Pre-op Transwoman Using Women's Locker Room; Parents of Schoolgirls Object

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

So you'd stand by and watch her undress?

Absolutely not!

They wouldn't let me go into the women's locker room.

Quote:

What if the lady looked like Rosanne Barr?

I don't understand the question. Would I rather watch the cute girl in the photo undress than watch Roseanne Barr undress? Yeah. Seriously, what is the point of the question?

But I will have to say that if the undies came off and there was a penis and scrotum, my enthusiasm for watching her undress would be diminished considerably.

Quote:

Also, if you saw her naked and then made a judgement... wouldn't it be too late?

For what?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I wouldn't say "all", but yeah....most.

The existence of a penis and scrotum is something I would take as strong evidence that the person is, in fact, a man.

In the photograph, the person appears to have breasts suggesting that the person is female, but cameras and clothing can exaggerate and enhance bodily features.

And keep in mind the circumstances being discussed in the thread. We aren't talking about how you would react or behave toward the person at a dinner party. We are talking about a chance encounter with a stranger in a locker room, while naked. Under those circumstances, balls are one of the first cues that you might be dealing with a male. At some point in the future I might learn that the person self identifies as female, and that might influence my behavior toward her. However, in the locker room, the first impression will be based on physical appearance.

I'd suggest that the top of the woman in that photo had surgical help, as do a lot of pre-op TGs, they usually go onto hormones and get breast implants well before doing the lower half, if they do the lower half at all.

My point is, that merely saying ball = male, breasts = female is not going to work cases of TGs, they may indeed have both.

What some seem to forget is that we aren't talking about a man dressed up as a woman either. The majority of TGs attempt to emulate their target gender to the point where if you put them in a suit and tie, you would still see a woman wearing a suit and tie.

For the majority of TGs, if they were naked but for a towel about their waist, you'd assume they were females, you wouldn't come to the same conclusion at seeing a man with a towel about his waist. As such, why would you then reverse your conclusions and say "well I don't know if that person self identifies as female" when it is clear from their appearance, other than one (often very small) thing, that they are female?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by appalling

What specific inconvenience is asked?

What is being asked is to not interfere with a woman in the same way as other women in the room are not being interfered with. It shouldn't be going out of a person's way to apply a similar standard to every woman in the room.

What actions were you specifically going to take upon seeing balls that you are being asked to forebear?

How on Earth is a girl supposed to know that the person with the male genitalia is supposed to be treated as a woman and not a male? They're naked, and it's the pool so the person wouldn't be wearing makeup or any other thing that says "I'm a woman".

Should teen girls be taught that people who appear to be males exposing their genitals to them are most likely transwomen and this activity shouldn't prompt any alarm?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Should teen girls be taught that people who appear to be males exposing their genitals to them are most likely transwomen and this activity shouldn't prompt any alarm?

But this is the thing, other than having a dangly bit where they usually don't have a dangly bit, Transwomen DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MEN. In fact for most of them exactly the opposite. Unless we're talking someone who is just starting out their journey, if you can't see the dangly bit TG Women tend to look very much like women.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

How on Earth is a girl supposed to know that the person with the male genitalia is supposed to be treated as a woman and not a male? They're naked, and it's the pool so the person wouldn't be wearing makeup or any other thing that says "I'm a woman".

If you need to know, just ask, something polite like "excuse me, but what is your preferred gender pronoun".

Quote:

Should teen girls be taught that people who appear to be males exposing their genitals to them are most likely transwomen and this activity shouldn't prompt any alarm?

Is anyone actually suggesting that?

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

At some point in the future I might learn that the person self identifies as female, and that might influence my behavior toward her. However, in the locker room, the first impression will be based on physical appearance.

First impressions shouldn't be the only standard over whether someone is allowed access to a change room.

If it's segregated by gender, then it should be available to people of that gender.

If you saw a woman with facial hair, your first impression could be wrong as well. You might be discomforted by facial hair. But it really isn't all about you.

And since,

Quote:

We aren't talking about how you would react or behave toward the person at a dinner party. We are talking about a chance encounter with a stranger in a locker room, while naked.

