here! We're going to publicly announce that people that are so obviously different from everyone else here are still welcome here so that anyone that does have a problem with how obviously different you are knows not to come see how obviously different you are!" is not acceptance. Accepting trans people means just letting them live their lives with no special recognition or treatment based on the fact that they're trans. Acting like you're doing them a favour by letting them in and calling attention to that fact very emphatically is not treating them like normal people.

The problem here is transphobia and archaic, pointless hangups about cross-gender nudity. Not a lack of communication, not any sort of moral failure on the part of the spa or trans people, just a lady getting uppity because she's convinced herself that seeing a lady with a dong is somehow traumatic. That's something society as a whole needs to get over, because it literally kills people (both indirectly, through suicide inspired by a lack of acceptance, and directly, through violence against trans people that enter the "wrong" spaces from people that feel justified attacking them over it).

To be clear, I have never had any reason to believe that you're a transphobic person and I'm not accusing you of transphobia. I do think, however, you need to realize that the position you're arguing (that people ought to be warned about situations where they might see trans people so they can avoid them if desired) is one that enables and encourages transphobia on a societal scale. The only way we're going to move past this as a society is to normalize the visible presence of trans people and stop normalizing and forgiving behaviour like that of this lady. You're arguing in favour of the exact opposite of that. I'm all for generally trying to keep people well-informed so they can make decisions on their terms, but sometimes, people just need to get the hell over themselves and let other people live their lives. This is one of those cases.

---

good god

adjl posted...

So give me a reason. Demonstrate how/why nudity is not inherently morally neutral.

to be clear, it's exposing someone to nudity against their will that is immoral. nudity in a vacuum is amoral without someone to view it.

adjl posted...

being weighed against the profound psychological benefit of accepting trans people as their target gender

being weighed against? it doesn't even really have anything to do with trans. ideally a person should not be able to enter a situation where they will be exposed to male (or female) nudity against their will.

adjl posted...

So replace "transphobe" with "somebody that really doesn't like Spongebob."

well if you're really stuck at "subjecting someone to nudity against their will is morally neutral" there's no sense arguing at a higher level.

adjl posted...

Saying "I think it's great that you're so obviously different from everyone else here! We're going to publicly announce that people that are so obviously different from everyone else here are still welcome here so that anyone that does have a problem with how obviously different you are knows not to come see how obviously different you are!" is not acceptance.

so should I feel offended for having to use the mens' room and not the ladies' room?

adjl posted...

just a lady getting uppity because she's convinced herself that

the problem here is that you are making yourself the arbiter of what other people should and shouldn't find... I want to say "offensive" but it doesn't even have to be that. the person in question here is pro-trans, but just didn't want to be around male nudity with her daughter. a person has a right to be able to choose to be around male nudity or not.

the fact that you are basically arguing here that "there is no particular reason to warn people, including parents with young children, of the presence of male nudity" is frankly a little nauseating. (and actually it's worse than that, since you're demeaning the person on top of that.)

I want to ask "is exposing yourself in public" at least wrong, but I guess I already did and you gave a non-answer.

so are you really saying that it would not be wrong for random adults to go naked around elementary school age children that they don't know, for non-sexual reasons, and without the consent of the children or their parents?

---

Let those things swing around. The more the merrier.

---

Sahuagin posted...

so are you really saying that it would not be wrong for random adults to go naked around elementary school age children that they don't know, for non-sexual reasons, and without the consent of the children or their parents?

This guy is actually rolling with this argument isn't he

Trying to compare a spa (where people go to intentionally be naked) to an elementary school

---

Clench281 posted...

This guy is actually rolling with this argument isn't he. Trying to compare a spa (where people go to intentionally be naked) to an elementary school

jeepers.

that's not an argument, it's a hypothetical (IE I haven't concluded anything); I'm only inquiring as to the limits of adjl's position that nudity is morally neutral

I didn't say an elementary school I said elementary-school-aged, as in the OP

the whole point with this is that I might be wrong, but I have to figure out where and why. or at least understand where the core difference in our positions is, and then agree to disagree if there's no budging from there.

---

Sahuagin posted...

to be clear, it's exposing someone to nudity against their will that is immoral.

And this is an environment where nudity is to be expected, so people being unwilling to see nudity is not the issue. It's people being unwilling to see certain forms of nudity, which is - as far as I'm able to tell - nothing more than arbitrary gatekeeping, given that there's no associated harm attached with the forms in question, nor are they any less expected than many other varieties to which there would be no objections.

Sahuagin posted...

being weighed against? it doesn't even really have anything to do with trans. ideally a person should not be able to enter a situation where they will be exposed to male (or female) nudity against their will.

