Leelah Alcorn, transgender teen, commited suicide

[Meadmaker]

I'm not sure what makes you think you're in a position to know what women in general will or won't tolerate in a locker room...

Nor am I sure what makes you think that you are in such a position.


I doubt that either one of us is particularly well qualified, any more than the average person, to speak for the general population, or even for the approximately 50% of the population with which we share gender self-identification.

But enough about me. This forum is supposed to be about ideas, not people. The source of the argument is not supposed to matter. Only the argument itself is supposed to be significant.

I have put forward three claims when it comes to locker rooms.

1. Locker rooms are places where nudity, or at least states of undress not encountered in normal public places, are common.
2. Most women would prefer to use locker rooms that are gender segregated.
3. Most, but not all, women, would feel uncomfortable sharing a locker room with a transwoman, if that transwoman had visible male genitalia.

Frankly, I don't think any of those claims are even controversial, but perhaps someone can provide additional data that would disprove them. It's true that no riots have broken out, but fights have been started, arrests have been made, lawsuits have been filed, additional, private, rooms have been made available to keep the transwoman and some "regular" women separated.

Now, it might be that the attitude of intolerance displayed by the women who object may be the subject of derision in some quarters. It may be becoming less common as we become more enlightened as a society. Perhaps those who see a penis and just have that knee jerk reaction that a man is attached will become more educated and realize the error of their ways. Those are separate issues. I'm simply saying that, these days, in most English-speaking nations (never mind the rest ,of the world), most women would feel more comfortable if, while in a locker room, they didn't see anyone's penis, whether that penis was on a man or a woman.

 

[Meadmaker]

I can only speak for myself and women I know, but none of us had a problem with a transwomen who used to attend our gym sharing our locker room. Now, she was shy and always changed in the stalls and didn't shower there. But if she had, I truly wouldn't have minded.

Now, this was when I lived in a much more liberal/progressive/whatever city. In the town where I live now (temporarily!), that sort of thing would be unlikely to fly. And I think that sucks.

"Eeek, a penis! My fragile feminine eyes, oh my stars, deliver me!" Please. We're adults. I guess it's unkind of me to mock someone's personal comforts or levels of comfort that way, but I can't help it. It's silly. What's the bad old penis going to do, even if we do happen to glimpse it?

Is it different if it's the sort of locker room where there are children in addition to adults? Um, maybe. I'll have to think about that one a bit.

For food for thought, I suggest googling "Colleen Brenna".


I think in the situation you described, many people would react as you did. The person in question was obviously in an unfortunate position, and was obviously going out of her way to be as considerate as she could be to make people comfortable, and most people would reciprocate. When all is said and done, being seen naked is no big deal. The thing that makes women reluctant to take off their clothes around men is that they don't feel safe doing so, and that obviously wasn't an issue. So, while I'm sure many of the women who shared the locker rooms had momentary misgivings, the overall atmosphere was such that no one gave it too much thought once it was obvious that everything was ok.

Now, though, imagine that the transwoman in question was not the least bit shy and seemed not at all reluctant to show off the man bits.

I can't speak for you, personally, but I'm confident that most women wouldn't feel good about the situation.

 

[Butter!]

For food for thought, I suggest googling "Colleen Brenna".


I think in the situation you described, many people would react as you did. The person in question was obviously in an unfortunate position, and was obviously going out of her way to be as considerate as she could be to make people comfortable, and most people would reciprocate. When all is said and done, being seen naked is no big deal. The thing that makes women reluctant to take off their clothes around men is that they don't feel safe doing so, and that obviously wasn't an issue. So, while I'm sure many of the women who shared the locker rooms had momentary misgivings, the overall atmosphere was such that no one gave it too much thought once it was obvious that everything was ok.

Now, though, imagine that the transwoman in question was not the least bit shy and seemed not at all reluctant to show off the man bits.

I can't speak for you, personally, but I'm confident that most women wouldn't feel good about the situation.

Well, again, I can only speak for myself. And I can assure you, I wouldn't give a toss. But I'm, I guess, unusually open about such things. I'm not sure why. My parents are Catholic and I don't think they even change in front of each other, lol. (Lol because it's funny, not because it's a joke - I really don't think they do.) I was raised to worry about nudity and be ashamed of it, but it didn't take. I also see nudity and sexuality as wholly separate things which have an overlapping Venn diagram area - an area that is scarcely present in public locker rooms. So, I reckon I'm not in any position to appoint myself a spokesperson for women everywhere.

But I do think that if the situation could be examined purely logically (which is admittedly hard with topics like this), people could see that there's really no threat. Especially in a public venue.

I googled that name you said and found porn. Yay! But I'm assuming that's not what you meant, so is there another search term I should add?