Your discomfort is regarding a stranger, in a shared public space. It's not your home, it's not your car, and your rights towards limiting someone's simple presence should be more limited.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Dessi

If you need to know, just ask, something polite like "excuse me, but what is your preferred gender pronoun".

So should girls then be taught that when someone who appears to be male exposes their genitalia to them, they should engage them in conversation to see if they're transwomen before reacting negatively?

Originally Posted by Dessi

Is anyone actually suggesting that?

You just seemed to be, above. The thing most girls are taught nowadays is to assume the male exposing himself to one is a sexual predator and react accordingly (by fleeing or trying to attract public attention). Do you propose that they should be discouraged from doing this?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

But this is the thing, other than having a dangly bit where they usually don't have a dangly bit, Transwomen DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MEN. In fact for most of them exactly the opposite. Unless we're talking someone who is just starting out their journey, if you can't see the dangly bit TG Women tend to look very much like women.

But if you can see the dangly bit, it can make all the difference between perceiving a person's looks as "a woman", and perceiving a person as "an effeminate-looking man", don't you think?

It just seems to me that if you're in the womens' shower and you're accustomed to peripherally seeing certain body characteristics in the other people around, then when you turn the corner and encounter a person with that one extremely different body characteristic, you're going to peripherally notice the difference and your eye will be drawn right away, and seeing that in particular will very likely influence your perception of the rest of the person, am I right?

The visual parts are extremely important - even to transindividuals, which is a large part of why they take the hormones to develop breasts and so forth, rather than just declaring themselves women but staying physically the way they are. How they look is extremely important to themselves. Of course it's going to be important to others too.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The thing most girls are taught nowadays is to assume the male exposing himself to one is a sexual predator and react accordingly (by fleeing or trying to attract public attention). Do you propose that they should be discouraged from doing this?

Anyone teaching that a penis means a sexual predator isn't teaching right.

You are using an unlikely situation to support blanket prejudice.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It just seems to me that if you're in the womens' shower and you're accustomed to peripherally seeing certain body characteristics in the other people around, then when you turn the corner and encounter a person with that one extremely different body characteristic, you're going to peripherally notice the difference and your eye will be drawn right away, and seeing that in particular will very likely influence your perception of the rest of the person, am I right?

It is undeniable that when you look at people, you will perceive them. So what? If you are going to a public change room, watch out. You may not be able to stop yourself from perceiving that they have bodies you weren't expecting.

If you segregate a change room by gender, then everyone of that gender should be able to use it. Women may not look the same.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The visual parts are extremely important - even to transindividuals, which is a large part of why they take the hormones to develop breasts and so forth, rather than just declaring themselves women but staying physically the way they are. How they look is extremely important to themselves. Of course it's going to be important to others too.

I might care how I do my hair. Why should I care what you think of how I do my hair? You are using the care someone might have about their appearance and presentation to justify your own judgement of their appearance.

In any case, you can't segregate by both sex and gender at the same time without asking someone to not be there at all.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Absolutely not!

They wouldn't let me go into the women's locker room.



I don't understand the question. Would I rather watch the cute girl in the photo undress than watch Roseanne Barr undress? Yeah. Seriously, what is the point of the question?

But I will have to say that if the undies came off and there was a penis and scrotum, my enthusiasm for watching her undress would be diminished considerably.




For what?

Now place this hypothetical situation into the men's room. Would you think it's okay for this person to be in there?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by appalling

It is undeniable that when you look at people, you will perceive them. So what? If you are going to a public change room, watch out. You may not be able to stop yourself from perceiving that they have bodies you weren't expecting.

If you segregate a change room by gender, then everyone of that gender should be able to use it. Women may not look the same.

In any case, you can't segregate by both sex and gender at the same time without asking someone to not be there at all.

That's just the thing. Most people understand changing rooms as being segregated by sex. I would venture that the largest part of the population is probably unfamiliar with the notion of gender-as-distinct-from-sex, considering both to be the same thing.

