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

[Fishstick]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

Out of curiousity, who has 3/4/5 genders?

India, for one

[Scopedog]

Originally Posted by gumboot

In this country it's relatively common for children under about 8 or 9 to change with their parent, regardless of sex/gender. It's common enough to see young girls in the men's changing room with their father that I barely notice. People tend to mind their own business in a changing room.

What about when they're old enough to change on their own but have not yet reached the country's age of majority (aka adolescence)?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

You are one of those individuals that refuses to acknowledge gender. So you think it's perfectly alright for any man to dress up as a woman and go into a womans locker room and walk around naked? This is acceptable behavior to you?

It's not a refusal of gender per se; it's a refusal of gender as an innate, immutable, and essential characteristic. Gender is something that is very real by the consensus of a society, but, beyond the society--in other societies, for instance, gender isn't real in the sense that someone who belongs to a third gender is actually a man or a woman pretending to be a woman or a man.

The other problem here is that you assume that sex assignment as penis (and possibly testicles) makes you a boy and vagina (and possibly ovaries) makes you a girl. First, the medical definitions of what constitutes a penis and what constitues a clitoris leave a gap in the middle where the genitalia are neither a penis or a clitoris. Until recently, regardless of the functional aspects of the genitalia, falling into this "third space" was considered a medical emergency and parent were often pressured into submitting their children to years of painful and invasive surgery to construct more societally acceptable genitalia. The strict sex binary is therefore partially a social construct.

Note, though, that I am not denying the existence of sexually dimorphic genitalia; I am specifically pointing out that the way we use genital sexual dimorphism (or the lack thereof in certain individuals) to divide people up into socially meaningful groups is not based on innate, immutable and essential characteristic of those individual.

[thaiboxerken]

I get the feeling that there would be just as much protest if this person was in the male locker room and naked.

[Craig4]

What really surprises me here is that this was Evergreen State College. It's famous/notorious as a weird, free spirit hippie enclave where education may or may not take place over the pot fumes. It's really the last place on earth the person should expect to have a problem. I'm mildly surprised that they even wear swimsuits.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Craig4

What really surprises me here is that this was Evergreen State College. It's famous/notorious as a weird, free spirit hippie enclave where education may or may not take place over the pot fumes. It's really the last place on earth the person should expect to have a problem. I'm mildly surprised that they even wear swimsuits.

It wasn't the students who were offended.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Mercurial Artism

It's not the actual trans people I worry about; it's those would would pass themselves off as trans people.

Does this really seem like something to worry about to you?

Have you ever heard of it happening?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

You are one of those individuals that refuses to acknowledge gender. So you think it's perfectly alright for any man to dress up as a woman and go into a womans locker room and walk around naked? This is acceptable behavior to you?

I think the odds of a transgendered woman deliberately flaunting her genitals in a locker room are pretty remote. I think the more typical behavior would be for that person to be as discrete as possible.

[DDWW]

Reminds me very little of an experiment the Army did a few years back. When gays were allowed in the service one training camp had an idea to defuse the sexual tension, if any, of gay men sleeping in the same quarters as straight men.

They issued a directive. They called all the men together and said if you were gay that you could sleep in the women’s’ quarters. Turned out that in every unit 99% of the men said they were gay, and one percent said he was hard of hearing.


DDWW

[foxholeatheist]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

And what if you lost your penis in a terrible baking accident? Lol

That would not make me a female. I accept that there are broad social agreements when nudity is acceptable and the most basic and utilitarian separation of genders is by genitals. That does not make me or anyone else that lives in the real world a puritan.

I use a changing room daily and this morning I was thinking about the feasibility of building separate cubicles for each and every person there. The partitions would take up so much space and most would have to be very very small that I don't see it as very practical and at a huge additional cost to the facility.

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by DDWW

Reminds me very little of an experiment the Army did a few years back. When gays were allowed in the service one training camp had an idea to defuse the sexual tension, if any, of gay men sleeping in the same quarters as straight men.

They issued a directive. They called all the men together and said if you were gay that you could sleep in the women’s’ quarters. Turned out that in every unit 99% of the men said they were gay, and one percent said he was hard of hearing.

