Susan's Place Transgender Resources

College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Nov 1, 2012
By Todd Starnes

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/college-allows-transgender-man-to-expose-himself-to-young-girls.html (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/college-allows-transgender-man-to-expose-himself-to-young-girls.html)

A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a women's locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.

"Little girls should not be exposed to naked men, period," said David Hacker, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom. A group of concerned parents contacted the legal firm for help.

Hacker said a 45-year-old male student, who dresses as a woman and goes by the name Colleen Francis, undressed and exposed his genitals on several occasions inside the woman's locker room at Evergreen State College.

------

AAACK! Girls getting eyeful in locker room
University 'nondiscrimination' policy lets man change with female swim team
Published: 13 hours ago
by Bob Unruh

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/aaack-girls-getting-eyeful-in-locker-room/ (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/aaack-girls-getting-eyeful-in-locker-room/)

"Little girls should not be exposed to naked men, period," says David Hacker, a senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

And that's why the public interest law firm is calling on officials at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., to do something to make their campus safe after it was revealed that, because of its controversial "nondiscrimination" policies, the school was allowing a grown man to get naked and change into his swimwear right alongside a girls swim team.

"The idea that the college and the local district attorney will not act to protect young girls is appalling. What Americans are seeing here is the poisoned fruit of so-called 'nondiscrimination' laws and policies. Placing this man's proclivities ahead of protecting little girls is beyond acceptable."

I'll admit to being conflicted about this. I don't think it would harm my teenage daughter to see a live pair of testicles, but I realize that puts me on the lunatic fringe. Most parents are horrified at the idea of their underage daughter seeing bare guy parts.

OTOH, if we allow all females access to changing areas, we have to let them undress, and be undressed.

Why would any transsexual want to show their bits to anyone so openly, much less in a place where they are way more conspicuous. I mean, jeesh, use a little common sense if you want to use facilities associated with the gender you identify. And honestly, kind of makes you wonder just what the heck they are thinking even doing that. We can't rule out some sort of sexual thrill they could be getting just because they identify as trans and this just makes people associate that sort of thing more with us.

This is also a problem in the legal court system, When is a man a man? I feel that if they are in college they are not little girls and that if the transgendered person made it on the team they should be able to change. I probably have this all wrong since I skimmed  ;) but still.

Going back to the whole legal courts system, Men are suing an airport because the officer who ran the pat downs and strip searches used to be a female and is now a male. Begging the question from the legal courts system, When is a man a man?

Quote from: Two way Rain on November 02, 2012, 09:30:56 AM
This is also a problem in the legal court system, When is a man a man? I feel that if they are in college they are not little girls and that if the transgendered person made it on the team they should be able to change. I probably have this all wrong since I skimmed  ;) but still.

Going back to the whole legal courts system, Men are suing an airport because the officer who ran the pat downs and strip searches used to be a female and is now a male. Begging the question from the legal courts system, When is a man a man?

The girls are from a swim team at a local highschool that uses the college facilities for practice, they are minors. The trans woman(middle aged) attends the college and just uses the facilities on their own, they are not on any team. Why can't they go at a time when the girls aren't there?

Quote from: Jaime on November 02, 2012, 09:36:57 AM

I feel like it's his freedom to change where he pleases, as long as it isn't a public place legally I don't see how they can put any action against the College. I don't see a reason why he should accommodate other people and feel prejudice again in a 'no hate, no discrimination' environment.

Bathroom usage?  Fine - the doors close, and if she passes, she'll not draw attention to herself.  Locker room sharing - not so much.  Her right to personal expression ends where the eyes of those young women begin.  Colleen showed a complete lack of respect for the opinions and concerns of the underage girls and their parents. 

She's playing the part of a show-off.  Want equal access to express yourself fully as a woman?  Then you'll need to completely look the part, surgery and all.  You can do all you want to to fix the gender incongruity you feel, but the expression and communication of said fixing needs to have some limitation, just as the rest of our American freedoms have limitations.

Freedom isn't the abolition of all rules; it is the ability to do what you will with your private property (including your privates) so long as it does not infringe on the private property of others (including their privates, or the eyes and minds of these young girls, as in this situation).  There is no hate or discrimination involved here; Colleen failed to limit her expression and should be prosecuted.

Quote from: Two way Rain on November 02, 2012, 09:41:20 AM
I feel like it's his freedom to change where he pleases, as long as it isn't a public place legally I don't see how they can put any action against the College. I don't see a reason why he should accommodate other people and feel prejudice again in a 'no hate, no discrimination' environment.

What about their freedom to go into a women's locker room where one would reasonably expect not to see penis and have one carelessly exposed there in front of minor females? While seeking our rights, we should still respect the rights of others in a reasonable manner.

I think this type of behavior will hurt other trans people in the long run. At this point in our society, I do not feel it is appropriate to expose male genitalia to young girls, or female genitalia to young boys. I know this puts trans people at a disadvantage since if you are pre/non op you will always fall in the middle. Since there were young girls present (pre-pubecent), I do not think she should have acted this way.

Quote from: Jaime on November 02, 2012, 09:22:47 AM
Why would any transsexual want to show their bits to anyone so openly, much less in a place where they are way more conspicuous. I mean, jeesh, use a little common sense if you want to use facilities associated with the gender you identify. And honestly, kind of makes you wonder just what the heck they are thinking even doing that. We can't rule out some sort of sexual thrill they could be getting just because they identify as trans and this just makes people associate that sort of thing more with us.

I completely agree with this. Why would a trans woman want her male genitalia to be exposed to all those people? The only reason I can think of is gong along the lines of a sexual thrill.

How should they prosecute her?
And what if she is just changing in the locker room to avoid bullies and such from infringing upon her own rights?
(I personally agree with you on a fundamental level but I am playing devil's advocate.)

I tend to agree that this woman is being a sort of attention whore and her behavior is tactless. That said, I have to respond to notions that people's eyes should be protected from seeing certain things. I don't think nudity is unnatural or that there should be laws about it. Standards, sure, like reasonable dressing standards for certain occasions and locations. A restaurant, for instance, shirt and shoes is often posted on the door and something on your bottom half should be a given. People are eating in there. Beaches though? nah. I think it's unreasonable to demand people cover parts of themselves to protect other people from seeing something they don't want to see. By the same argument, we could demand that ugly people wear bags over their heads. "I don't wanna have to see that!"

I'm particularly disturbed by different standards for nudity for men and women, i.e. that men can go topless but not women. That's blatantly sexist.

I do not think at this stage, prosecution is the right step. I believe she should be counseled on why it is not appropriate in our current society. If, she does it again in such a blatant way, then she should be charged with indecent exposure.

As far as the changing room, there are far less obvious ways to change. She could use a stall, keep her panties on, or face the wall or corner. There is no reason to just walk around with her junk swinging about. IMHO

Quote from: Two way Rain on November 02, 2012, 09:50:14 AM
How should they prosecute her?
And what if she is just changing in the locker room to avoid bullies and such from infringing upon her own rights?
(I personally agree with you on a fundamental level but I am playing devil's advocate.)

She's not just simply changing, they report her as using the sauna, walking about and such.  I'm pre-op, I've used shower stalls in a women's bath house and I've changed into a swimsuit in women's change facilities, but I do it discreetly, no one can see anything out of the ordinary and I would be mortified if anyone saw my bits. I've not had any issues as I take others into consideration. 

Note the sources of these articles; WND and Foxnews.

Z

Quote from: dalebert on November 02, 2012, 09:54:26 AM
I'm particularly disturbed by different standards for nudity for men and women, i.e. that men can go topless but not women. That's blatantly sexist.

I know in New York, it is legal for a woman to have her bra and shirt off. Thats why the Dykes on Bikes haven't been arrested every gay pride parade.

Quote from: Zythyra on November 02, 2012, 10:01:41 AM
Note the sources of these articles; WND and Foxnews.

Z

I had to keep this in mind when reading the article as they kept referring to the woman as a man. It bugs me, but that is conservative American news for you.

Quote from: Two way Rain on November 02, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
I know in New York, it is legal for a woman to have her bra and shirt off. Thats why the Dykes on Bikes haven't been arrested every gay pride parade.

It's legal in many places. However, note that I said "different standards". People called the police and they tried to arrest a friend of mine for walking down the street topless on a very hot day. She was surrounded by friends who were men, also topless. The cop was on the radio for a while trying to figure out how to arrest her even though she wasn't breaking the law and eventually conceded and let her go, but she'd already been detained like a criminal. Meanwhile, people will probably continue to call the police on people like her if they see it and will complain and try to change the law all based on some notion of how the sight of a woman's breasts will tragically corrupt children (after the age of 2 but before the age of 18 or something for some reason).

Quote from: Zythyra on November 02, 2012, 10:01:41 AM
Note the sources of these articles; WND and Foxnews.

I prefer Moxnews (https://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tC0M).   >:-)

Quote from: dalebert on November 02, 2012, 10:36:34 AM
I prefer Moxnews (https://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tC0M).   >:-)

I prefer Susan's news. The reporters we have here are great! Most of it is completely relevant to me.

Quote from: Incarnadine on November 02, 2012, 09:44:27 AM
Want equal access to express yourself fully as a woman?  Then you'll need to completely look the part, surgery and all. 

Wait a minute. Are we saying that post-op women have the right to change in a changing room without restriction but pre-op women are some sort of second class citizens who are only given that right conditionally (i.e. if they behave the way we think they should)?

Quote from: agfrommd on November 02, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
Wait a minute. Are we saying that post-op women have the right to change in a changing room without restriction but pre-op women are some sort of second class citizens who are only given that right conditionally (i.e. if they behave the way we think they should)?

With how society currently is, yes we are second class citezens (if not 3rd or 4th class). I think it is horrible and wrong. But, society is slow to change and I believe this level of change will not happen for another 20-30 years.

Quote from: agfrommd on November 02, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
Wait a minute. Are we saying that post-op women have the right to change in a changing room without restriction but pre-op women are some sort of second class citizens who are only given that right conditionally (i.e. if they behave the way we think they should)?

All American citizens are given conditional rights.  All laws are based upon behaving the way we think people should behave.  We are not an anarchy.  Our personal freedoms are limited by others' personal freedoms, whether we like it or not.  We do not have permission to express ourselves any way we want to, hence decency laws. 