That's what a lot of people don't realize: the "discrimination" that trans people in general and the transwoman in this case in particular face, is not bigotry in the same sense as the discrimination that sex/gender unified homosexuals face for instance. Bigots accept that homosexuals are sexually attracted to people of their same sex; they simply think that's evil or morally wrong or whatever. There can be what might be called "anti-gay sentiment" there.

Conversely, I think most of the people who tend to opine against the 'ruthers of the transwoman in this case and similar cases aren't doing so because they think "being trans is evil" in the same sense they might think being gay is evil; but rather they literally don't believe "trans" is real: they literally think the guy is just a guy who wants to look at naked girls or expose himself to naked girls, and the "he believes himself to be a woman" part is just a concocted excuse to fool the fools, a kind of "jackelope" that they consider themselves too smart to believe in. It's ignorance, but a more benign bent of ignorance than that which underlies bigotry.

On another note, I have to admit that I'm somewhat dismayed at the willingness that some people in this thread have to accept that it's a legitimate fear that the transwoman "might face death" if they use the mens' changing room. I am aware of at least a few confirmed instances in which straight men have been caught and faced legal penalties for trying to spy on womens' or girls' restrooms or changing rooms, either personally or by means of cameras and other devices; I am however completely unaware of even one incident where a transwoman was assaulted, beaten, or killed in a mens' locker room. Interestingly, I have heard of at least one incident when a transwoman was beaten by women for using a womens' restroom (again because they thought it was a straight man pretending to be a woman as an excuse to be in the womens' restroom and not as a discreetly anti-trans statement).

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That's just the thing. Most people understand changing rooms as being segregated by sex. I would venture that the largest part of the population is probably unfamiliar with the notion of gender-as-distinct-from-sex, considering both to be the same thing.

A statistical majority of people probably don't think about discrimination against the Roma, the Maori, southpaws, or people with certain ability issues. A statistical majority is not a good reason to continue discriminating when it is apparent it is happening in specific circumstances, to specific people.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That's what a lot of people don't realize: the "discrimination" that trans people in general and the transwoman in this case in particular face, is not bigotry in the same sense as the discrimination that sex/gender unified homosexuals face for instance. Bigots accept that homosexuals are sexually attracted to people of their same sex; they simply think that's evil or morally wrong or whatever. There can be what might be called "anti-gay sentiment" there.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Conversely, I think most of the people who tend to opine against the 'ruthers of the transwoman in this case and similar cases aren't doing so because they think "being trans is evil" in the same sense they might think being gay is evil; but rather they literally don't believe "trans" is real: they literally think the guy is just a guy who wants to look at naked girls or expose himself to naked girls, and the "he believes himself to be a woman" part is just a concocted excuse to fool the fools, a kind of "jackelope" that they consider themselves too smart to believe in. It's ignorance, but a more benign bent of ignorance than that which underlies bigotry.

There are plenty of people who base their bigotry toward gay people on the idea that they are somehow not real, or have made a choice. It doesn't necessarily matter, if you are being told you are not allowed in a building, that you are being told that because someone doesn't believe you exist, or because they hate you. Continuing to believe that trans people don't exist when one is standing in front of you is more than ignorance; it is taught social behaviour that hurts actual people. If it is acted upon it is bigotry whether from ignorance or choice. Most people would not consider themselves bigots even if their behaviour demonstrably is.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

On another note, I have to admit that I'm somewhat dismayed at the willingness that some people in this thread have to accept that it's a legitimate fear that the transwoman "might face death" if they use the mens' changing room. I am aware of at least a few confirmed instances in which straight men have been caught and faced legal penalties for trying to spy on womens' or girls' restrooms or changing rooms, either personally or by means of cameras and other devices; I am however completely unaware of even one incident where a transwoman was assaulted, beaten, or killed in a mens' locker room. Interestingly, I have heard of at least one incident when a transwoman was beaten by women for using a womens' restroom (again because they thought it was a straight man pretending to be a woman as an excuse to be in the womens' restroom and not as a discreetly anti-trans statement).

Your anecdotal evidence does not line up with the documented violence against trans people. If you are not aware of even one instance, it is because you have not looked or asked. You should read up on it before you dismiss violence against trans people as a myth.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Now place this hypothetical situation into the men's room. Would you think it's okay for this person to be in there?