DDWW

Honestly, I don't see any relevant similarity to the case at hand.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by foxholeatheist

That would not make me a female. I accept that there are broad social agreements when nudity is acceptable and the most basic and utilitarian separation of genders is by genitals. That does not make me or anyone else that lives in the real world a puritan.

I use a changing room daily and this morning I was thinking about the feasibility of building separate cubicles for each and every person there. The partitions would take up so much space and most would have to be very very small that I don't see it as very practical and at a huge additional cost to the facility.

You don't need a cubicle for everyone there. People can wait to change until there is one free.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

You don't need a cubicle for everyone there. People can wait to change until there is one free.

Then it would cost time, I guess.

But personally, I think it is simple: If you worry about being seen naked by the wrong type of person, it is not everybody else's duty to not be there when you undress in public.

And the rationalisations are just ridiculous. If I absolutely wanted to go into a womens' locker room, I wouldn't need to pretend that I am transgender or anything. All I'd need to do is dress in a way that would let me pass as a woman and I could just walk in there and sit and watch.

Who would know I was never actually changing? All I'd need to do was keep myself busy on the cellphone or something, sit there for half an hour and then leave. Nobody would know I never actually visited the pool.

But then, I could just go to the nude beach, or a sauna and not need to worry about any of that...

[sadhatter]

What i find very interesting is that in most trans conversations people jump immediately to the "Not all trans people are gay." Line of reasoning, the second someone makes the mistake of sounding like they think every trans person is attracted to folks of their original gender.

Yet here, that tone is suddenly gone among supporters of trans people using any locker room.

Its interesting that when trying to seem like the most open minded kid on the playground a lot of folks will flip flop opinions or ignore their major points in other threads.

Personally it all boils down to the fact that it is remarkably easy for one to simply change in a bathroom. On one side you have legitimate, if overstated fears that trans folks will be attacked for being in a changing room with those of their original gender, on the other many folks who are uncomfortable changing around those with different equipment. The easy middle ground seems to be to simply use facilities that are designed with privacy in mind, and already there.

And this isn't coming from some 60 year old straight man, as a bi guy, if i ever felt the need to do anything sports related , and was informed that due to my orientation they would prefer me to change in a bathroom, hell, no skin off my back. While i know i am not oogling junk in the shower, i wouldn't want folks to get the wrong idea, and it does me no harm to go to an area with greater privacy, and change, versus do it in a large room with many other naked folks.

Unless one doesn't have a shower at home, this entire issue seems blown out of proportion. People may be being overly prude, but that is not only a matter of opinion, but simply the way it is, folks feel uncomfortable, two sets of folks with differing opinions, the remedy cannot be to simply ignore one group, a compromise has to be made. Just because one side happens to be the straight majority, doesn't mean they can be ignored, that is just making group A the ignored victims instead of group b.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

And this isn't coming from some 60 year old straight man, as a bi guy, if i ever felt the need to do anything sports related , and was informed that due to my orientation they would prefer me to change in a bathroom, hell, no skin off my back. While i know i am not oogling junk in the shower, i wouldn't want folks to get the wrong idea, and it does me no harm to go to an area with greater privacy, and change, versus do it in a large room with many other naked folks.

People nowadays are more likely to press their rights not to make anyone else more comfortable, even when it wouldn't actually involve going out of their way. The usual argument is that x "shouldn't" make anyone uncomfortable, which I guess is supposed to make the fact that it does no longer matter.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

People nowadays are more likely to press their rights not to make anyone else more comfortable, even when it wouldn't actually involve going out of their way.

Being asked not to use a changeroom that is open to other women is being asked to go out of their way. Even if you agree with polite or forced segregation, it still has its cost to the person being segregated.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The usual argument is that x "shouldn't" make anyone uncomfortable, which I guess is supposed to make the fact that it does no longer matter.

This is circular. If they shouldn't, whether they do does no longer matter. If they should, whether they do does matter. Either way.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

People nowadays are more likely to press their rights not to make anyone else more comfortable, even when it wouldn't actually involve going out of their way. The usual argument is that x "shouldn't" make anyone uncomfortable, which I guess is supposed to make the fact that it does no longer matter.