If an individual cannot abide by laws, then they need to buy themselves an island somewhere.

Please do not misread that sentence to mean that I'm for rounding certain people up and shipping them off or sticking them behind fences.  The focus is on individual choices and responsibilities.

"Bad men cannot make good citizens... A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." - Patrick Henry. 

I'm not saying Colleen cannot express herself as a woman, I'm saying that every individual is responsible to limit themselves as needed for the greater good of our nation, whether that be responsible spending, freedom of speech and expression, individual religous worship, serving in the military, or any other personal decision.  If it means giving up exposing yourself to young girls, then please, for the greater good, keep your clothes on!

Quote from: Two way Rain on November 02, 2012, 09:50:14 AM
How should they prosecute her?
And what if she is just changing in the locker room to avoid bullies and such from infringing upon her own rights?
(I personally agree with you on a fundamental level but I am playing devil's advocate.)

For breaking indecency laws.  Nothing more, unless she has a history of sexual predation, then it might be worth an investigation into whether she exposed herself for the sexual thrill.  It would be difficult to determine motive, but if there is a sexual motive, then she's a sex offender and should be prosecuted as such. 

Avoiding bullies?  If her purpose is to simply change clothes, can't she find a bathroom stall to change in?  Again, it boils down to personal responsibility and considering someone else before expressing yourself.

Quote from: Jaime on November 02, 2012, 09:58:11 AM
She's not just simply changing, they report her as using the sauna, walking about and such.  I'm pre-op, I've used shower stalls in a women's bath house and I've changed into a swimsuit in women's change facilities, but I do it discreetly, no one can see anything out of the ordinary and I would be mortified if anyone saw my bits. I've not had any issues as I take others into consideration.

This is, imo, the best option!  You've expressed yourself, communicating to others that you're a woman, while at the same time being considerate of the opinions and feelings of others! 

Quote from: tekla on November 02, 2012, 11:32:14 AM
What, is everyone afraid that they'll find out one of the great truths in life too early?  That truth being: The only people you ever get to see naked are exactly the people you never want to see naked.

A truth I wish I had never learned ;D

Quote from: dalebert on November 02, 2012, 10:28:01 AM
It's legal in many places. However, note that I said "different standards". People called the police and they tried to arrest a friend of mine for walking down the street topless on a very hot day. She was surrounded by friends who were men, also topless. The cop was on the radio for a while trying to figure out how to arrest her even though she wasn't breaking the law and eventually conceded and let her go, but she'd already been detained like a criminal. Meanwhile, people will probably continue to call the police on people like her if they see it and will complain and try to change the law all based on some notion of how the sight of a woman's breasts will tragically corrupt children (after the age of 2 but before the age of 18 or something for some reason).

Haha, as if breast feeding doesn't count. :)

I am sorry but it is totally not OK to expose children to this sort of things.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.history.com%2Fimg%2Fproduct%2Fresized%2F355%2F00294818-569355_catl_500.jpg%3Fk%3De003bedd%26amp%3Bpid%3D294818%26amp%3Bs%3Dcatl%26amp%3Bsn%3Dhistory&hash=b3017af5705f1c39e091c4eaff14c82930fba160)

Now you have some "common cents", please use it.

I am sorry but it is totally not OK to expose children to this sort of things.  Now you have some "common cents", please use it.

Yeah, about that... turns out that what you are really saying is not common sense, but rather a highly romantic notion of childhood as some sort of never-never land, replete with the Victorian morality that gave that hideous notion birth in the first place.  Oh my god, it's a penis!  Somehow the 200,000 violent acts on television that the average American child will witness by age 18 is A-OK, but no, not the human body - that's NOT OK to expose kids to.  Really, that's sick (as I tried to say above).

And it totally ignores that these kids have grown up with the internet and I'll bet they've not only seen much bigger penis's, they've seen them in hot (man on man, man on babe) action.   And that's nothing new, do you think that back when families lived in single room dwellings that somehow the children were 'unaware' of sex?  That back before indoor plumbing and private bathrooms that girls never saw a wee-wee?

I've watched lots of kids who grew up in hippie housing, communes and the like, and you know what?  Didn't seem to make a difference that they saw naked people every day.  They got over it - quickly at that.  As will these girls.  I've raised two of my own kids and did major league work with a the kids of a few of my friends - all have reached honorable adulthood.  They are reasonably smart, work hard and don't seem all kinds of whacked out about sex, despite having had it around pretty openly all their life.

If this is the most traumatic, most horrible thing ever to happen to them in their life - then they are pretty blessed.

There are different ways for children to be exposed to the human body. I prefer to keep it in a controlled environment. My son loves watching documentaries. Thus, he watches one on the human body. He learns things that many children don't learn till they are older. It is a good way for him to learn. I don't think that seeing a pre-op trans woman walking around nude, or sitting nude in the sauna is an appropriate way for children to learn about the trans woman body. Just my opinion.

I fully support her right to use those facilities, however my support stops when it devolves to unnecessary physical exposure to minors.  This isn't right, and not much different from the Penn State scandal involving Jerry Sandusky.  IF this had happened anywhere else, arrest and prosecution for indecent exposure would have been justified. 

In my opinion, this story, which occurred almost a month ago, is getting publicity now for only one reason: Politics

Washington residents will vote next week on legalizing same sex marriage.  This story is being circulated to sway public opinion against the GLBT community in an effort to kill that referendum.  In the past 2 days I've seen this story posted in two other forums, neither of which are GLBT related.  My observation is that 99.9% of the readers are outraged, and this single story has served to destroy a level of GLBT acceptance that's taken me and others a very long time to build.  We need all the friends we can muster, and stories like this are certainly harmful in their impact to the overall community.       

Quote from: AngieT on November 02, 2012, 02:26:56 PM
Washington residents will vote next week on legalizing same sex marriage.

Go Ref. 74!!

If there's an adult exposing themselves to "young children," then gender-related matters are irrelevant.  Incidental viewing might happen in certain circumstances, but exhibitionism is already illegal.

So yeah, it's a bogus issue conflating gender/transgender issues for political gain.

I think Colleen acted in a totally irresponsible manner,and showed a total lack of concern for those girls' feelings. Just because she had the right to use those facilities doesn't mean that she didn't have to exercise a little discretion and common sense.She sounds like an idiot getting her kicks by shocking people, and that doesn't help any of us.In effect she was saying,"I have the right to use thses facilities,so I will do whatever I want!".She may be a woman but is certainly no lady.What ever happened to common courtesy?

Quote from: CindyLouCovington on November 02, 2012, 03:04:44 PM
What ever happened to common courtesy?

It died in the U.S. I was told that happened during the 60s

The wording of this article is intentionally inflammatory. Little girls? I think they mean women. This is a college yes? Just thought I would put that out there.

Quote from: Snowpaw on November 02, 2012, 03:34:00 PM
The wording of this article is intentionally inflammatory. Little girls? I think they mean women. This is a college yes? Just thought I would put that out there.

The article does say girls as young as six use those facilities. Also, the original complaint came from a 17 year old girl. I know, 17 year olds are adults in many places. But here in the U.S., they are legally children. Not to mention most of the ones I have met act like children.

Quote from: Snowpaw on November 02, 2012, 03:42:26 PM
Hmm. Well then it just sounds like a sick <not allowed> doing what sickos do. Sorry I have no tolerance for people exposing to children or harming children.. Shoot them all I say, there is no fixing a mind that would harm children save for a quick death before they do any damage. I just saw college and that fox news, figured it was their typical shoddy reporting.

a .22 caliber bullet is much cheaper than prison...just saying  :)

I think that this trans individual should have used better decision making since she hasn't had surgery yet. The right to use a women's facility for privately going to the bathroom is just fine, changing in the stall or using another method of being prepared to undress without showing the parts not yet fixed by surgical means is a better idea. I say maybe change into the bathing suit before coming to the event and then only undressing so far as to only show the swimsuit underneath the original clothing is a better idea.

These people calling the trans woman a man is just wrong, and saying that being trans is a sexual "proclivity" is even worse since it is all about gender identity, not sexual fantasy.

It went the same way as critical thinking, so we have no manners, and we also have: not much different from the Penn State scandal involving Jerry Sandusky.  OK forcible anal rape of children age 10-15 over multiple years is the same as a 17 year old girl seeing a naked male genitals.  Somehow I see that as kinda hugely different.  OK, this person is a big idiot, and no doubt an attention whore too - but as they grow up in America I have it on pretty good authority that these girls are going to have to deal with a lot of other similar idiots.  It's never too early in life to start actively ignoring people, in many cases, the earlier the better.  Start with WND (known as Wing Nut Daily in the news biz - and on the extreme right, there is crazy, really crazy, Really, REALLY REALLY! like a senate candidate saying that she was not a witch crazy, then there is WND), and move on to Fox - what a wonderful world it is when that crap ain't resounding in your head.

So yeah, it's about politics and not just the election, but Evergreen is a ground-zero school for crunchy granola tree hugging hippie types.  How far out is Evergreen?  Oh:Faculty issue narrative evaluations of students' work rather than grades far out.  A leader, pioneer really in organic farming with an emphasis on sustainability, home to the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (left leaning), and Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, is an alum.  So it's as much about trying to poke Evergreen in the eye as it is about trying to swing an election.

I know, 17 year olds are adults in many places. But here in the U.S., they are legally children. Not to mention most of the ones I have met act like children.
Well I spend a lot of time in the presence of women who are 17 (and I'm down with calling them 'girls' is demeaning, as it's supposed to be). Raves.  Backstage, with their favorite band and all that.  They are not all that innocent.  Really.  When you actually have to interact with them (and not just witness them from a distance, like a game warden) you'll find that I was spot-on with calling them 'children' being basically a highly romantic notion of childhood as some sort of never-never land, replete with the Victorian morality that gave that hideous notion birth in the first place. / Oops! You think I'm in love / That I'm sent from above / I'm not that innocent.  (first quote mine, second is somebody famous to some people)

Quote from: Snowpaw on November 02, 2012, 03:42:26 PM
Hmm. Well then it just sounds like a sick <not allowed> doing what sickos do. Sorry I have no tolerance for people exposing to children or harming children.. Shoot them all I say, there is no fixing a mind that would harm children save for a quick death before they do any damage. I just saw college and that fox news, figured it was their typical shoddy reporting.