Yes.

Why wouldn't it be ok? Because "he" has a feminine appearance? Because "she" self identifies as female? Because, regardless of biological identity or self identification the person might be sexually attracted to males? or not?

I think anyone with male genitalia is entitled to use the men's locker room. No exceptions.

If that same person wants to use the women's locker room, then things become a bit more dicey. I would strongly recommend that she do everything possible to not reveal her anatomically unexpected features.

It would be so wonderful if no one reacted negatively to our appearance, but they do, and that isn't a cultural phenomenon. A woman who just happens to have balls is being unrealistic to expect other women to treat her just like all the other gals. Assuming that is what she wants, she would be advised to just keep the specifics of her reproductive system to herself.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It's ignorance, but a more benign bent of ignorance than that which underlies bigotry.

I find your argument that these attitudes are different rather unconvincing. I also don't see how believing a group of people does not exist can be called "benign".

Quote:

I am however completely unaware of even one incident where a transwoman was assaulted, beaten, or killed in a mens' locker room.

That's probably because transwomen tend to avoid mens' locker rooms like the plague, for very good reasons.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Why wouldn't it be ok?

For the exact same reason female locker rooms without privacy partitions are not okay: children might be confronted with things that are not so easy to explain to them.

Quote:

I think anyone with male genitalia is entitled to use the men's locker room. No exceptions.

Where do intersexed people go?

Quote:

I would strongly recommend that she do everything possible to not reveal her anatomically unexpected features.

I would strongly recommend the people who run the facility to make this an option, but in the story I just linked to it was an option taken away from someone; instead of using the private stalls of the women's locker room she was forced to use the non-private men's locker room.

Quote:

It would be so wonderful if no one reacted negatively to our appearance, but they do, and that isn't a cultural phenomenon.

If it isn't a "cultural phenomenon" what is it?

Quote:

A woman who just happens to have balls is being unrealistic to expect other women to treat her just like all the other gals.

Some people in this thread said that people with penises should use the men's locker room, you seem more concerned with "balls". Which is more important, balls or penises? A person with the one may not have the other.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

How on Earth is a girl supposed to know that the person with the male genitalia is supposed to be treated as a woman and not a male? They're naked, and it's the pool so the person wouldn't be wearing makeup or any other thing that says "I'm a woman".

Should teen girls be taught that people who appear to be males exposing their genitals to them are most likely transwomen and this activity shouldn't prompt any alarm?

Wow it must be weird talking to you as all you ever look at is peoples groin. I don't know how many people who look at her would see a transwoman or just a woman.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

So should girls then be taught that when someone who appears to be male exposes their genitalia to them, they should engage them in conversation to see if they're transwomen before reacting negatively?

You really think girls are stupid. There is clear context that in one that the person is just getting changed and not exposing themselves and in the other there is a clear targeted nature of the display. But as girls they are incapable of recognizing the blatant difference between the two.

[ponderingturtle]

Checkmate how would you react if you saw a man, like say buck angel, walk into the womens locker room? Would you say oh that must be a transman using the locker room I consider appropriate or would you just see a pervert walking into the women locker room?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

Why don't they just build one locker room with a bunch of locking cubicles to shower and change in? Then no one has to see anyone naked. I'll never understand the appeal of showering and hanging around naked in front of your same-sex friends.

Most Belgian public swimming pools use that system. The showers are communal but everyone showers with their swimming togs on.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Conversely, I think most of the people who tend to opine against the 'ruthers of the transwoman in this case and similar cases aren't doing so because they think "being trans is evil" in the same sense they might think being gay is evil; but rather they literally don't believe "trans" is real: they literally think the guy is just a guy who wants to look at naked girls or expose himself to naked girls, and the "he believes himself to be a woman" part is just a concocted excuse to fool the fools, a kind of "jackelope" that they consider themselves too smart to believe in. It's ignorance, but a more benign bent of ignorance than that which underlies bigotry.

I don't think this is fully correct.