The question is whether or not it's reasonable to be upset by naked trans people in an environment where naked people are expected. It has everything to do with trans people and everything to do with whether or not they're being accepted (and, in turn, to their suicide risk).

Sahuagin posted...

well if you're really stuck at "subjecting someone to nudity against their will is morally neutral" there's no sense arguing at a higher level.

If my analogy's somehow inappropriate, I encourage you to point out how or why, rather than this laughable "if you don't already understand my point there's no reason arguing with you" dismissal that does nothing to actually support your point. Why is not wanting to see a naked lady with a dong any more legitimate than not wanting to see a naked lady with a full-body Spongebob tattoo, such that the potential for dong exposure warrants a special warning label that nothing else gets?

Again, I emphasize: This is an environment where nudity is expected. Anyone exposed to nudity in this environment is not being exposed against their will, so falling back on "it's immoral to expose somebody to nudity against their will" is a blatant strawman.

Sahuagin posted...

so should I feel offended for having to use the mens' room and not the ladies' room?

Given that you've spent most of your life cultivating and feeling comfortable in a male identity, no. Why would you?

Sahuagin posted...

the person in question here is pro-trans, but just didn't want to be around male nudity with her daughter.

The person in question claims to be pro-LGBTQ, but upon actually encountering a trans person living exactly the life she should be able to live in a society that actually accepts her, suddenly that's a problem. "I have no problem with trans people so long as I never have to actually look at them" is not pro-trans. That's blatant hypocrisy, showing that her pro-LGBTQ position is nothing more than lip service for political gain.

Sahuagin posted...

the fact that you are basically arguing here that "there is no particular reason to warn people, including parents with young children, of the presence of male nudity" is frankly a little nauseating.

That is indeed my argument. Are you going to actually argue against it (such as presenting a reason why people would need to be warned of potential dingalings in a room full of naked people), or is "that's nauseating" the best you can manage?

Sahuagin posted...

I want to ask "is exposing yourself in public" at least wrong, but I guess I already did and you gave a non-answer.

I gave the answer of "yes, because you're committing a sexual act without consent," which is the only reasonable answer to that question. That's not an analogous example, so you aren't going to get an analogous response to it, no matter how much you try to tell me that's not a real answer.

Sahuagin posted...
so are you really saying that it would not be wrong for random adults to go naked around elementary school age children that they don't know, for non-sexual reasons, and without the consent of the children or their parents?

Fundamentally, that argument can indeed be made. If that shocks you, try walking the example back a bit. Instead of full nudity, consider a topless dude, or a lady in a belly top. Is that wrong? What about topless women (to avoid the legal copout, consider a jurisdiction where women are permitted to be topless anywhere a man is)? Somewhere, a line is being drawn that says "this much nudity is okay around children, anything more is wrong," a line which is largely arbitrary as far as anything inherent about nudity goes. Beyond the hygienic (note: not moral) consideration of "cover your butthole before sitting on public things," that line is drawn entirely based on societal expectations, not anything inherently immoral about nudity.

However, this is not about an elementary school. This is about a spa, where the societal expectation is that people will be naked, making that analogy completely irrelevant. In a spa where nudity is expected, no, it is not wrong for random adults to go naked around school-age children (or, if we adopt the premise that it is, the moral failure is on the part of the person that brought the school-age children into the spa in the first place).

---

What if someone has a really saggy bottom

Is it immoral to expose that bottom to people who wouldn't want to see that

---

Sahuagin posted...

the whole point with this is that I might be wrong, but I have to figure out where and why. or at least understand where the core difference in our positions is, and then agree to disagree if there's no budging from there.

I think we agree that exposing people against their will is wrong, but the core difference is that I'm placing (what I consider to be) reasonable limitations on what their will should be. Walking into a nudist colony and complaining about being subjected to nudity against one's will is not reasonable. That's completely within what somebody can expect upon walking into a nudist colony, so if that's not something they wanted to see, that's on them, not anyone else.

Here, nudity is expected. The issue is not "I didn't want to see naked people," it's "I'm fine with seeing naked people, unless they look like this one did." I am arguing that there's no reason to single out trans women as being so distinct from every other naked woman there as to warrant a special warning or a response like this. You seem to still be stuck on the "she didn't want to see it so showing it to her without warning is wrong" point, rather than arguing why trans women should be singled out. As far as I can tell, you don't feel that any other unusual trait (such as the Spongebob tattoo I keep making an analogy to) warrants a specific warning, so that means you need to come up with an actual reason why willies need special treatment to refute me.