Is that kind of hate-mongering really called for? I'm not a fan of it in general, not a fan of the death penalty, or even of punitive justice systems, but I realize that's a fairly non-traditional viewpoint and it's controversial. So to avoid getting completely side-tracked about a justice system that's problem-solving-oriented as opposed to vengeance-oriented... we're not talking about a child-rapist here. This is someone doing the same things as everyone else does in that setting, and maybe it's not appropriate and that's all debatable. Whether she's harming children is debatable as well, but certainly saying "just shoot her" is pretty freaking ridiculous.

Quote from: tekla on November 02, 2012, 03:58:14 PM
It went the same way as critical thinking, so we have no manners, and we also have: not much different from the Penn State scandal involving Jerry Sandusky.  OK forcible anal rape of children age 10-15 over multiple years is the same as a 17 year old girl seeing a naked male genitals.  Somehow I see that as kinda hugely different.  OK, this person is a big idiot, and no doubt an attention whore too - but as they grow up in America I have it on pretty good authority that these girls are going to have to deal with a lot of other similar idiots.  It's never too early in life to start actively ignoring people, in many cases, the earlier the better.

The two really aren't that much different.  Both involve forcing yourself on minors against their will.  BOTH ARE IMMORAL AND WRONG, and the only variance is in regards to the amount of harm done. 

i myself draw the line at locker rooms

Before surgery, I would not go into a gym lockerroom. I just would not do it.

And yes, I will say the transwoman undressing in a locker room with minors is going overboard. She should have practiced common sense on this issue.

Bathrooms are one thing. The doors are closed. No one sees your business...or your junk.

Sorry..but this woman should have used some common sense and err on the side of caution....even if she thought she was right.

I agree with Annah

I do too.

A transwoman I know from another place lives in the area and knows the campus and story quite well.  The transwoman was not aware that the high school girls were going to be there that day and basically they busted in on her.  The college has since taken care of the problem which was to move the school girls into a "visiting team" locker room that is totally separate from where their transgendered students of the college would be.  No intent of perversion, just a perfectly normal screw up of scheduling and facilities allocation.  Everyone will be fine and hopefully happy.  Consider the news sources -- hope I am not killing this, but it would be a pain for me to get the subsequent links on the story, but no where as juicy as it first seems.   

Quote from: Vicky on November 02, 2012, 07:06:06 PM
A transwoman I know from another place lives in the area and knows the campus and story quite well.  The transwoman was not aware that the high school girls were going to be there that day and basically they busted in on her.  The college has since taken care of the problem which was to move the school girls into a "visiting team" locker room that is totally separate from where their transgendered students of the college would be.  No intent of perversion, just a perfectly normal screw up of scheduling and facilities allocation.  Everyone will be fine and hopefully happy.  Consider the news sources -- hope I am not killing this, but it would be a pain for me to get the subsequent links on the story, but no where as juicy as it first seems.

Thanl you for clarifying this.

I don't think the news source is problematic, the problem lies in the fact that this individual can't seem to discern the difference between freedom and license. Freedom carries the responsibility to use common sense. I live in Washington state and this college has a bizarro world reputation anyway because they turn out a lot of pseudo-educated malcontents and anarchists. Moreover, this moron has flaunted his male genitals in front of a bunch of young women which only serves to piss off a lot of parents and those reading the article thus giving us all a black eye by reinforcing the idea that trans people are all freaks, weirdos and perverts. I really resent that!

Quote from: Zythyra on November 02, 2012, 10:01:41 AM
Note the sources of these articles; WND and Foxnews.

Z

Transgender woman told to leave women's locker room (http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/transgender-woman-told-leave-womens-locker-room/nSWT4/) - KIRO TV, Seattle, 10/05/12

Pre-dates the cited articles by almost a month.

this college has a bizarro world reputation anyway because they turn out a lot of pseudo-educated malcontents and anarchists.

Got rejected by them eh?  That's how that sounds in the real world, you know, like when Sara Palin who could barely make it out of community college criticized people who went to Yale and Harvard as 'elite'.  Not understanding that being 'elite' was exactly why they went to the Ivy League in the first place.  Perhaps they are choosing pseudo-educated over uneducated.

And 'malcontents' are responsible for 100% of all social/cultural change, 100% of the time.

From Wiki
The Evergreen State College has garnered many academic accolades. According to U.S. News & World Report's 2009-2010 college rankings, Evergreen is ranked #1 in the West for Undergraduate Teaching at Masters Universities. It was ranked as the 5th best public college in the Masters West Category "a region stretching from Texas to the Pacific." It was also ranked as #29th overall in the Masters West Category outranking other state schools such as Central Washington University and Eastern Washington University, as well as many other public schools in the region such as Humboldt State University, Boise State University, Eastern Oregon University, Western Oregon University, and Southern Oregon University. Evergreen is also among the top colleges in the nation for offering the best first-year experiences to freshmen, which entails building into the curriculum first-year seminars or other programs that bring small groups of students together with faculty and staff on a regular basis. Author and former New York Times education editor Loren Pope cites Evergreen as one of two public colleges in the United States in his book Colleges That Change Lives. In addition, The Princeton Review lists Evergreen as one of the Best Western Colleges for 2009-2010.

Yeah, that sounds like some all bizarro world reputation alright.

I really resent that!
Am I within my rights then in thinking that you make us look out-of-it, not part of the current culture, and are reinforcing the notion that you're only seeking special rights for yourself while working to curb them for 'other' people who you just don't like so much because they are 'different'?  Can I resent that?

And golly gosh, could we please have the people who didn't raise children, or didn't have them, and are about as likely to associate with people in that age group one on one, as equals, as KKK members are to go to a NWA concert --- could they go out and get ice cream or something?  Pretty please?  Childless people always tend to romanticize childhood and rarely understand what these kids are really like.  These kids today are remarkably well-behaved (especially when compared to their parents and grandparents), very well-informed on a level that's hard to even comprehend if you didn't watch it while it happened, more sophisticated then their elders in many ways, and constantly exercise better judgement and far greater tolerance than any previous generation.  They have grown up with access to all the knowledge in the world, while getting precious little wisdom from the so-called adults around them.  So they learned to see the world in a very different, and very new way.  Once we get most of their parents, and grandparents out of the way we're going to have a hell of a country.

I might like an ice cream date, but for now this topic has run it's coarse and is locked

KOMOnews.com


Controversy swirls around local transgender college student

By KOMO Staff Published: Nov 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM PDT

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Controversy-swirls-around-local-transgender-college-student-177055311.html (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Controversy-swirls-around-local-transgender-college-student-177055311.html)

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A controversial decision by Evergreen State College officials to let a transgender student to use the women's locker room has brought up issues of civil rights, state laws and how best to protect children.

At the center of the issue is a 45-year-old student who was born a man but identifies as a woman. The student uses the women's locker room at the college's indoor pool. Angry parents contacted the police after a young girl saw the transgender student naked inside the locker room.

As a compromise, the college put up "privacy curtains" and allowed the transgender student to continue using the women's facilities.






(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2FTheBlaze%2Fimages%2Fblaze_logo.png&hash=11aea36d6b7268f327ead001b52a8284de61366d)


'Non-Discrimination Policy' Results in Girls as Young as 6-Years-Old Being Allegedly Exposed to 'Male Genitalia' in Women's Locker Room
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:55pm by Jason Howerton   

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/non-discrimination-policy-results-in-girls-as-young-as-6-years-old-being-allegedly-exposed-to-male-genitalia-in-womens-locker-room/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/non-discrimination-policy-results-in-girls-as-young-as-6-years-old-being-allegedly-exposed-to-male-genitalia-in-womens-locker-room/)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FScreen-Shot-2012-11-02-at-2.59.15-PM.png&hash=1ef8791054b6b4da1b35952dad3eabe13456c731)
Colleen Francis (KRIO-TV)

A public college says Washington state law requires them to allow a 45-year-old biological male student use the women's locker room because he identifies as a female. Meanwhile, concerned parents say girls as young as 6-years-old have been exposed to his "male genitalia" in the facilities and are fighting back.

Evergreen State College spokesman Jason Wettstein told Campus Reform that the school must "follow a non-discrimination policy with the state."

"State law doesn't allow us to ignore gender identity disorder as one of the protected classes... therefore the transgendered individual has the right to use our facilities, including the locker rooms," he added.

The transgendered man in question is 45-year-old Colleen Francis.






(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchristiannews.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FChristian-News.jpg&hash=c055a51d94a3e47ee41c0e83f28cd23db3a2f5a7)


College Protects 'Civil Right' of Male Crossdresser to Strip Naked in Girl's Locker Room

By: Heather Clark | November 2, 2012 |

http://christiannews.net/2012/11/02/college-protects-civil-right-of-crossdresser-to-strip-naked-in-girls-locker-room/ (http://christiannews.net/2012/11/02/college-protects-civil-right-of-crossdresser-to-strip-naked-in-girls-locker-room/)

Parents whose swim team daughters use the locker room at a Washington college are expressing concern following the continued refusal of school officials to stop a crossdressing man from stripping naked along with the girls — many of whom are young children.






(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmynorthwest.com%2Fimg%2Fv2%2Flg_mynw.png&hash=2f18013cde74a3eb5189604c935ace7b56dba35a)


Fight brewing over transgender person in Evergreen College locker room

BY Tim Haeck  on November 2, 2012 @ 7:41 am (Updated: 3:01 pm - 11/2/12 )


http://mynorthwest.com/11/2118929/Legal-fight-over-transgender-in-Evergreen-College-locker-room (http://mynorthwest.com/11/2118929/Legal-fight-over-transgender-in-Evergreen-College-locker-room)


A new legal fight is brewing over Evergreen State College's decision to allow a transgender person to use the women's locker room.

A group that takes on legal issues surrounding religion has sent a letter to the college in Olympia.

It complains about the 45-year-old student with male genitals, who dresses as a woman.

The letter claims there has been a problem for years of men using the women's locker facilities, particularly the sauna.

Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney for some of the families who say the behavior is inappropriate, say the school needs to put a stop to the policy immediately.





According to reports, because of the non-discrimination policy of Evergreen State College, the educational institution feels that it must protect the "civil rights" of the man to use the female locker room. Children from a variety of schools and swim teams are said to use the facility, such as the Aquatics Academy, the Evergreen Swim Club, and the Capital High School and Olympia High School swim teams. The youth range from ages 6-18.