Yep it all started with those damn sit ins.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by appalling

Being asked not to use a changeroom that is open to other women is being asked to go out of their way.

Being asked to treat someone like a girl after you have seen that person's balls is also being asked to go out of your way.

[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?

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Being asked to treat someone like a girl after you have seen that person's balls is also being asked to go out of your way.

Only if "going out of your way" includes being educated about the human gender spectrum, which is medically and scientifically known and documented to include more than just the two you seem to be aware of.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Being asked to treat someone like a girl after you have seen that person's balls is also being asked to go out of your way.

It can't be any harder than treating a person respectfully, after learning they are Republican.

[Meadmaker]

It's all about discomfort.

Human beings have some sort of hang up. We cover ourselves, and are reluctant to appear naked around the opposite sex. We associate total nudity with sexual situations if the nude people happen to be of the opposite sex. This isn't something that's unique to America, and it isn't something that began in the Victorian era. It seems very close to universal. Our culture might reinforce this hang up, but our culture is not responsible for the existence of this hang up.

A man in the woman's locker room would cause some distress and discomfort among normal women. That's normal. That's natural. There's a reason we have locker rooms for men, and different locker rooms for women.

Furthermore, we are very visual. The mere sight of a scrotum triggers a response that makes people think they are in the presence of a man. People are funny that way. They tend to react subconsciously to male genitalia as if those genitalia were attached to male individuals. It's instinct. We can't help ourselves that way.

So when a person who just happens to have balls insists on being treated like a woman, even after showing those balls to another person, that person just isn't being realistic. If that person insists on exposing "her" balls to women and girls in a setting where those women and girls expect to be in the presence of other women and girls, that really is quite a lot to ask.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's all about discomfort.

Yep just like with blacks, jews or gays. Keep them out so that proper folk are not discomforted. They are so damn demanding that if someone has a problem with them it is the persons problem not theirs.

I think we can all agree blacks need to be far more accomidating of racists.

[Fishstick]

I love this talk of 'exposing' balls. Some of the comments here make it seem like the person walked into the locker room playing their scrote like a windbag going "nothing to see here, i'm totally a woman!"

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Fishstick

I love this talk of 'exposing' balls. Some of the comments here make it seem like the person walked into the locker room playing their scrote like a windbag going "nothing to see here, i'm totally a woman!"

According to the OP, yes. That's exactly what happened.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep just like with blacks, jews or gays. Keep them out so that proper folk are not discomforted. They are so damn demanding that if someone has a problem with them it is the persons problem not theirs.

I think we can all agree blacks need to be far more accomidating of racists.

Here's a challenge for you, pt. Try addressing the subject without the use of an analogy. I know analogies can work to illustrate issues. It's a fine way of thinking, but it's rather limiting, and it can conceal important distinctions between the actual situation and the analogized situation.

Give it the old college try.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Here's a challenge for you, pt. Try addressing the subject without the use of an analogy. I know analogies can work to illustrate issues. It's a fine way of thinking, but it's rather limiting, and it can conceal important distinctions between the actual situation and the analogized situation.

Give it the old college try.

And the point is that reasonable actions that cause discomfort are the person who is discomforted problem. I know you don't see it that way, but the law is on her side not the bigots side at least in an increasing number of states.

I know I know, who will think of the bigots, well they will just have to fend for themselves.

So if there is a difference it is not that her actions caused the discomfort of others, letting gays and blacks use the same facilities did the same. You need a better argument.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And the point is that reasonable actions that cause discomfort are the person who is discomforted problem. I know you don't see it that way, but the law is on her side not the bigots side at least in an increasing number of states.

I know I know, who will think of the bigots, well they will just have to fend for themselves.

So if there is a difference it is not that her actions caused the discomfort of others, letting gays and blacks use the same facilities did the same. You need a better argument.

Let's take your basic position in the first sentence. It's a nice, concise, statement of a position.

The rest of your post is utter balderdash, but that first sentence is fine.

"Reasonable actions that cause discomfort are the person who is discomforted problem."

The "reasonable action" in this case is a transwoman using the women's locker room.