I think that it's accurate to say that there are a lot of people who don't believe that being "trans" is real. However, I don't think that they think most trans people are voyeurs or exhibitionists. A lot of people have expressed fear that voyeurs or exhibitionists will take advantage of the trans phenomenon, but I don't think many people would actually say that trans people are lying in order to practice voyeurism or exhibitionism.

Rather, I think that most anti-trans opinions are based on the notion that transgenderism is a form of mental illness. They would say that a transwoman is really a man, but thinks that "he" is a woman. That, they would say, is a form of delusion that is clearly out of touch with reality, in other words, a mental illness.

This tends to make them even less sympathetic toward transwomen who want to use the women's locker room in the presence of their daughters. Not only is there a naked man in the locker room with their daughters, there is a mentally ill naked man in the locker room with their daughters.

Some people may note that I am describing those who hold such opinions with the word "they", and they might wonder if I should be saying "we". i.e. do I agree that transgenderism is a mental illness? Frankly, I don't know.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Where do intersexed people go?

That's a very difficult question, and I don't have an answer.

I agree that public facilities should make more private areas available, although I disagree that all people ought to change in private, and I disagree with the opinion that most people are uncomfortable around naked people of the same sex. Among American males of my generation, I don't think the vast majority care.

I would say that the important element of the question is that there is a difference between an intersexed individual, and a transgender individual. When talking about transgenders, we are talking about people who are definitely biologically of one sex, but do not self identify as that sex. (Or should I say, "do not self identify as the gender most commonly associated with their sex?)

Quote:

If it isn't a "cultural phenomenon" what is it?

Biology.

Quote:

Some people in this thread said that people with penises should use the men's locker room, you seem more concerned with "balls". Which is more important, balls or penises? A person with the one may not have the other.

Does it matter? I'm using it as a shorthand for what gets seen in the locker room that might lead someone to think that there's a man involved.

I understand that, in reality, there's a lot of variation in exactly what's found below the waist.


ETA: I'll also add that I am not among the people who have said that transgender women (biologically male) ought to be forbidden from women's locker rooms. Honestly, I think the issue is a complicated one. For people who have sought and are on the path toward surgical alteration, it's really difficult to say that they ought to be in a men's room after they grow breasts. On the other hand, for people who are clearly biological males with no intention of surgery, it's really difficult for me to say that such a person belongs in the women's room.

I'm perfectly willing to remain in the undecided camp for now.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't think this is fully correct.

I think that it's accurate to say that there are a lot of people who don't believe that being "trans" is real. However, I don't think that they think most trans people are voyeurs or exhibitionists. A lot of people have expressed fear that voyeurs or exhibitionists will take advantage of the trans phenomenon, but I don't think many people would actually say that trans people are lying in order to practice voyeurism or exhibitionism.

Rather, I think that most anti-trans opinions are based on the notion that transgenderism is a form of mental illness. They would say that a transwoman is really a man, but thinks that "he" is a woman. That, they would say, is a form of delusion that is clearly out of touch with reality, in other words, a mental illness.

This tends to make them even less sympathetic toward transwomen who want to use the women's locker room in the presence of their daughters. Not only is there a naked man in the locker room with their daughters, there is a mentally ill naked man in the locker room with their daughters.

Some people may note that I am describing those who hold such opinions with the word "they", and they might wonder if I should be saying "we". i.e. do I agree that transgenderism is a mental illness? Frankly, I don't know.

The mental illness is body dismorphic disorder and transitioning is the cure. That is the psychological consensus. Now sure you get those who view it differently, but you also get people who class homosexuality as mental illness.

The idea that you can fix trans people to be comfortable with their birth sex is very much like the idea that homosexuality can be cured.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You really think girls are stupid. There is clear context that in one that the person is just getting changed and not exposing themselves and in the other there is a clear targeted nature of the display. But as girls they are incapable of recognizing the blatant difference between the two.