The 45-year-old man, who goes by the name "Colleen Francis," was recently reported to the police following complaints from parents whose daughters have witnessed the man exposing his body parts by sitting naked in the sauna. One report states that police were contacted by a mother whose 17-year-old daughter was "upset because she observed a person in the women's locker room naked and displaying male genitalia."

The determining factor here must be the intent of the person in question. Are they doing it because it titillates them? If so then it's wrong, and should be prohibited.

If they are using the Ladies locker room because it matches the gender they are, that's a different issue. The person in question should still take steps, whatever steps are required to address the concerns of the other users of the facility but they should not be outright prohibited from using them.

I do think that people should diagnosed as Gender Dysphoric by a psychologist first in order to use the restrooms that do not match their exterior gender.

Unlocked topic

Society is stuck on this gender binary notion and so has two locker rooms and not much privacy in each of them. I think a lot can be said for making more private spaces in these instead of assuming everyone is comfortable being nude in front of or seeing nude people of the "same" gender. Meanwhile, it seems much more absurd to me for someone who looks very much like a woman to be using the men's locker room.

Quote from: dalebert on November 04, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Society is stuck on this gender binary notion and so has two locker rooms and not much privacy in each of them. I think a lot can be said for making more private spaces in these instead of assuming everyone is comfortable being nude in front of or seeing nude people of the "same" gender. Meanwhile, it seems much more absurd to me for someone who looks very much like a woman to be using the men's locker room.

Yes, absolutely!

More on the story from ABC News here:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/transgender-student-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar-221516308--abc-news-topstories.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/transgender-student-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar-221516308--abc-news-topstories.html)

Quote from: dalebert on November 04, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Society is stuck on this gender binary notion and so has two locker rooms and not much privacy in each of them. I think a lot can be said for making more private spaces in these instead of assuming everyone is comfortable being nude in front of or seeing nude people of the "same" gender. Meanwhile, it seems much more absurd to me for someone who looks very much like a woman to be using the men's locker room.

No offense meant, but objectively, said person didn't look or pass enough which is why she was spotted.

Also, dangling bits...

Quote from: Ave on November 04, 2012, 12:37:16 PM
No offense meant, but objectively, said person didn't look or pass enough which is why she was spotted.

Also, dangling bits...

Yes and let me add Ewwwwwwwwwwww!  :eusa_naughty:

Quote from: Ave on November 04, 2012, 12:37:16 PM
No offense meant, but objectively, said person didn't look or pass enough which is why she was spotted.

Also, dangling bits...

Okay, sure. Not passing well enough, perhaps, but still looking more female than male. I think the point remains that this person will feel much more awkward both to herself and to others in the men's locker room.

Quote from: dalebert on November 04, 2012, 01:19:07 PM
Okay, sure. Not passing well enough, perhaps, but still looking more female than male. I think the point remains that this person will feel much more awkward both to herself and to others in the men's locker room.

I know someone's gonna poke fun of my *think of the children!*-esque response, but...think of those in the women's locker room. Why appropriate said space and make underage teenage girls feel unsafe?

Quote from: Ave on November 04, 2012, 12:37:16 PM
No offense meant, but objectively, said person didn't look or pass enough which is why she was spotted.

Based on seeing the news photo, I think she'd have significant harassment problems using the men's room. Since when is a trans woman required to "pass" to be free from discrimination?

Z

Quote from: Zythyra on November 04, 2012, 01:31:21 PM
Since when is a trans woman required to "pass" to be free from discrimination?

Z

Why is it discrimination?  Where is the unjust and prejudicial treatment?  Why is it a good thing that she be allowed to show off her male reproductive organs to underage females?

Society makes the laws, both written and unwritten.  The written law is that she exposed her male genitals to a group of underage females.  To prosecute on those charges is not discrimination; it is enforcing the law.

The unwritten law is that society does not accept dangly bits on women.  Society therefore determines that Colleen's dangly bits disqualify her from being able to prance about sans clothing in the women's locker room because of the presence of underage girls.  That's not discrimination, that's society's definitions. 

If Colleen wants to be able to prance anywhere and everywhere, she must first change society's definition of male and female, man and woman.  While society may open up and allow those definitions to be expanded upon, as we have done with the definition of the word "marriage," society requires such fundamental words to have some limitations. 

Society only works well and perpetuitates itself with limitations.  You can glorify a Bohemian and anarchistal communal lifestyle until you're blue in the face, but the fact is those things simply won't last.  There will always be and always has been something on the inside or outside that disrupts such a commune.  It is in our nature to destroy ourselves.  Society must have rules to protect itself from self-destruction.  And if that means prancing is allowed only in certain areas, then society is simply trying to protect itself.  Our American society has established Judeo-Christian ethics to protect itself from collapse, and has therefore limited itself to behavior that somewhat fits within that framework.  To change such a framework would redefine America.

Bottom line - the more we expand and change the definitions of such foundational and fundamental terms as man and woman, the more confusion we infuse.  The more confusion and disorder introduced into a closed system, the more unstable and volatile it becomes.  It works in the tangible sciences as well as the societal sciences.

Quote from: Incarnadine on November 04, 2012, 02:18:06 PM

Quote from: Zythyra on November 04, 2012, 01:31:21 PM
Since when is a trans woman required to "pass" to be free from discrimination?

Z

Why is it a good thing that she be allowed to show off her male reproductive organs to underage females?

I didn't say anything about showing her genitalia. I was addressing a comment someone made that implied that she didn't pass. Many of us don't fit neatly into a binary gender expression, and we all need to be able to use restrooms. Safely, without harassment.

It was never mentioned that she exposed herself in early articles about this. That is a meme that has been repeated by certain media sources who are using this to justify their reasons for discriminating against transgender people.

Z

From what I understand, she was there first.  The school messed up because it was not posted that the girls' team was coming.

i came across a article on yahoo today about a 45 year old transwoman who still has male genitals that uses a woman's locker room in Washington, anyway this is causing a stir with people there. Needless to say the comments are rampant with transphobia. So what is you'r opinion? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/transgender-student-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar-221516308--abc-news-topstories.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/transgender-student-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar-221516308--abc-news-topstories.html)

the YMCA in San Francisco at Embarcadero, seemed to imply to me I could never ever use the women's locker room unless I had srs surgery done, so they said i would have to use the family room to change and take a shower in a unisex stall. At least that is what they have told me over the phone. Yet a FTM employee works there and they say they go into the mens locker room to change and no one ever bothers to look at them downstairs , due to the fact men (heterosexual anyways) don't tend to stare at your area if they see another guy.

I personally wish other men and women would not worry about such things and see that person as a woman.

Apparently, the transwoman did not keep "it" under wraps. This is a no no. Still, it sounds like a witch hunt. People need to get real and worry about things that really matter.

People often thing that getting SRS means that they look like a woman, which totally isn't true. Someone who passes well but hasn't had surgery yet would probably be much better off in the woman's locker room, considering they would just look like a woman in the men's locker room. If they don't exactly pass well, then they should be aware of the (unfortunate) fact that they will have a hard time with other people in the locker room and won't be taken all that seriously.

Quote from: Shawn Sunshine on November 04, 2012, 04:27:37 PM
the YMCA in San Francisco at Embarcadero, seemed to imply to me I could never ever use the women's locker room unless I had srs surgery done, so they said i would have to use the family room to change and take a shower in a unisex stall. At least that is what they have told me over the phone. Yet a FTM employee works there and they say they go into the mens locker room to change and no one ever bothers to look at them downstairs , due to the fact men (heterosexual anyways) don't tend to stare at your area if they see another guy.

I personally wish other women would not worry about such things and see that person as a woman.

That is because your driver's license IDs you as male, I suppose. People don't care about FtMs.  The male hegemony identifies the vagina as a lack of a penis. No one cares about the lack of something.

why is it a deal? if you need to pee go pee, man or woman.
no I dont think it matter what part you pee with as long thats what you do.

Quote from: TessaM on November 04, 2012, 05:21:46 PM
I think you should be allowed to use the locker room of your choice however if your pre op or non op it would be smart to keep the bottoms on. I use the woman's changing room and I have never had a problem, but I dont go parading around naked showing my genitals. And even then I cant really go to the changing room after gym (I only go before) because after two hours of running and sweating im no longer "tucked" and at that point I dare not show up with a visible bulge :(

thats some two hour work out girl. i know at school after my chesticles they told me i had to use the ladies room. :D

Ah yahoo news. Where the most prime, educated commenters flock to civilly discuss their informed opinions on the most recent global happenings.

Quote from: Incarnadine on November 04, 2012, 02:18:06 PM
Why is it discrimination?  Where is the unjust and prejudicial treatment?  Why is it a good thing that she be allowed to show off her male reproductive organs to underage females?

If she were literally flashing people, then you're right, but that appears to be an exaggeration or complete fabrication versus what really happened. What seems to have happened is she just doesn't pass 100% even though she looks far too female to be using the men's locker room without likely getting harassed. Based on the language of the complainers, I suspect no one ever actually saw the "dangly bits". They're just transphobic folks using hyperbole. Most everyone here is in agreement that the polite thing to do is to keep those covered in any public spaces.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/transgender-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/transgender-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/)

I use women's change rooms (what else am I supposed to use??) No one has ever so much as raised an eyebrow but, I do keep certain areas covered. I don't think there's any reason this woman should be allowing her bits to be seen. It's really unsurprising that some people have raised concerns. There are a million ways around this.

Quote from: Stephe on November 09, 2012, 08:24:02 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/transgender-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/transgender-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/)

Thanks for posting this, Stephe. Kind of depressing at the face of it, but I noticed this article was careful to use a pronoun. A small victory at least.

Quote from: Jaime on November 02, 2012, 09:22:47 AM
Why would any transsexual want to show their bits to anyone so openly, much less in a place where they are way more conspicuous. I mean, jeesh, use a little common sense if you want to use facilities associated with the gender you identify. And honestly, kind of makes you wonder just what the heck they are thinking even doing that. We can't rule out some sort of sexual thrill they could be getting just because they identify as trans and this just makes people associate that sort of thing more with us.

it's not easy when you can't feel you can use either facility, but yeah, definitely this. use common sense. this happened in the USA where from what i hear there are always some cabins and showers with curtains and the like. it's not like the kind of communal changing rooms and showers i grew up with where there is no hiding anywhere and you have to struggle to think of creative ways to not come across like a some weirdo prude to now show off your bits (i'm intersex). there are probably easy options for this woman.

however, considering the sources i also have to wonder if maybe it was an accidental exposure once or that it never even happened and the whole 'penis' thing was made up. i guess we can't know for sure.