As we know from the news story in the OP, that particular locker room did not, at the time, have privacy curtains, so the users of that locker room would be seen naked in the normal course of using the locker room. That's how it became a news story. A girl saw what she assumed, based on conventional wisdom and her understanding of human physiology, was a naked man.

Is her discomfort her problem? Let's think about this. First, let us suppose that she had, in fact, seen a naked man. Suppose a man had entered the women's locker room, used that locker room in the normal manner, and in the course of doing so exposed himself to view, and observed the naked women and girls who were themselves exposed. In that case, would the discomfort felt by a woman or girl in that situation be "her problem"? Clearly, no. That's normal. People have a reasonable expectation that men will not be in the women's locker room, either exposing themselves or viewing the exposed women and girls.

However, in this case, there was not a naked man, so the situation doesn't apply. Nevertheless, we are asking these girls to make a rather difficult judgement call. The girls don't have enough information to tell if the person whose scrotum is exposed is a man or a woman, but in one case, it's "her problem" and in the other case, it's a reasonable discomfort.

Suppose that the girl in question happened to know that the anatomically male individual was someone who self identified as female. Would that then make it "her problem"? I suppose one could say it did, but that's asking a lot from a 15 year old girl. There's that instinctive reaction to penises and scrotums. You can tell someone that the equipment is attached to a female, but her mind is still going to be thinking "man", on at least some sort of primitive level.

At the very least, I think we would have to acknowledge that the girls' discomfort is very natural and very normal. It is not a consequence of bigotry, hatred, or ignorance. It's the way regular people react. Of course, we all have to experience some discomfort in our lives. We may simply decide that for a girl who feels discomfort in that situation, it really is "her problem", and just something that she should learn to deal with.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Let's take your basic position in the first sentence. It's a nice, concise, statement of a position.

The rest of your post is utter balderdash, but that first sentence is fine.

"Reasonable actions that cause discomfort are the person who is discomforted problem."

The "reasonable action" in this case is a transwoman using the women's locker room.


As we know from the news story in the OP, that particular locker room did not, at the time, have privacy curtains, so the users of that locker room would be seen naked in the normal course of using the locker room. That's how it became a news story. A girl saw what she assumed, based on conventional wisdom and her understanding of human physiology, was a naked man.

Is her discomfort her problem? Let's think about this. First, let us suppose that she had, in fact, seen a naked man. Suppose a man had entered the women's locker room, used that locker room in the normal manner, and in the course of doing so exposed himself to view, and observed the naked women and girls who were themselves exposed. In that case, would the discomfort felt by a woman or girl in that situation be "her problem"? Clearly, no. That's normal. People have a reasonable expectation that men will not be in the women's locker room, either exposing themselves or viewing the exposed women and girls.

However, in this case, there was not a naked man, so the situation doesn't apply. Nevertheless, we are asking these girls to make a rather difficult judgement call. The girls don't have enough information to tell if the person whose scrotum is exposed is a man or a woman, but in one case, it's "her problem" and in the other case, it's a reasonable discomfort.

Suppose that the girl in question happened to know that the anatomically male individual was someone who self identified as female. Would that then make it "her problem"? I suppose one could say it did, but that's asking a lot from a 15 year old girl. There's that instinctive reaction to penises and scrotums. You can tell someone that the equipment is attached to a female, but her mind is still going to be thinking "man", on at least some sort of primitive level.

At the very least, I think we would have to acknowledge that the girls' discomfort is very natural and very normal. It is not a consequence of bigotry, hatred, or ignorance. It's the way regular people react. Of course, we all have to experience some discomfort in our lives. We may simply decide that for a girl who feels discomfort in that situation, it really is "her problem", and just something that she should learn to deal with.

Just like how men react when a gay is in the locker room and they are sure he is checking out their junk. All the other forms of discomfort were considered natural at a time, now they are viewed as being bigoted.

And we don't know what she saw or thought she saw other than than a penis and that caused her parents to raise a fuss. The girl might well not have been disturbed by it.