 

[TomB]

Would it bother you if a man pretended to be transsexual to access the locker room for voyeuristic purposes? Would it bother other women at the gym?

It's not necessarily a problem with the transsexual person, but blurring the lines on the rules opens up the potential for abuse.

On the other hand, at my gym, with a few exceptions (generally older men) the guys don't usually get completely naked in the main locker room area. The showers are individual stalls with a changing area and curtains. I can't speak for the women's locker room. I just assume it would be pretty much the same. If so, coed locker rooms wouldn't be that big of a deal to my way of thinking. I think grownups can handle seeing each other in their underwear. That would kind of eliminate the issue.

 

[Butter!]

Would it bother you if a man pretended to be transsexual to access the locker room for voyeuristic purposes? Would it bother other women at the gym?

It's not necessarily a problem with the transsexual person, but blurring the lines on the rules opens up the potential for abuse.

On the other hand, at my gym, with a few exceptions (generally older men) the guys don't usually get completely naked in the main locker room area. The showers are individual stalls with a changing area and curtains. I can't speak for the women's locker room. I just assume it would be pretty much the same. If so, coed locker rooms wouldn't be that big of a deal to my way of thinking. I think grownups can handle seeing each other in their underwear. That would kind of eliminate the issue.

No, it actually would not bother me. But that is not the point.

That is a ridiculous argument. I hear it a lot, and I'm growing tired of it. It's absurd. And here's why.

There isn't a guard at the door to the locker room checking ID's. A man could do that now, if he really wanted to, and put a little effort into a disguise. There are "manly looking" women out there. A dress, a padded bra, a shave and a little makeup, and he could easily sleep by. Even better, he could sneak in and lie in wait. Skip the dress entirely.

And what about all the lesbians that are inevitably lurking in public locker rooms and restrooms? Even harder to spot, those tricky ladies. Maybe they're ogling me as I change. How would I know?

I don't know, and that's the "risk" of changing in public. Such is life. Paranoia is no reason to crack down on transwomen just trying to live their lives.

 

[TomB]

That is a ridiculous argument. I hear it a lot, and I'm growing tired of it. It's absurd. And here's why.

To be clear, I don't think this is a real problem and I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm asking based on the results of searching "Colleen Brenna." When I did the search, it led me to a site about "pretendbians." The site accused this person of faking being a mtf transsexual lesbian but really being a pervert. (And yes, there's also a porn star by that name.)

I actually think you are correct. It is absurd. Segregated locker rooms only give the illusion of freedom from unwanted scrutiny. But it's a perception that makes some people feel safer. (Even if they aren't.) I don't even think it's that important to have segregated locker rooms.

My mom, however, may disagree. But she's in her eighties.

ETA: From a Fox News article...this refers to Colleen Brenna. (I don't think I can post links yet.)

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.

Students from nearby Olympia High School as well as children at a local swimming club share locker rooms with the college.

According to a police report, the mother of a 17-year-old girl complained after her daughter saw the transgender individual walking naked in the locker room. A female swim coach confronted the man sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself. She ordered him to leave and called police.

The coach later apologized when she discovered the man was transgendered but explained there were girls using the facility as young as six years old who weren’t used to seeing male genitals.

 

[Pup]

Here's the complicated problem in the issue of the preference of sex partners.

Nobody (usually) cares much if an individual dislikes blondes, or short women, or tall men, or whatever. But a problem occurs if enough people vocally dislike a certain category and make it a thing. Imagine if there were groups of people discussing how awful short women were, and protestors (or worse) gathering around every wedding to a short woman, and discussions about how exactly to define short (is it under 5'3"? 5'? Or at least 4" shorter than the husband?)

Short women would find themselves at least made fun of, and perhaps seriously rejected as wives and girlfriends. Their lives would be impacted, not because a few random individuals didn't like short women, but because it was a thing--fostered, spread, made public, encouraged, perhaps even attempts at being legislated.

It's happened with interracial marriages, with gay marriages, with transexuals wanting to marry the opposite sex after transition.

But where's the starting point? I think there would be little objection to a few people sitting around saying, "I'd never marry a woman taller than me," "I like redheads," "I like Asian chicks," "[a white woman] I'd never marry a black man." But when society's horror, protesters, lynch mobs and legislation prevented black men from marrying white women, there was a problem.

People are going to draw the line differently. Some are going to jump quickly and nip in the bud anything that sounds like sharing that could normalize an opinion. Others are going to let personal opinion alone but fight legislation, protests, and obvious preaching.