I guess I see this as "Do you REALLY need to change your clothes that bad?" I mean if I did go to a gym, I would just wear gym clothes there and wear them home, avoid the whole situation. Or wear sweats over them. I just simple wouldn't go to a womans only sauna. THAT is a luxury anyway. Trying to take every liberty we possibly can risks hurting others and I'm not talking about the 17 year old girl who saw them. Who this person hurt was every transgender person in this country. They gave the right wing press fuel to wage a war against us, to sway lawmakers to think twice about passing laws in our favor etc. This case will get brought up every time a "bathroom issue" arises. How we feel honestly doesn't matter, it's "What is the public perception?" and it's not good.

We -are- an emerging minority and what we do today will affect how the public treats transgender people for decades. I understand  that I need to work extra hard to put a positive light when I interact with others. I work hard to have people think "I know one transwoman and she is the nicest person I know". For many people we are the first transperson they will interact with and the impression we leave will affect everyone who comes after us. 

Wait, she's using the facilities at the college she pays money to go to. The girls are allowed to go there as an act of charity, but do not pay money to go there. Why on earth can't she the same facilities as other students? If the girls don't want to see her genitalia than why are they looking at her junk? IMO someone who examines the genatalia of people in a bathroom or locker room should be seen as a sexual predator. If you don't want to see it don't look.

I personally wouldn't do what she is doing, but she's basically just changing clothes, using the sauna, etc. And there's all this talk about her potentially doing it for "sexual thrills" when there's absolutely no evidence of this... like would a cis person be put under the same scrutiny? I think people would wait for actual evidence of wrongdoing before talking like that.

And yeah, if she was flashing the girls, going up to them and standing creepily close to them when she changed clothes, etc, that would be different, but that doesn't need to be treated differently based on if the person is trans or cis. And basically all we have is that a girl saw her sitting in the sauna (by herself, not hurting anybody) and went back and told people there was a man in there and all this stuff happens.

What if she was intersex? Would it be okay for her to use the suana then? What if someone is missing a limb or had their face disfigured in an accident? Do we need to protect people from seeing that too (since plenty of people find those things "disturbing")?

Geeeeze.

Quote from: Stephe on November 10, 2012, 02:46:19 PM
I guess I see this as "Do you REALLY need to change your clothes that bad?" I mean if I did go to a gym, I would just wear gym clothes there and wear them home, avoid the whole situation. Or wear sweats over them. I just simple wouldn't go to a womans only sauna. THAT is a luxury anyway. Trying to take every liberty we possibly can risks hurting others and I'm not talking about the 17 year old girl who saw them. Who this person hurt was every transgender person in this country. They gave the right wing press fuel to wage a war against us, to sway lawmakers to think twice about passing laws in our favor etc. This case will get brought up every time a "bathroom issue" arises. How we feel honestly doesn't matter, it's "What is the public perception?" and it's not good.

The "right wing" people were always going to criticize us, it's not something she caused. The bigots are going to criticize us and make our lives miserable at every chance they get. Rolling over, hiding ourselves from them, and criticizing trans women who don't do what the bigots want isn't going to make things better.

Quote from: Carbon on November 10, 2012, 05:13:29 PMWhat if she was intersex? Would it be okay for her to use the suana then?

i don't think the general public think of trans women as anything other than 'men in dresses', sadly. and intersex people they think of some mythical hermaphrodites that don't exist in reality. if she's intersex in a real world way, not in a fantasy book way, then the public also won't give a poo or not about her intersex status any more than they will give a poo about her being transgender.

the changing room issues are so thorny. a source that isn't alarmist and misgendering her might be better to say whether this was caused by some accident or not. the source makes it sound like she's not even bothering to try and cover up at all, but maybe it's best not to take the source at face value either... seeing as they misgender her for one.  :-\

:(

Quote from: the_physicist on November 10, 2012, 05:31:41 PM
i don't think the general public think of trans women as anything other than 'men in dresses', sadly. and intersex people they think of some mythical hermaphrodites that don't exist in reality. if she's intersex in a real world way, not in a fantasy book way, then the public also won't give a poo or not about her intersex status any more than they will give a poo about her being transgender.

the changing room issues are so thorny. a source that isn't alarmist and misgendering her might be better to say whether this was caused by some accident or not. the source makes it sound like she's not even bothering to try and cover up at all, but maybe it's best not to take the source at face value either... seeing as they misgender her for one.  :-\

Yeah, I think what's telling is that there are NO instances where there specific people saying she behaved inappropriately in specific instances. It's just "omg, man in the locker room. what if UNDERAGE GIRLS see a PENIS. think of all the horrible ways that could happen."

If a cis woman was just awkwardly walking around the locker room naked all the time my bet is that someone would complain eventually too. I think people sometimes use saunas while wearing a towel (maybe? I think they do that on TV)  and she might need to change clothes at some point like if she needed to take a shower. Those are basically the only times and it should be pretty easy to avoid someone naked then for more than like half a second. There's not any reason the swim team espicially needs to use the sauna anyway.

Quote from: Carbon on November 10, 2012, 05:18:33 PM
The "right wing" people were always going to criticize us, it's not something she caused.

I said she gave them fuel to fight with. They can play this card when needed and I promise this isn't the last we will hear of this.

Quote from: Carbon on November 10, 2012, 05:13:29 PM

And basically all we have is that a girl saw her sitting in the sauna (by herself, not hurting anybody) and went back and told people there was a man in there and all this stuff happens.

What if she was intersex? Would it be okay for her to use the suana then? What if someone is missing a limb or had their face disfigured in an accident? Do we need to protect people from seeing that too (since plenty of people find those things "disturbing")?

Geeeeze.

I live my life as a woman and expect to be treated as one. That said, if I was standing somewhere naked I would totally expect the general pubblic to see me as a man if my penis is there for everyone to see. Clothed, what's in my pants is no ones business and I plan to keep it that way. Naked, then yes my -sex- isn't open for debate. If someone walks into a sauna and there is someone with a penis in there, why do you expect her to think? "oh that's probably a woman with a penis"? Again, we ARE an emerging minority and need to be sensitive to issues like this.

And you may think it's creepy but a penis in a woman's sauna isn't something many women wouldn't notice. It's not a "minor detail". It's not that a penis is "disturbing", it's that men are not allowed to be in womens spaces for a reason. A female with a missing limb is. And as much as trans people won't agree, to the general public penis = man. It's back to where I said "what's in my pants is no one else's business". And is why I would never give the public the opportunity to see, as far as they know I have girl parts downstairs and I plan to keep it that way.

Quote from: Carbon on November 10, 2012, 06:10:21 PM
There's not any reason the swim team espicially needs to use the sauna anyway.

So what specific reason then would anyone have for using one?

Quote from: Stephe on November 10, 2012, 06:23:03 PM
So what specific reason then would anyone have for using one?

Because they paid money to have access to it/are part of a community that that was created as a resource for? The swim team didn't/aren't. If they feel uncomfortable, they don't have to use it. I probably would never use a sauna with someone else in there but that doesn't mean it's the other person's fault for using it.

Also one of the articles says that she could see the girls changing from the suana originally but that they added screens? I feel like that's actually pretty creepy, not anything the women did but that they set it up so people can see you changing from the suana. It shouldn't have ever been like that.

I was hoping this story would turn out to be a false accusation! :embarrassed: If its true she was walking around the locker room, sauna, & showers in her B-day suit then that is wrong. Its rude and inconsiderate regardless of the ages of the other occupants. Use a towel like everybody else. This kind of behavior will not win/gin us acceptance with society as a whole.

I'm not saying we should hide or walk on egg shells for acceptance, but we can't thumb our noses to society and demand respect. How often do we discuss ways in which we can "blend" in with out target gender? We talk about everything from how we speak to what we wear. We take potentially dangerous medications, surgeries, & spend thousands to blend in!  All in the hopes that by acting within the norms of our target gender we will fit in and be accepted.

How did this woman think her behavior was going to achieve any of that for her or Trans folks as a whole? ::) Further more, she has given us all a "black eye". This is ammunition for the groups that accuse us of being perverts who want to get in the ladies room so we can get our jollies!

Like I said, I hope this turns out to be a false accusation!

Dani

Quote from: Brooke777 on November 02, 2012, 03:08:52 PM
It died in the U.S. I was told that happened during the 60s

Not sure about the date, but it was some time after people would go to blows over the last Elmo doll during Christmas of all times! ::)

Quote from: Snowpaw on November 02, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
If she exposes herself to minors knowing full well there are alternatives to changing then yes she has other issues. Issues that will always start small. I don't care if you think it's hate mongering. I really don't. Kiddy diddlers always start small. It's pretty ridiculous we keep them alive in prisons for so long.

I hate pedofiles. I don't care if it is hate mongering. I don't. I will never EVER stand up for them or see them as human.

As someone who was molested as a child(I've never reported it) I can say that your not too far off the mark Snowpaw. We have to protect the children, cause they can't protect it themselves.  I don't like violence, but when it comes to protecting children & animals(Who can't even speak to call attention to their abuse) then some times a "heavy" hand is needed! There are people in this world who commit horrid acts on children and animals. I have no sympathy for them!

As far as this "dummy" is concerned... I'm not sure she falls into child pervert category!

Quote from: tekla on November 02, 2012, 11:03:43 PM
this college has a bizarro world reputation anyway because they turn out a lot of pseudo-educated malcontents and anarchists.

Got rejected by them eh?  That's how that sounds in the real world, you know, like when Sara Palin who could barely make it out of community college criticized people who went to Yale and Harvard as 'elite'.  Not understanding that being 'elite' was exactly why they went to the Ivy League in the first place.  Perhaps they are choosing pseudo-educated over uneducated.

And 'malcontents' are responsible for 100% of all social/cultural change, 100% of the time.