[Vortigern99]

Meadmaker, there are more than two genders in the human gender spectrum. Once people become educated about this scientific, medical fact, their fear and anxiety about seeing "women with balls" undressing in a women's locker room will be assuaged.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's all about discomfort.

It would be discomforting to not have a place to change clothes when other women did, I agree.

Quote:

Human beings have some sort of hang up. We cover ourselves, and are reluctant to appear naked around the opposite sex. We associate total nudity with sexual situations if the nude people happen to be of the opposite sex. This isn't something that's unique to America, and it isn't something that began in the Victorian era. It seems very close to universal. Our culture might reinforce this hang up, but our culture is not responsible for the existence of this hang up.

We are not discussing sexual situations or situations where everyone has the option of being clothed. We are talking about a changing room. This paragraph is irrelevant. People have a hang up about being naked in public but let's assume they manage to undress in shared changing rooms.

Quote:

A man in the woman's locker room would cause some distress and discomfort among normal women. That's normal. That's natural. There's a reason we have locker rooms for men, and different locker rooms for women.

We're not talking about a man in a changing room. A rhino in a changing room would cause distress. You are using an analogy. If you want to talk about the woman who was in the changing room, talk about that.

Quote:

Furthermore, we are very visual. The mere sight of a scrotum triggers a response that makes people think they are in the presence of a man. People are funny that way. They tend to react subconsciously to male genitalia as if those genitalia were attached to male individuals. It's instinct. We can't help ourselves that way.

We can't help our reactions to the sights of each others bodies? Ridiculous. Is avoiding any occurrence of this uncontrollable subconscious more important than a woman having a place to change clothes?

Quote:

So when a person who just happens to have balls insists on being treated like a woman, even after showing those balls to another person, that person just isn't being realistic. If that person insists on exposing "her" balls to women and girls in a setting where those women and girls expect to be in the presence of other women and girls, that really is quite a lot to ask.

Nice scare quotes. Way to be a "person".

And here is the crux of it. You say that it is a lot to ask for that person to be in the presence at all. It somehow asks a lot to let someone else exist somewhere. Because, reactions.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by appalling

It would be discomforting to not have a place to change clothes when other women did, I agree.
.....
And here is the crux of it. You say that it is a lot to ask for that person to be in the presence at all. It somehow asks a lot to let someone else exist somewhere. Because, reactions.

But let's think about the source of this woman's discomfort. Suppose we were to pass a law that said all people must use changing facilities/locker rooms/bathrooms that are appropriate for their biological sex. Would it be true to say that this woman had no place to change?

No, of course not. She would be required by law to change in the men's locker room. She would have a place to change, but she would feel out of place there. It would cause her discomfort.

But, why should it? The whole point of the supporters of this person's right to use the women's locker room is that no female should be upset about being naked around a biological male. So, what is it about using the men's room ought to upset this woman? We are told that no one should be upset about seeing a member of the opposite sex naked. We are told that no one should be upset about being naked around a member of the opposite sex. What, then, is the big deal?

In order to accept that this is a hardship for this woman, you have to accept the premise that segregation of the sexes is very important, but that the segregation is based on a state of mind rather than a state of anatomy. That seems like a contradiction to me. If we shouldn't get all hung up about nudity when in the presence of the opposite sex, then what is it that this woman is upset about?

Of course there is a real answer to that question, and it isn't difficult. She thinks of herself as a woman, and thus feels uncomfortable with nudity in the presence of men. That's normal. Most women feel the same way.

The problem is that the rest of the women can't see this person's state of mind. They can only see her body, and her body is male. Given what they see, their reaction is perfectly normal. The reaction of the other users of that locker room is exactly what we would expect. The "regular" women and girls in the locker room are going to be told by their senses that they are in the presence of a naked man.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Try addressing the subject without the use of an analogy.

Comparing sex segregated facilities with race segregated facitilities is not an "analogy". It is pointing out that they are the exact same sort of thing.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

We cover ourselves, and are reluctant to appear naked around the opposite sex.

Most people are also reluctant to appear naked around other people of the same sex.

Quote:

There's a reason we have locker rooms for men, and different locker rooms for women.

There is no reason there are locker rooms for men and different locker rooms for women.