Except they weren't, in this case, were they? My understanding of the incident which prompted this thread is that it was a girl who complained - not that she merely happened to glance and see the transwoman's male junk as the latter was changing, but that the naked transwoman came into the sauna and sat down in front of her. I'm reasonably confident that the girl who complained wasn't "stupid", but the apparent intent behind the action was ambiguous enough to make her unsure and uncomfortable about the situation enough to complain.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Except they weren't, in this case, were they? My understanding of the incident which prompted this thread is that it was a girl who complained - not that she merely happened to glance and see the transwoman's male junk as the latter was changing, but that the naked transwoman came into the sauna and sat down in front of her. I'm reasonably confident that the girl who complained wasn't "stupid", but the apparent intent behind the action was ambiguous enough to make her unsure and uncomfortable about the situation enough to complain.

No it was the parents who complained. We have no idea what the child thought and where are you getting those details? The story in the op says nothing about a sauna. Just that a girl saw something and her parents raised a stink. No idea if she was bothered or just confused.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No it was the parents who complained. We have no idea what the child thought and where are you getting those details? The story in the op says nothing about a sauna. Just that a girl saw something and her parents raised a stink. No idea if she was bothered or just confused.

It's taken a lot of searching to find something detailed on this story which is not a slanted op-ed piece; however, I have located what appears to be a police report filed on the matter. The report relates two incidents, actually - the first being a mother who reported that her daughter told her she was upset at seeing a "man" in the locker room, and a second incident in which a high school swim student approached a coach and reported that "there was a man in the sauna". The coach intially confronted the person "who was sitting legs open and genitalia exposed" in the sauna and evicted them from the locker room, but later apologized when she learned about her transwoman status. According to the swim coach, there were girls as young as six having to change at the time in full view of the person in the sauna and she had questions about the propriety of it.

Now I think one could say that it's possible that the mother invented her daughter being "upset" (although why the daughter would've told her at all if she wasn't upset is a mystery); but I don't think it's likely that the other girl would've gone up to a coach and reported "a man in the sauna" if she didn't think that was something that needed to be reported.

[ponderingturtle]

So it was a person sitting fairly normally for a sauna and an unclear complaint by a parent?

Now maybe saunas are not appropriate for locker rooms but that seems to be the only issue I see.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So it was a person sitting fairly normally for a sauna and an unclear complaint by a parent?

Now maybe saunas are not appropriate for locker rooms but that seems to be the only issue I see.

On its own face that's true; but remember why I brought it up. You said:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You really think girls are stupid. There is clear context that in one that the person is just getting changed and not exposing themselves and in the other there is a clear targeted nature of the display. But as girls they are incapable of recognizing the blatant difference between the two.

The problem is that's not true - the context wasn't clear at all. The girl who reported the transwoman in the sauna didn't report "a transwoman", she reported a "man". The swim coach, upon seeing the person in the sauna, also identified them as a man and had to be told later that they were a transwoman (whereupon of course she apologized). Perhaps you would consider sitting with one's legs sprawled and one's genitals on display is "fairly normal for a sauna" - I won't argue or insist otherwise myself, having never been in one - however, it's clear that at least two high school girls and one female swim coach did not interpret the situation as a transperson behaving normally, but as a man behaving abnormally.

That's what I'm trying to explain - you and others keep insisting that this problem literally does not exist. That women in locker rooms aren't actually being made uncomfortable by transwomen, that "anyone can tell a transwoman from a non-trans man because the transwoman obviously looks like a woman except for that one part", and - you particularly - that I must think girls are "stupid" if I think they might not be able to immediately tell a normally-acting transwoman from a straight pervert. But none of that is true. If it was, this thread wouldn't be here. In this case we in fact have: 1 or more minors being uncomfortable and reporting the situation to a parent or official, 3 seperate individuals not being able to tell that a naked transwoman is a woman and not a man, and at least 2 seperate individuals who did not interpret the sauna situation as normal and thought something needed to be done about it in the moment. This is absolutely not a case of everybody who's actually using the locker room being completely hunky-dory with the situation while only their prudish uptight parents are making hay.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The swim coach, upon seeing the person in the sauna, also identified them as a man and had to be told later that they were a transwoman (whereupon of course she apologized).

This is something you made up. The police report doesn't say that the swim coach positively identified her as a man. You are making thing up to support your case.