From Wiki
The Evergreen State College has garnered many academic accolades. According to U.S. News & World Report's 2009-2010 college rankings, Evergreen is ranked #1 in the West for Undergraduate Teaching at Masters Universities. It was ranked as the 5th best public college in the Masters West Category "a region stretching from Texas to the Pacific." It was also ranked as #29th overall in the Masters West Category outranking other state schools such as Central Washington University and Eastern Washington University, as well as many other public schools in the region such as Humboldt State University, Boise State University, Eastern Oregon University, Western Oregon University, and Southern Oregon University. Evergreen is also among the top colleges in the nation for offering the best first-year experiences to freshmen, which entails building into the curriculum first-year seminars or other programs that bring small groups of students together with faculty and staff on a regular basis. Author and former New York Times education editor Loren Pope cites Evergreen as one of two public colleges in the United States in his book Colleges That Change Lives. In addition, The Princeton Review lists Evergreen as one of the Best Western Colleges for 2009-2010.

Yeah, that sounds like some all bizarro world reputation alright.

I really resent that!
Am I within my rights then in thinking that you make us look out-of-it, not part of the current culture, and are reinforcing the notion that you're only seeking special rights for yourself while working to curb them for 'other' people who you just don't like so much because they are 'different'?  Can I resent that?

And golly gosh, could we please have the people who didn't raise children, or didn't have them, and are about as likely to associate with people in that age group one on one, as equals, as KKK members are to go to a NWA concert --- could they go out and get ice cream or something?  Pretty please?  Childless people always tend to romanticize childhood and rarely understand what these kids are really like.  These kids today are remarkably well-behaved (especially when compared to their parents and grandparents), very well-informed on a level that's hard to even comprehend if you didn't watch it while it happened, more sophisticated then their elders in many ways, and constantly exercise better judgement and far greater tolerance than any previous generation.  They have grown up with access to all the knowledge in the world, while getting precious little wisdom from the so-called adults around them.  So they learned to see the world in a very different, and very new way.  Once we get most of their parents, and grandparents out of the way we're going to have a hell of a country.

tekla.......  ::) Why are you attacking her over her view? Guess what... Not every liberal, LGBT, or moderates like some of the "trash" coming out of universities theses days! People espousing Communism and hatred of Jews & Christians are "cool" but someone draws a cartoon of a Muslim and off with your head!  People who have no respect for anything but what they want/think should be the way the World works! Just as I don't subscribe to Palin's views, I don't get in bed with Commies and Nazis!

You would be wise to keep a distance as well. In the end they will turn on you too!

This is what they do. They kill people. All rationalized as being for the greater good. No sacrifice is too great when the left forces it on someone else. For the greater good!

National Socialist killed Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, the crippled & Retarded. For the greater good! Eugenics campains waged against the lesser races. For the greater Good! The starvation of the Ukraine. For the greater good! The extermination of the educated or prosperous by Pol Pot. For the greater good! Millions killed by Stalin, Lenin, & Che. All for the greater good!

When the leftist tell you to give up your freedoms and liberties, that its for the greater good, know at  the end of that rail line is death and despair! Those boxcars have carried millions before you, and they will carry millions more!

Visit a Holocaust Museum, monuments to the ideology of leftisim/socialism/communism! :'(

Dani

Quote from: DaniStarr on November 20, 2012, 06:06:50 AM
As someone who was molested as a child(I've never reported it) I can say that your not too far off the mark Snowpaw. We have to protect the children, cause they can't protect it themselves.  I don't like violence, but when it comes to protecting children & animals(Who can't even speak to call attention to their abuse) then some times a "heavy" hand is needed! There are people in this world who commit horrid acts on children and animals. I have no sympathy for them!

As far as this "dummy" is concerned... I'm not sure she falls into child pervert category!

I don't remember making that post...what the hell...

Edit:Blech had to remove them. Very volatile posts, too hard to explain why I don't remember posting them. Doesn't matter.

Quote from: Snowpaw on November 20, 2012, 06:37:57 AM
I don't remember making that post...what the hell...

Edit:Blech had to remove them. Very volatile posts, too hard to explain why I don't remember posting them. Doesn't matter.

You didn't make that post. I did. I mentioned your name due to the post you made earlier. Sorry for the confusion!

Quote from: DaniStarr on November 20, 2012, 06:52:29 AM
You didn't make that post. I did. I mentioned your name due to the post you made earlier. Sorry for the confusion!

No, it's hard to explain. Dun worry about it :P

Quote from: DaniStarr on November 20, 2012, 06:34:19 AM
Visit a Holocaust Museum, monuments to the ideology of leftisim/socialism/communism! :'(

I don't... Hitler wasn't a communist. And he was no more of a "leftist" than the current US leadership since he made no attempt to eliminate private property or capitalism. Hitler also hated communists and referred to communist leaders as explicitly Jewish (which is obviously totally divorced from reality but it's what he said) and communists killed in large numbers concurrently with the haulocaust. Communists were pretty far from being the focus of the haulocaust but they were still targeted en masse.

I mean there's a lot of things you can criticize Marxist leaders for in the USSR, etc but in Germany they were mostly innocent people who were killed for not going a long with Hitler's plans... or even people who were genuinely "guilty" of fighting against Nazi rule. Not people who carried out or supported the Haulocaust. 

Quote from: Carbon on November 20, 2012, 06:57:45 AM
I don't... Hitler wasn't a communist. And he was no more of a "leftist" than the current US leadership since he made no attempt to eliminate private property or capitalism. Hitler also hated communists and referred to communist leaders as explicitly Jewish (which is obviously totally divorced from reality but it's what he said) and communists killed in large numbers concurrently with the Holocaust. Communists were pretty far from being the focus of the Holocaust but they were still targeted en masse.

I mean there's a lot of things you can criticize Marxist leaders for in the USSR, etc but in Germany they were mostly innocent people who were killed for not going a long with Hitler's plans... or even people who were genuinely "guilty" of fighting against Nazi rule. Not people who carried out or supported the Holocaust.

I didn't say Hitler was a Communist, nor did I say that Marxist/Communist ideas were part of Hitlers ideas. My point was, that Communism, Marxism, & National Socialist aka Nazis have proved to be less than positive influences through out history! And that there seems to be a resurgence of some of the ideas from these political philosophies  coming from "higher education" these days. Not all higher education, but some of them.  All too often I hear people jumping on the band wagon of hate for Jews & Israel. Wanting to boycot or sanction them. Where  many of the ones blaming Israel seem to think the Palestine people can do no wrong. And for that matter the Arab world in general! I see young people who think Che is cool!  :o These ideas have come from some of the more "liberal" universities & educators!

Regardless, my point was that associating with folks who believe in these ideals won't end well! They always turn on you! Play with fire and sooner or later you get burnt. Play stupid games, WIN STUPID prizes! That was my point.

Hi friends  :police:

Time for a time out... Take a break, take a breath and find something constructive to do

This topic has nothing to do with Hitler, Nazis, Marxist or Communism nor does it have anything to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
If you wish to debate such topics, find the proper forum for such discussions

Please stay on topic

Thank you

V M

It seems funny to me that a couple of articles taken from extreme right-wing sources, (Fox, and WND, which makes Fox look liberal in comparison) are taken at face-value and gospel truth.  Are they unbiased sources merely reporting fact, or do they have an agenda they are trying to push, and this story furthers that agenda?

Wouldn't we (shouldn't we?) be praising Evergreen for having such and open, inclusive and accommodating policy toward it's trans students?  Why because of one incident is it now important to 'shut it down' 'because of the children'?  Could that have been the goal all along?  To find a way to attack this college and its' policies, to find a way to force the college to roll-back these (what to us would have been otherwise very commendable) policies for the sake of people who are not even a part of that college community?  In the guise of 'protecting the children' are these people really attacking the college and it's policy?  And, if such an attack works on the school, is there any reason that 'for the children' could be used to roll back other policies in other areas - like dressing rooms?  After all, there are children in Macy's when mom is shopping, who is thinking of them?  Actually, simply and just being trans in public could be taken as an affront to all children according to - well according to the very people writing/publishing these stories, that's who.

Look how fast a whole bunch of people - in the trans community itself even - jumped on the bandwagon to bash the school and it's policies, when in fact those policies were made by the school to protect us.  Should they not have done that?  (Fox/WND sure don't' think they should have, so you better check out what side of the street you're walking down, and who is on that side of the street with you.)  Should our most adult institutions be reduced to standards of kindergartens for the sake of the occasional child moving through them?

That.... & how much information is missing?  I'm thinking tons.  Was the person right there next to the swim team?  Or was this at some huge dressing room complex in a public university, where seeing them from across the room is almost the equivalent of seeing them from down the block?  And the sauna?  WTF are kids even doing near the sauna in the first place?  Am I supposed to think that 6 and 7 year olds are using the sauna, because I'm doubting that real hard.

So, what it looks like more and more is Fox/WND trying to find advocates for their extreme right-wing/conservative policies within the Trans movement and give them ammo to destroy the movement from the inside out - particularly from the point of view of people who 'already got theirs' and would now seek to deny that to others.


And people act like college students are some innocent little snowflakes, just waiting for that psudo-Marxist (in his newish - but not NEW - Sabb/Volvo) Econ professor to lure them to the dark side.  All most students care about (ideology wise) is 'is that going to be on the test' - they have no intention of it being in their actual life.  And putting 'higher education' in quotes, heck, even using the term higher education, is kind of a dead give-a-way.  Nobody who works and lives in that atmosphere calls it that.  Besides, far and away, the most popular courses on college campuses are taught by the business college, and I can assure you that very little ideology (beyond that of 'the bottom line') is being taught in them.  Increasingly there seems to be people who don't much like the idea of education beyond indoctrination, and by labeling it 'elite' or 'liberal' (and golly gosh yes, there is an entire section of courses called 'Liberal Arts' - but it's not what you think, it's math)  they seek to diminish it's influence as well as it's impact.  And a vast part of the influence and impact upon students that a college has is not the 'political philosophy' of its' students or teachers (no one is listening to that anyway) - but in the very nature of how a liberal society is structured and run.




BTW... I think that some college student buying a $30 tee-shirt with Che's picture on it is not considered 'advocacy' but 'irony' - for sure that's how I think of it ... Che Shirts for more money than Che would have had to spend on one.  And I doubt that his estate or heirs are making any money off of it either (thought that would only make it more ironic wouldn't it?).   And I sure don't see anyone running around talking about how Communism is cool.  The Che wearing hipsters ain't hanging out at the local hipster place - despite the Che shirt - drinking PBR TallBoys and talking about how groovy Marx and Lenin were.  Hell, Communists don't even think Communism is cool anymore.  Communism is a late-19th/20th Century notion, and we're in the 21st Century, let it go already (everyone else has).  I mean last time I saw a Che shirt was when Apple launched its new iPhone, and I'm not sold on the 'commie lovers' standing in line for $600 telephones.