Ultimately, this is going to be a routine experience if trans people are actually accepted into society (since letting trans women use women's facilities without specially identifying them is part of accepting them). If we accept that trans acceptance is a worthwhile goal, this sort of reaction cannot be tolerated, as the two are mutually exclusive. Under current societal expectations, yes, it is shocking to see a dong in the ladies' room. That's gotta change. Seeing a dong is no more harmful than seeing a full-body Spongebob tattoo, so there's no reason to keep freaking out about it. Validating responses like this keep people from getting over that reaction, constituting a major impedance to the goal of trans acceptance.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

What if someone has a really saggy bottom

Is it immoral to expose that bottom to people who wouldn't want to see that

somewhat

---

There is a HUGE difference between complaining about seeing nude people of both genders at a nudist colony, and walking into a nude spa that is for women (woman's spa) and seeing male junk on some of the ladies.

Why is it defined at all if people with male junk can be in there?

There was an expectation that the only nude people in that spa would have female junk. The whole trans movement and having girls with male parts is new to many and even if you know about it (and not everyone does), you still don't expect it in your spa.

IF that is going to be the case a clear warning should be made before anyone enters, especially if kids are involved.

You might consider exposing yourself to kids to not be wrong, but many parents do not agree, and should not be forced to have their kids exposed against their will. They deserve AT LEAST a warning that such could happen before they enter a place where there is an expectation of only 1 type of nudity (female body parts) being exposed.


---

wolfy42 posted...

you still don't expect it in your spa.

maybe people should

---

yeah maybe a sign that says "trans inclusive" would be good but it's still nudity

---

wolfy42 posted...

Why is it defined at all if people with male junk can be in there?

Because it's defined on a basis other than junk.

wolfy42 posted...

There was an expectation that the only nude people in that spa would have female junk. The whole trans movement and having girls with male parts is new to many and even if you know about it (and not everyone does), you still don't expect it in your spa.

You don't expect a lot of things in your spa. Why should penises get special treatment in that regard?

---

adjl posted...

The question is whether or not it's reasonable to be upset by naked trans people in an environment where naked people are expected. It has everything to do with trans people and everything to do with whether or not they're being accepted (and, in turn, to their suicide risk).

no because the issue would still exist if a woman entered a unisex spa without realizing that there would be male nudity. trans is not the problem at all. being able to enter a situation with opposite-sex nudity without realizing (or wanting) it is the problem.

adjl posted...

Spongebob tattoo

because there is an implicit agreement between people that they will generally not be exposed to nudity without their consent, even to the degree that in the majority of environments it would be illegal to do so; whereas there are no such generally accepted rules regarding random cartoon characters. (this is of course due to the sexual-related nature of nudity, even when it is not explicitly sexual). (and consent to be exposed to female nudity is not consent to be exposed to male nudity and vice-versa.)

adjl posted...

not anything inherently immoral about nudity

nudity is not intrinsically immoral, nudity without consent is, which you just glossed over

adjl posted...

If that shocks you

it's not that it shocks me, if that's your position that's your position.

if it's not clear, I'm not going to say "omg everyone, adjl thinks <thing>!", I will only take into consideration what you're saying and see if I should update my own thinking likewise, or not

---

adjl posted...

Because it's defined on a basis other than junk.

Obviously that is the entire point of defining it, based on junk.

They are not splitting up the rooms based on what gender someone feels like. The point is to keep people with different junk seperate. This would be especially important for horny teenagers for instance, do you think it's a good idea for a bunch of teens to be in multi-junk based hot tubs naked?

The whole point of male or female restrooms, changing rooms etc, is based on sexual organs. If you have male junk, use a male restroom, if you have female junk, use a female one. If you FEEL like your the wrong gender, then dress that way, live that way, be that way, but until you have surgery, use any area with nudity involved that fits your current junk status.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Obviously that is the entire point of defining it, based on junk.

They are not splitting up the rooms based on what gender someone feels like. The point is to keep people with different junk seperate. This would be especially important for horny teenagers for instance, do you think it's a good idea for a bunch of teens to be in multi-junk based hot tubs naked?

The whole point of male or female restrooms, changing rooms etc, is based on sexual organs. If you have male junk, use a male restroom, if you have female junk, use a female one. If you FEEL like your the wrong gender, then dress that way, live that way, be that way, but until you have surgery, use any area with nudity involved that fits your current junk status.

the rooms are segregated based on gender, not sex. I have no idea if that's right or not, but that's how it is.

my position is basically, organize the rooms however you want, just tell people how you're organizing them. for a person to end up in this situation, it means that that was not clearly conveyed, which regardless of right or wrong, should be something we want to avoid.

---