This is dangerous if you are also linking to people's real names.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

3 seperate individuals not being able to tell that a naked transwoman is a woman and not a man

Again, this is not in the report you cited. You are adding your own details to the police report. The swim coach says that girls were not used to seeing a certain kind of individual. I'm sure she's not talking about "men" when she says this.

According to the report you cite it is only the swim student who used the term "man". There is obviously more to their stories, but it doesn't help to create stuff from scratch.

[appalling]

That link has the unredacted names of the women involved.

It is hosted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative christian group that is trying to stop women from being allowed to use those change rooms.

You should consider whether you want to be part of a name-and-shame campaign against this woman.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by appalling

This is something you made up. The police report doesn't say that the swim coach positively identified her as a man. You are making thing up to support your case.

This is dangerous if you are also linking to people's real names.



Again, this is not in the report you cited. You are adding your own details to the police report. The swim coach says that girls were not used to seeing a certain kind of individual. I'm sure she's not talking about "men" when she says this.

According to the report you cite it is only the swim student who used the term "man". There is obviously more to their stories, but it doesn't help to create stuff from scratch.

That's not true at all. The language in the report is as follows:

Quote:

The day prior on Wednesday, September 26th at 1712 hours, Officers [Officer] and [Officer] responded to the Campus Recreation Center (CRC) on a report of a man in the womens' locker room.

Emphasis mine. The report goes on to say:

Quote:

[Swim coach], who is a swim coach for Evergreen Swim Club...called me on Friday, September 28th to advise she was the one who confronted [the transwoman] in the sauna. Because while she was at the pool, a female high school swim student came up to her and stated there was a man in the sauna. The lifeguard requested [the swim coach] to go to the sauna and check it out and she did at which time she observed [the transwoman] sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing and Tiffany said to her, "you need to leave." [Swim coach] then went to the front desk and asked the person there to call police.

Emphasis again mine. This call to the police is the call the report describes having been received on "Wednesday, September 26th" of "a man in the women's locker room". Since obviously the person at the front desk wasn't in the locker room, it's pretty clear that he must have told the police it was "a man in the women's locker room" because that's what the swim coach told him.

[appalling]

Nothing personal, but I'm going to report your post. If you want to host a version of the police report that doesn't make it any easier for anyone to harrass this woman in the real world, try taking the names out first.

Quote:

This post links to a police report with unredacted names.

If the names were redacted, I would be okay with it, but it is hosted by a conservative christian advocacy group with a history of opposing LGBT issues and I believe they left the name of the woman involved in the report for a reason.

3. You will not post anything that demonstrates a clear and present danger to the welfare of another person, or otherwise tends to create alarm or apprehension that the welfare of any person is in imminent jeopardy. (Such posts will be moved offline and referred to the appropriate authorities.)

If you believe this is an inappropriate report, let me know.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by appalling

That link has the unredacted names of the women involved.

It is hosted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative christian group that is trying to stop women from being allowed to use those change rooms.

You should consider whether you want to be part of a name-and-shame campaign against this woman.

Point taken; all names removed in my quote.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by appalling

Nothing personal, but I'm going to report your post. If you want to host a version of the police report that doesn't make it any easier for anyone to harrass this woman in the real world, try taking the names out first.

I think your complaint is spurious; I have no problem removing names from my own quotes of the police report; but it's a publicly-released report located by Google search, and there's no evidence linking to it here will make it easier for anyone to "harrass this woman" in the real world, unless you wish to accuse anyone here of having the intention of doing so. It's necessary to prove the point I've made, and I can't "take the names out first" even if I wanted to - I don't have the capability to edit a PDF.

[appalling]

Quote:

The swim coach, upon seeing the person in the sauna, also identified them as a man

This is still your inference. It is not in the police report.

The report didn't say the swim coach identified her as a man, only that she asked her to leave. You are ignoring the possibility that the swim coach identified her as a transgender woman, and still made moves to remove her.

You cannot point to the police report and say the swim coach thought she was only dealing with a man without adding your own guesswork. The swim coach is not even mentioned on the first day.

This is only relevant because you are using the police report to back up your belief that this woman did not present as a woman. I showed that the police report had testimony that the swim coach did not simply think that the woman presented as just another "man" and that she was a person "in a situation".