 :)  Hi tekla.....

Sorry about my rant earlier :embarrassed:! 

I was hoping this was a case of either hardcore news bias, to a false accusation from one or more of the individuals present. One question I asked myself.... Was there any problems previously? Was there any students collage or otherwise, that would confirm or dispute the accusations? If this girl was running around in the buff all the time, wouldn't someone have said something prior?

I and others here at Susan's feel that if true, it really is classless/disrespectful of her. If its a "which hunt", then why isn't there anyone, including the young lady,  denying the accusations? If she came forward and denied the accusations, I suspect many in the LGBT community would support her. Regardless, I think most her at Susan's are ESTATIC with the policies and response from the collage. Its more along the lines of I(and others here) thinking she may have abused that policy.

Ohhhh... And happy Turkey day to you and yours!

Best,

Dani

The news feed I saw didn't seem to show any negative bias but we really don't have any idea what actually happened as far as details. Clearly something happened.

I do think it's odd for people here to suggest that a women's locker room at a university (or anywhere for that matter) should be -for adults only-. And that these minors had no right to be in there, as opposed to a pre-op MTF maybe should just use some common sense about what is appropriate behavior. No one is saying a pre-op isn't a woman, or that they are subhuman etc. Why would I even think that being I AM a pre-op woman.  It's just that if your plumbing doesn't match what's on the door, maybe you should make very sure no one can see your -wrong plumbing-? If some area on the planet forces a pre-op to be totally naked in a womans only space, maybe that isn't somewhere she should be visiting even if she has "the right" to be there.

It's sorta like you see a car running a red light. Yes you have the right of way, you can legally pull in front of that car and the wreck will be their fault. But why would anyone do this?

RIGHT ON girl !!!!!!!!!!!! ellen

Here's a link to the police report
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/EvergreenPoliceReport.pdf (http://www.adfmedia.org/files/EvergreenPoliceReport.pdf)

I fully support the rights of women and girls to have safe spaces, and I don't think people with penises get to tell people without them how they should feel about being forced to see one in a place they have the full expectation not to.

This reminds me of  the dystopian story 1984... Where the state can beat your mind till it makes you believe 2+2=5 with legeslation. "Transgenders" are doing those of us born with a medical condition a great disservice by assuming a mandate to speak for the "spectrum"  then they stand beside us with their "umbrella" held high. I don't want to be under an umbrella with people who deliberately expose their "male" genitals and believe it is their "right" to do so.

"The life guard (Justin) requested Tiffany to go to the sauna and check it out and she did at which time she observed Collen sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing and Tiffany said "You need to leave."

The above happened the day before this other indecent occurred so she has been confronted multiple times about displaying her junk in this public womens space. IMHO she did this the second day on purpose to try to "prove a point". The -I have the legal right to be in here so screw you-.

And this doesn't look to me like some right wing conspiracy set up to turn back the hands of time. Tiffany did apologize for "questioning her but there are girls going in there 8-18 years old who aren't used to seeing individuals like her."

The two options here appear to be: a) pre-op women use a touch of common sense and not sit in a woman sauna with their legs spread open (or walk around locker rooms naked etc) with their junk on display or b) we make a special adult only facilities and restrict all women under the age of 18 from being allowed into them.

I know this is a trans forum and all but come on people, is FORCING an issue like this on society really helping acceptance of us as women? Of course Fox news reported this in a hostile manner, calling him a "man" etc but this is exactly the sorts of incidents that give these people fuel to attack us with. Like I said earlier, ABC news reported this in a strictly neutral fashion and it still sounds bad, because it was.

Good call Stephe, I second your opinion and point of view!

Quote from: Shantel on November 22, 2012, 02:12:33 PM
Good call Stephe, I second your opinion and point of view!

*faints* lol

Quote from: Stephe on November 22, 2012, 01:49:23 PM
"The life guard (Justin) requested Tiffany to go to the sauna and check it out and she did at which time she observed Collen sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing and Tiffany said "You need to leave."

The above happened the day before this other indecent occurred so she has been confronted multiple times about displaying her junk in this public womens space. IMHO she did this the second day on purpose to try to "prove a point". The -I have the legal right to be in here so screw you-.

I was holding off judgment until I heard more details about this story with the understanding that social conservatives will blow everything out of proportion. Having heard some more details finally, that sounds pretty inappropriate and I do think it's not helpful to achieving a more accepting culture.

There are several things in the world - strip clubs, sex stores, bars, exclusive private clubs, nightclubs, discos, golf courses - where kids are banned pretty much all the time.  Everyone seems OK with that.  They are after all, adult experiences.  I'm just having a lot of trouble with the notion that college is not also an 'adult experience' (and not all adults at that) and perhaps for this (among a lot of other behaviors occurring in and around the college environs). 

There are lots of things on a college campus that junior high/HS kids probably should not be exposed to, such as the routine knowledge of how to make things explode that is found in all college level chem classes, but everyone is down with NEVER including as part of a Jr.High level science class. Right?

Back when I went - stone age I know - people did this streak thing.  Now would I encourage a bunch of people to strip naked and run around an elementary school?  No.  That would be wrong.  Was it 'wrong' in the same why when they did it at midnight (drinking/drunk usually) around the Quad?  Dumb, sure, bonding moment perhaps, fun - oh those college days crap - sure, idiotic in the Midwest in fall?  Oh yeah.  Over the line stupid after the first snowfall?, Nah, I remember it as 'invigorating'.  But 'wrong' as in some moral rule has been broken, not really.  (Men running naked through the snow tend not to have much to show for it at any rate.)

Now, those just two examples - and I could add TONS - of things taught and done in colleges that make it a very adult place.  Not kid tested  Not mother approved.

Now...No one is forced to go to college.  Hence, no one is ever forced to go to one particular college.  The range of colleges (and universities, yeah, yeah) is huge, and that's a good thing.  Not all people are the same, and not all institutions can teach everything.  Some like Evergreen here are pretty damn tree-huggin', FruitLoops, both feet in the air liberal (in the classical sense of those words) while others like Liberty University, Oral Roberts, and almost any college with 'Bible' in the name, tends to a more restrictive experience.  Schools that have some configuration of 'science / agriculture / technology/Tech' in the school's official name skew education in a different direction that schools that have 'art' or 'arts and letters' in name do.   People can, and should try to match their college to themselves and find the best condition in which to thrive.  Right?  Right.

So, it's pretty simple so far right?  If you want a good science education you don't to to a school with Bible in the name, if you want bitchin' Bible studies classes avoid science and technology schools.  CalTech teaches a very different kind of genesis than does Jacksonville Theological Seminary and Revelation Message Bible College - right?

Furthermore, all colleges (and they all used to take this stuff real seriously, and many still do) have formal polices for students and teachers that spell out a code of conduct, and the institution itself has guidelines about what specific values are to be upheld, and which downplayed.  And part of Evergreen's mission/codes/policies is a very open and accepting LGBT policy. 

We all applaud that don't we?  Don't we?  Don't we think OR and Liberty and _________ Bible College are 'against us' for not only not have polices in place to protect LGBT students, but work actively to kick them out?  So getting the libs to turn on the libs and criticize a college for having (and truly trying to make it work) a policy of accommodation to TG individuals, well that's pretty special isn't it?

Because this person - and I'd submit every other crunchy on that campus - CHOSE to go to Evergreen because of those very mission/codes/policies (even if they didn't know them in a formal sense, they knew it was a 'liberal' school), just like anyone going to Oral Roberts ain't going for the swinging good times, and nobody goes to BYU for their legendary drinking parties.  Just like no group should have the right or freedom to go to OR and force them to 'lively up themselves' or open a bar in the middle of the BYU campus (unless the university, facility and students all agreed, and no chance of that happening), no one outside the college should be able to force Evergreen accommodate them either.  Some YMCA swim club (or whatever) should not be able to dictate what that college policies are.  If it's not to their liking they should stay off campus.  And kids in particular need to massively supervised on a college campus to the  point that it's best not to bring them.

Evergreen should be allowed to uphold it's policies on it's campus, that's more important than a swim team.  Colleges are far more important to the future than swim teams are (unless the oceans really are rising that fast) and it's important to have as wide an array of colleges as possible.  Because up to this point in history no one has had a monopoly on truth and/or discovery.  So, that being true, we need to promote all possible alternatives.

OK, colleges are keys to the future, they are labs, things are tested there and moved into general population here on Prison Planet.  What happens there can spread out.  Do you want Now Going Backwards in TG Rights to be a new trend?

SEE.... Why should their 'rights' to be who they are, accepted as part of the school's own policies, be on a time table?

What, they can only be outwardly TG in these^* special locations, at these^* special hours?  Is that what you're suggesting?  Hey, can I get you down to like 20 TG minutes a day? Would that be alright?

MOREOVER - if you can get away with this crap at Evergreen, then where's that train going to stop?  Near you ?  On you?  If they can get away with this type of restriction, how many more restrictions (and in how many more places) will they push for?

You know if you start carving out exemptions there's no end to it.  Everyone will want one (trust me on this).  All God's Chlin' Wants A Special Exemption.  And if 'for the children' is the overriding value to TG rights, the TG Trump Card, then so much for TG persons to ever teach, or work with kids, or adopt - this goes a long way, it's a HUGE door to open, and once it's open you ain't going to be able to close it very easy. 

Had other people at the school had problems with it?  The other women and men of the facility, where are their protests?  Well, in fact, they don't exist because the very code of Evergreen is basically 'if you have a problem with LGBT people, then the problem is yours' not ours - so get your own head straight."  It's considered (un PC if you will) and hence, a liability to bring it up at all.  Everyone at Evergreen - as part of it being so damn warm and fuzzy and liberal and all, is expected to treat trans persons like they would any other person.  Period. 

And now you want to give some outside group the power to alter that policy to it's will.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS STRICTLY ENFORCED! (unless in the presence of swim team - or other non-member of the college community)

or is it...