I don't really know where the line is personally. I'm admittely tender-hearted on the idea of any category of people being rejected out-of-hand by many of their potential mates, because finding love is hard enough. But people have individual preferences and as long as they don't become too widespread, there's always someone for somebody and they can marry or live together in peace. But how widespread is widespread? What starts or encourages categorical prejudice? Is it easier to stop it when it's small or wait and tackle legisation, speeches, policies or protests? I don't know.

 

[Cavemonster]

Here's the complicated problem in the issue of the preference of sex partners.

Nobody (usually) cares much if an individual dislikes blondes, or short women, or tall men, or whatever. But a problem occurs if enough people vocally dislike a certain category and make it a thing. Imagine if there were groups of people discussing how awful short women were, and protestors (or worse) gathering around every wedding to a short woman, and discussions about how exactly to define short (is it under 5'3"? 5'? Or at least 4" shorter than the husband?)

Short women would find themselves at least made fun of, and perhaps seriously rejected as wives and girlfriends. Their lives would be impacted, not because a few random individuals didn't like short women, but because it was a thing--fostered, spread, made public, encouraged, perhaps even attempts at being legislated.

It's happened with interracial marriages, with gay marriages, with transexuals wanting to marry the opposite sex after transition.

But where's the starting point? I think there would be little objection to a few people sitting around saying, "I'd never marry a woman taller than me," "I like redheads," "I like Asian chicks," "[a white woman] I'd never marry a black man." But when society's horror, protesters, lynch mobs and legislation prevented black men from marrying white women, there was a problem.

People are going to draw the line differently. Some are going to jump quickly and nip in the bud anything that sounds like sharing that could normalize an opinion. Others are going to let personal opinion alone but fight legislation, protests, and obvious preaching.

I don't really know where the line is personally. I'm admittely tender-hearted on the idea of any category of people being rejected out-of-hand by many of their potential mates, because finding love is hard enough. But people have individual preferences and as long as they don't become too widespread, there's always someone for somebody and they can marry or live together in peace. But how widespread is widespread? What starts or encourages categorical prejudice? Is it easier to stop it when it's small or wait and tackle legisation, speeches, policies or protests? I don't know.

I think there's a clear line between "I would never marry someone X" and "I'm going to become involved when someone else wants to marry someone X".

I don't really see a slippery slope between them and I don't see widespreadness of the first being on the same spectrum as the second. They're orthogonal.

Many many people are not attracted to people over 400 lbs . It's almost certainly greater numbers than those not attracted to the same sex, or trans people. Yet, I've never seen protests against fat marriage. Personal preference and public action have a fairly clear line between them.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't really know where the line is personally. I'm admittely tender-hearted on the idea of any category of people being rejected out-of-hand by many of their potential mates, because finding love is hard enough. But people have individual preferences and as long as they don't become too widespread, there's always someone for somebody and they can marry or live together in peace. But how widespread is widespread? What starts or encourages categorical prejudice? Is it easier to stop it when it's small or wait and tackle legisation, speeches, policies or protests? I don't know.

Is there any legislation anywhere to say that people have to not discriminate about who they would date/sleep with based on certain, ultimately arbitrary, criteria? That there are social and personal consequences that maybe need addressing is something else. I imagine people with significant facial disfigurements, or who are butters ugly have a hard time as well. Society can be cruel.

 

[Belz...]

You dont think it should be discouraged?

I'm asking you a question. Answering it with a question is rude and silly.

You seem to be under the impression that pedophilia is a choice. So I ask again: Would you not allow pedophiles their preferences (and nothing else) ?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Your first paragraph, I completely agree with. Your second - WTF?

You seriously equate someone having insurmountable inborn genital/physical preferences to a racist bigot who would dump someone because of the race of a former lover of theirs? How can you justify that?

Am I misreading you?

ETA - Bisexual and pansexual people exist all over the place. But the reason we have terms for those sorts of sexualities is because they don't apply to everyone. Heterosexuality is not bigotry. Homosexuality is not bigotry.

It seems to me that you're saying anyone who isn't bi- or pansexual is wrong or somehow unethical. Surely this isn't so. Please clarify?

And not all bi sexuals are pansexuals. Plenty wouldn't date a transperson as well.

As for the example, there are plenty of people saying they wouldn't judge someone on partner choice for any reason. Why is that so fundamentally different from refusing to date someone who had more sexual partners than you or more than you are comfortable with? People are saying that they wouldn't judge someone on their partner criteria and this is a great reducto ad absurdum example.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"What is an ethical pedophile?"

Some one who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children but knows that acting on such an attraction is unethical and immoral. But I guess you are more worried about the attraction being fundamentally unethical than the child abuse.

Fundamentally it isn't so different than a rape fetish but there are ethical ways to play around with those.

