Watching progressivism shrivel up in real time.
A rchimedes Banya, a Russian bathhouse in San Francisco, released a statement on March 3 announcing that it would have two distinct “women’s nights” as an effort to “honor both our commitment to inclusivity and the needs of religious and cultural communities who require gender-segregated spaces.” Henceforth, one day of the month will feature an “Inclusive Women’s Night” that is “open to all individuals who identify as women, regardless of sex assigned at birth or gender expression.” (In other words, a night not reserved exclusively for women.)
On a different day each month, the spa will hold a “Cultural & Religious Women’s Night” that is “designed to provide a space that aligns with the needs of women from religious or cultural backgrounds who observe practices requiring a female-only environment based on sex assigned at birth.”
On the very same day, the spa released a second statement to “clarify our intentions” after facing “painful accusations.” Without explicitly stating that it has been targeted by pro-LGBT activists, the spa alludes to an ongoing smear campaign: “We have seen messages claiming that cis women don’t deserve space, that asking for a phallus-free environment is inherently hateful, and that any separation is an act of exclusion.” In response to these complaints, Archimedes Banya defends its decision to host two distinct “women’s nights,” stating that “the request for a phallic-free space is not about exclusion — it is about recognizing that some members of our community experience a different reaction to that part of the human body.” (It is worth noting that a woman’s wanting “phallic-free space” while bathing may be not about seeing a penis specifically but about seeing a man in his entirety. Furthermore, her concerns may not be about her own emotional or psychological “reaction” but instead about how a man will react to her naked body.)
In defense of women who don’t want to bathe among men, the spa writes that “whether that reaction is based on personal history, trauma, cultural or religious beliefs, or simply comfort, it is valid.” The spa attempts to reconcile recognizing a female subset of women with its support for transgenderism, stating that “holding space for those who require a penis-free environment is not an attack on trans women,” further declaring that “it is possible to respect and affirm trans women as women while also recognizing the complexities that arise when anatomy plays a role in communal spaces.”
Apparently, both the proposed “women’s nights” will be offered. Weirdly, Archimedes Banya states that it will arrange “a night that welcomes all women, regardless of gender identity.” But if it is regardless of gender identity, then how is it any kind of women’s space? If gender identity isn’t a barrier to entry, then surely a man who identifies as a man would be welcome. The spa also claims that it will regularly host “a night that provides a healing, comfortable space for those who need a female-only phallus-free environment.” But this framing is based on a person’s self-declared needs, not biology. Couldn’t a man say he needs a “female-only phallus-free environment,” thereby meeting the requirement to join? Ultimately, the spa’s descriptions of its “women’s nights” are nebulous and could be exploited to allow males, independent of whichever “gender” label they each prefer.
I’ll be honest: I enjoy watching progressivism shrivel up in real time. The funniest part, in my opinion, is the language itself: “Female-only phallus-free environment.” Since my (unfinished) linguistics dissertation is a semantic analysis of popular terms branded as “gender-inclusive language,” I’ve encountered a lot of strange phrases that replace sex-based terms — but “phallus-free” is a new one for me. My roommate and I regularly host a wine night for conservative gals here in Oxford, and we are now advertising these gatherings as offering a “phallus-free physical environment.” However, considering what some of the married women bring up after two glasses, we cannot promise a phallus-free conversation.
Comedic relief aside, it is worth analyzing the ideological motivations behind these supposed “gender-inclusive” linguistic strategies. In this particularly entertaining debacle, the spa acknowledges differences between women and men who consider themselves women. More specifically, the spa recognizes that some distinctions are physically manifested as reproductive organs. (Of course, there are physical disparities that are not tied to reproductive functions, such as differences in the brain’s size and weight.) “Female-only” treats women’s reproductive traits as a comprehensive system, not one unique feature; it was certainly possible for the spa to have alternatively said “vagina-only.” By contrast, “phallus-free” reduces the male reproductive system to one organ — and there are questions about what exactly constitutes a “phallus” and, therefore, what is necessary for a gathering to be “phallus-free.”
The definition of “phallus” does not necessarily treat the word as uniformly synonymous with “penis.” In some dictionaries, “phallus” specifically means an erect penis. Accordingly, a man may be “phallus-free” if he is flaccid. And what about a man who doesn’t have a penis? If a man who identifies as a “woman” has undergone reconstructive genital surgery that removed his penis and fashioned an imitation vagina, then he could be “phallus-free.” I suppose these hypothetical men would still be prevented from the spa’s monthly “female-only” events.
But consider this scenario instead: What if I, in all my female glory, buy a comically large prosthetic penis and wear it to the spa? Maybe the spa is no longer a “phallus-free environment.” I guess I have an idea for my next investigative piece.