Quote:

The mere sight of a scrotum triggers a response that makes people think they are in the presence of a man. People are funny that way. They tend to react subconsciously to male genitalia as if those genitalia were attached to male individuals. It's instinct. We can't help ourselves that way.

It is common for people to think of their own personal reactions as "natural" or "instinctual" and to claim that other people's personal reactions are less "natural". People are funny that way.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

According to the OP, yes. That's exactly what happened.

No, it didn't.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

A girl saw what she assumed, based on conventional wisdom and her understanding of human physiology, was a naked man.

The physiology of the transwoman in question has not been described in sufficient detail to make the claim that the girl saw a man. It is entirely possible that she saw a person with both male and female characteristics (such as breasts).

Quote:

At the very least, I think we would have to acknowledge that the girls' discomfort is very natural and very normal.

Her discomfort would be very natural and very normal even if she saw a person with other abnormalities, such as unusually shaped or unusual combinations of body parts. For some abnormalities we expect people to just deal with it. For other abnormalities we expect people to hide them, by offering them more private facilities.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Suppose we were to pass a law that said all people must use changing facilities/locker rooms/bathrooms that are appropriate for their biological sex. Would it be true to say that this woman had no place to change?

Yes, that would be true. In fact it is true right now that she has no place to change. If you segregate facilities based on whatever biological distinction, you will always exclude people who won't fit neatly into either category. I think that is the most important reason segregation is wrong. No matter how "seperate but equal" you make it for people who fit neatly into the categories, you'll always end up with a group for whom both facilities are equally unequal.

Quote:

The whole point of the supporters of this person's right to use the women's locker room is that no female should be upset about being naked around a biological male.

Has anyone said that, or is this just something you imagine someone said?

Quote:

In order to accept that this is a hardship for this woman, you have to accept the premise that segregation of the sexes is very important,

No, you just have to accept the premise that people sometimes feel uncomfortable with being naked around other people, especially if they have a somewhat unusual anatomy.

Quote:

She thinks of herself as a woman, and thus feels uncomfortable with nudity in the presence of men.

She likely feels uncomfortable with nudity in the presence of women. That's normal. Most women feel the same way.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

We are told that no one should be upset about seeing a member of the opposite sex naked. We are told that no one should be upset about being naked around a member of the opposite sex. What, then, is the big deal?

The change rooms are not segregated by sex, they are segregated by gender. You are supposing a broken analogy again.

You are using the term "the opposite sex" disingenuously. Nobody is saying that the women's change room should be open to the entire class of "the opposite sex" as you are claiming here. You are confusing one woman who is gendered as a woman with some male sex characteristics with the entire class of "male". If it was a woman with facial hair, you wouldn't suggest she should be fine in the men's change room. Or maybe you are.

You are still trying to position this one woman as being "opposite" of the other women.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The whole point of the supporters of this person's right to use the women's locker room is that no female should be upset about being naked around a biological male.

No, that is not the point.

The idea that this woman, gendered as a woman, should be allowed to be with other women in a women's change room does not mean that anyone is arguing that all people born biologically male should be in a women's change room.

You can't segregate by both sex and gender at the same time without asking someone to not be there at all.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The problem is that the rest of the women can't see this person's state of mind. They can only see her body, and her body is male. Given what they see, their reaction is perfectly normal. The reaction of the other users of that locker room is exactly what we would expect. The "regular" women and girls in the locker room are going to be told by their senses that they are in the presence of a naked man.

So if you saw this person unclothed, you would treat her as a man and assume that she was a man based solely on her body?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

So if you saw this person unclothed, you would treat her as a man and assume that she was a man based solely on her body?

It depends on what she looked like without her clothes.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It depends on what she looked like without her clothes.

well other than that she has a penis, I'm sure you can take a pretty good guess since her clothing is pretty tight.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It depends on what she looked like without her clothes.

It's all about balls for meadmaker.

Quote:

The mere sight of a scrotum triggers a response that makes people think they are in the presence of a man.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It depends on what she looked like without her clothes.

So you'd stand by and watch her undress? What if the lady looked like Rosanne Barr?

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

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by appalling

It's all about balls for 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.