TRANSGENDER PEOPLE HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS (after the completion of all necessary operations, chemical treatments and psychiatric sessions including passing the MMPI at least once and whatever else the powers to be fancy as being necessary)



And based on what?  A story on Fox, or in WND?  Really?

Quote from: tekla on November 23, 2012, 12:16:19 PM

Had other people at the school had problems with it?  The other women and men of the facility, where are their protests?

Clearly you didn't bother to read the police report.

There were several separate instances where people complained, one was the day before. And just because the police weren't called each time, doesn't mean people had no problem with her -displaying- her penis in a womens locker room.  This isn't "bible thumper vs us" nor something some Fox news types orchestrated. And I don't think the rules should be changed over this.

Sadly some people like this Collen  woman don't have the common sense to realize it's probably not a good idea to sit in a sauna as a pre-op with your legs spread open with your junk visible to everyone in a womans locker room area. Because that is what she was doing. Sorry but I don't respect the rights of people to be THIS in your face "Screw you it's legal for me to be in here, so YOU have to deal with whatever I chose to do" attitude. It's a thing called respect of others, which many people today don't seem to have ever been taught.

Quote from: Stephe on November 22, 2012, 01:49:23 PM
"The life guard (Justin) requested Tiffany to go to the sauna and check it out and she did at which time she observed Collen sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing and Tiffany said "You need to leave."



The two options here appear to be: a) pre-op women use a touch of common sense and not sit in a woman sauna with their legs spread open (or walk around locker rooms naked etc) with their junk on display or b) we make a special adult only facilities and restrict all women under the age of 18 from being allowed into them.

-I- Would have told her to not only leave, but to GTFO!

IMO, those of use who are pre or non op have a duty to prove to society, and other women that we are not "men in dresses" who like exposing ourselves to unsuspecting girls.

I honestly couldn't possible ever imagine doing this myself. Ever. I can't imagine that most of us feel differently on that either.

Quote from: Kelly-087 on November 25, 2012, 01:00:34 AM
-I- Would have told her to not only leave, but to GTFO!

IMO, those of use who are pre or non op have a duty to prove to society, and other women that we are not "men in dresses" who like exposing ourselves to unsuspecting girls.

I honestly couldn't possible ever imagine doing this myself. Ever. I can't imagine that most of us feel differently on that either.

Hmmm in all the ranting and raving in this thread (myself included) this post sticks out as logical. We do have a duty to this, yes we all want to believe we should have rights right now but truth be told that's just not how it works. We have to show society what we really are and assuming this article is factual in any way it just doesn't prove that. It hurts us. Good post.

If that police report is accurate then I think some of the stuff she's doing is weird but I would feel that way about a non trans person too. I don't think her trans status should come into it, she should just be asked to cover up more (but still able to quickly change clothes).

I mean would you want some middle age man sitting around naked in an enclosed space next to boys who are changing?

Quote from: Carbon on November 25, 2012, 08:53:51 AM
If that police report is accurate then I think some of the stuff she's doing is weird but I would feel that way about a non trans person too. I don't think her trans status should come into it, she should just be asked to cover up more (but still able to quickly change clothes).

I mean would you want some middle age man sitting around naked in an enclosed space next to boys who are changing?

How is that even close to being the same thing?

As a child I swam at the Y, and yes there are public showers, males of all ages "exposed" while changing etc. Guys stand at a trough with their penis's in the hand at most large event restrooms, should they "cover up" too? People don't "cover up" in situations like this when around the same sex.  No one would bat at eye at this, anymore than would anyone care if a female is walking around in womens only space naked or you could see her genitals or breasts.

No one would have cared if this person hadn't displayed her -wrong- genitals. A penis -displayed- in a womens only area is simply wrong.

Quote from: Stephe on November 25, 2012, 07:22:14 PM
How is that even close to being the same thing?

As a child I swam at the Y, and yes there are public showers, males of all ages "exposed" while changing etc. Guys stand at a trough with their penis's in the hand at most large event restrooms, should they "cover up" too? People don't "cover up" in situations like this when around the same sex.  No one would bat at eye at this, anymore than would anyone care if a female is walking around in womens only space naked or you could see her genitals or breasts.

No one would have cared if this person hadn't displayed her -wrong- genitals. A penis -displayed- in a womens only area is simply wrong.

If I were a little girl, in a locker room. And a natal woman was sitting in the sauna, nude, with her legs spread wide open.. I don't think my mother would have been cool with that.

I do think people are focusing more on the genitals than the behavior. But this woman had some very weird behavior.

Quote from: Kelly-087 on November 26, 2012, 12:06:01 AM
If I were a little girl, in a locker room. And a natal woman was sitting in the sauna, nude, with her legs spread wide open.. I don't think my mother would have been cool with that.

I do think people are focusing more on the genitals than the behavior. But this woman had some very weird behavior.

Yeah, this is what I meant. Like if there was a middle age man just sitting around naked not doing anything next to a bunch of kids... not really okay in my book. (and urinals often do have little walls to give some privacy ::))

It's possible that she's being described inaccurately or targeted because she is trans and the descriptions of her behavior are not accurate. It's also possible that she's genuinely acting inappropriately. Right now I'm starting to think it's probably some of both, just because I can't imagine people with an agenda NOT jumping on this regardless of her actions, but the police reports include descriptions from a bunch of other people and probably aren't completely fabricated on the part of the police. At this point I'd have no trouble with her being told to cover up more though and, f she continues to do things like "sitting in the sauna, nude, with her legs spread wide open," asked not to use the area again.

The argument of people opposed to this because she's trans seems to boil down to this:
"No one would have cared if this person hadn't displayed her -wrong- genitals. A penis -displayed- in a womens only area is simply wrong. "

Which is kind of ridiculous wording if someone is just changing her clothes. Someone quickly changing into the bathing suit isn't like someone standing a bench proudly saying "Look at this!", which is what "displays" makes me thing of. No one should be "displaying" their genitals in the sense that I use the word. But even if we include quickly changing into a bathing suit and stuff like that under "displays," we basically just have a lot of people repeating that it's wrong without any kind of reasoning beyond restating it ( ie "This is self evidently wrong," "This is a women's space. I define a women's space as somewhere that this is wrong. Therefore, this is wrong," etc).

Also, about urinals, it's kind of an unspoken rule that you don't use the urinal directly next to someone if at all possible. You just don't. So if there's like a wall of twenty urinals with only you there on the far right one and this guy comes and uses the one directly next to you, yes that's not appropriate. Personally I wouldn't use one right next to someone even if there was one available, I'd either use a stall or wait (I still present as male right now).

So I mean the fact that men will do stuff like pee near each doesn't mean they're waving their junk in people's faces or something, the ideas of privacy, respect, etc are still hopefully in play.

I still remember my dad taking me to a fancy gym they had just gotten a membership for so we could go swimming and we walked through the men's locker room. I was really freaked out. Sometimes I wonder if it was exaggerated in my memory, but I seem to recall naked men being everywhere. I definitely recall one naked guy walking and staring down at himself in a weird way. It's one of those memories that has really stuck with me. I was very young and I think I tried to cling to my dad for protection. At that age, it wouldn't have mattered whether they were men or women, I don't think. I had never seen naked adults before.

It can be regarded as eyeball assault and it ain't pretty! >:(

Quote from: Carbon on November 26, 2012, 07:59:19 AM

It's possible that she's being described inaccurately or targeted because she is trans and the descriptions of her behavior are not accurate. It's also possible that she's genuinely acting inappropriately. Right now I'm starting to think it's probably some of both, just because I can't imagine people with an agenda NOT jumping on this regardless of her actions, but the police reports include descriptions from a bunch of other people and probably aren't completely fabricated on the part of the police. At this point I'd have no trouble with her being told to cover up more though and, f she continues to do things like "sitting in the sauna, nude, with her legs spread wide open," asked not to use the area again.

It could an in-accurate description. But if she were taking any real steps to cover up, I doubt there would have been the supposed multiple complaints. Even when I was a boy in my teens I would wrap a towel around my waist if I were ever changing anything that exposing. Now, if I as a pre-op girl were needing to be in a locker room, I think I would take extra steps to not cause a fuss among the other girls.

Quote
The argument of people opposed to this because she's trans seems to boil down to this:
"No one would have cared if this person hadn't displayed her -wrong- genitals. A penis -displayed- in a womens only area is simply wrong. "

This is quite true. I think that is a sheer inflammatory piece and Im sure we're only seeing one side. But I'm betting tons of us use the girls locker room and don't have this problem. If you read the comments on the fox news article they are quite severe. It's quite funny that most of the people so upset and infuriated about this are men! There's hardly any female comments on it! So basically, all these people so upset about whats right about the 'womens only' space would never belong there in this lifetime and body.

Colleen Francis and the infamous Evergreen State College incident

    November 13, 2013
Cristan Williams

http://www.transadvocate.com/colleen-francis-and-the-infamous-evergreen-state-college-incident_n_10765.htm

Here's what may not have not heard:

    The sauna area was off limits to the two teens.
    Unless one specifically tries to see inside the sauna, you can't view the people inside the sauna.
    Colleen Francis AND her cisgender female friend were using the sauna together. They were sitting there talking.
    At no point did Francis act to expose herself to children.
    At no point was Francis walking around nude in the area where children were.

So, the actual story is that two 17 year olds went into an area they weren't allowed, attempted to view the people in the sauna and saw Francis. The rest of what you've probably heard about this incident is, at this point, an urban myth.

=======

I think that this article is a pretty important one. I didn't see reference to it anywhere on this topic thread, but it needs to be here. 

Hi Sophie. Welcome to Susan's.  :icon_wave:

Here are some links to site policies and other helpful information:

• Site Terms of Service and rules to live by  (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html)
  
• Standard Terms and Definitions (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html)
  
• Post Ranks (including when you can upload an avatar) (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,114.0.html.)
  
• Reputation rules (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,18960.0.html)
  
• News posting & quoting guidelines (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,174951.0.html)
  
• Photo, avatars, and signature images policy (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,59974.msg383866.html#msg383866)
  

This is a really old thread. The last post came about a year before the article you posted. Usually posts go quiet once they haven't been visited for a while. I'll leave your lilnk there for historical reference.

Thanks. I realized how old it was, but thought that it would be great for, like you said, historical reference.

Locking this thread. Nothing more to be said about it.