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by appalling

This is still your inference. It is not in the police report.

The report didn't say the swim coach identified her as a man, only that she asked her to leave. You are ignoring the possibility that the swim coach identified her as a transgender woman, and still made moves to remove her.

Then why did the police get a report of "a man in the women's locker room" and not "a transgender woman in the locker room", if the swim coach identified her as a woman when she told the "front desk" to call the police?

For that matter, if she identifiied the person as a woman, why would she tell anyone to call the police at all? That makes no sense.

Nevertheless, if you want to insist against reason that the swim coach did not believe she was dealing with a man, there's still the problem left that other people did, and that several people were bothered by the situation and did not consider it "normal activity".

[Morrigan]

If a pre-op transwoman went in a sauna and sat with her male genitals exposed, she really lacks common sense. How hard is it to just wrap a towel around your waist until you've had your surgery?

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Then why did the police get a report of "a man in the women's locker room" and not "a transgender woman in the locker room", if the swim coach identified her as a woman when she told the "front desk" to call the police?

You are committing basic reading errors.

You are insisting that she (specifically contact#6) saw the woman as a "man" when that is not in the report, only your inferences. It is true that she saw the woman as an issue to be dealt with.

This is only relevant because you are using the police report to back up your belief that this woman did not present as a woman. I showed that the police report had testimony that this swim coach did not simply think that the woman presented as just another "man" and that she was a person "in a situation".

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I think your complaint is spurious; I have no problem removing names from my own quotes of the police report; but it's a publicly-released report located by Google search, and there's no evidence linking to it here will make it easier for anyone to "harrass this woman" in the real world, unless you wish to accuse anyone here of having the intention of doing so. It's necessary to prove the point I've made, and I can't "take the names out first" even if I wanted to - I don't have the capability to edit a PDF.

I wasn't sure if you were around to make any edits or changes when I posted my complaint.

Is it a publicly-released report? Is it breach-of-privacy? Who is releasing the report? Do you know?

You should think about that. It seems likely that it is attempt by a christian lobby group to name-and-shame someone for being trans while in public. The existence of this thread calls attention to this issue, and these people. I don't think we should also aid a shaming campaign against the person discussed.

Quote:

It's necessary to prove the point I've made

If you posted a picture of someone's genitals to prove a point you'd made, it would also be a clear violation of privacy. Posting a police report that explicitly names people is not the only way to illustrate your point. We already knew that one of the people called her a "man". The report adds nothing new to this.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by appalling

You are committing basic reading errors.

You are insisting that she (specifically contact#6) saw the woman as a "man" when that is not in the report, only your inferences. It is true that she saw the woman as an issue to be dealt with.

This is only relevant because you are using the police report to back up your belief that this woman did not present as a woman. I showed that the police report had testimony that this swim coach did not simply think that the woman presented as just another "man" and that she was a person "in a situation".

We already know that at some point she was made aware that the person was trans; in the police report it says that when police arrived at the school (after responding to a call about a man in the locker room), by that time it was known by the people who had initially reported a man in the locker room that the person was transwoman, not a man, and they explained that no further police action was required. Obviously the school didn't consider a transwoman in the locker room to be a police matter.

You're pushing a distinction without a difference. The swim coach asked the front desk to call the police; that very call reported "a man in the women's locker room". That's a direct quote. And there's still the matter that the school girl did, directly, refer to the person as a man in the sauna when she reported the situation to a staff member. My point is not that she wasn't "presenting as a woman" or at least making the effort; it is solely that it obviously did not convince everyone.

Again, if the swim coach identified her as a woman, why did she feel the need to call the police, considering that once the staff was all aware they were dealing with a trans woman they sent the police away? And if she felt that a person she herself identified as a transwoman being in the girls' locker room was a police matter, then why did the police get a call of "a man" in the locker room, and not "a transgender person" in the locker room? Yes it's an inference, but it's a bleeding obvious one.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

If a pre-op transwoman went in a sauna and sat with her male genitals exposed, she really lacks common sense. How hard is it to just wrap a towel around your waist until you've had your surgery?

Because that would be a reasonable solution.