 

[ponderingturtle]

On the subject of condemning the parents:

Let's keep in mind we know almost nothing about the child and her relationships or her history. We see everything as if being transgender were the only issue this kid had, but we don't know that. I was critical of the parents for removing her contact with her social network by pulling her out of normal school, but even in that case, we don't know if there were other issues or reasons to pull her out.

We also know that the variety of therapy they put her in is considered abuse and unethical by broad sections of the mental health industry.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You dont think it should be discouraged?

Abusing children should be discouraged. How do you propose to effectively discourage an attraction? By lumping all people who feel an attraction together with people who abuse children you are making it very difficult for those who do not want to abuse children to get the support they need to not do so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nor am I sure what makes you think that you are in such a position.


I doubt that either one of us is particularly well qualified, any more than the average person, to speak for the general population, or even for the approximately 50% of the population with which we share gender self-identification.

But enough about me. This forum is supposed to be about ideas, not people. The source of the argument is not supposed to matter. Only the argument itself is supposed to be significant.

I have put forward three claims when it comes to locker rooms.

1. Locker rooms are places where nudity, or at least states of undress not encountered in normal public places, are common.
2. Most women would prefer to use locker rooms that are gender segregated.
3. Most, but not all, women, would feel uncomfortable sharing a locker room with a transwoman, if that transwoman had visible male genitalia.

Frankly, I don't think any of those claims are even controversial, but perhaps someone can provide additional data that would disprove them. It's true that no riots have broken out, but fights have been started, arrests have been made, lawsuits have been filed, additional, private, rooms have been made available to keep the transwoman and some "regular" women separated.

Now, it might be that the attitude of intolerance displayed by the women who object may be the subject of derision in some quarters. It may be becoming less common as we become more enlightened as a society. Perhaps those who see a penis and just have that knee jerk reaction that a man is attached will become more educated and realize the error of their ways. Those are separate issues. I'm simply saying that, these days, in most English-speaking nations (never mind the rest ,of the world), most women would feel more comfortable if, while in a locker room, they didn't see anyone's penis, whether that penis was on a man or a woman.

So clearly we need to have genital inspectors at the entrance to all restrooms and locker rooms.

 

[Meadmaker]

To be clear, I don't think this is a real problem and I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm asking based on the results of searching "Colleen Brenna." When I did the search, it led me to a site about "pretendbians." The site accused this person of faking being a mtf transsexual lesbian but really being a pervert. (And yes, there's also a porn star by that name.)

Yes. The Washington state person is who I was referring to. Didn't know about a porn star, but her name is "Colleen Brennan", with an n at the end. In a thread devoted to that person, who I really have a hard time calling "her", I ended up posting an image of a wolf in sheep's clothing with the caption "Colleen Mac Tir - Trans-sheep". Man or woman? Hard to say. Creepy person? Yeah.


I don't want to get too bogged down in a conversation about transsexual locker rooms. Been there done that. But there is a common thread between the OP, the locker rooms, the mating preferences, and most of the other themes in this wide ranging thread.

Here at JREF/ISF, we're a pretty tolerant bunch. We'll go along with people who don't harm anyone, and think other people ought to as well. Outside of liberal bastions, more people are becoming more accepting of the idea that people really do have gender identification issues and sometimes the easiest way of dealing with it is to just go along self identification because, in most cases, there's no harm in doing so.

However, most people, and in this case that includes me, have limits on how far we'll accept that self identification. There's a difference between a regular woman and a transwoman. Yes, sex matters. Man and woman are meaningful terms, and transpeople straddle the line, but most of us will never say that they have completely, 100%, crossed it. When forced to make a binary decision we might put them in the category of their mind instead of the category of their genes, or jeans, but they are female with an asterisk. For some people, they'll accept it right up until their own bedrooms. For me, I'll accept it in any case where the anatomy is invisible. Other people have different limits, but most people have some sort of limit. Should we? Is gender really all in your head, so whatever is in your particular head should be what everyone else reacts to? I don't think that's possible.

ETA: And more elaboration would take some time. I do think that we should accommodate people whose minds and bodies don't match. When I meet transpeople, I don't insist on referring to them as their birth gender, and if they actually go through with the surgery, I can't think of anything other than sports eligibility where they ought to be treated as their birth gender. More than that, things get complicated.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes, and so a guy wants to date someone who is a female gender.

Isn't that what a trans-woman is?

For YOU. What you keep failing to understand is that for others, me included, it is not the sole criteria.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

You are. As explained multiple time.

You meet an attractive woman, you ask her out, you date, you are having a great time, it starts getting heavy and you discover that she is a trans-female and has a penis. Now, none of the things that attracted you to her so far have gone away.

Yes something went away: it turned out it was not a woman. the sine qua non criteria which started the whole things.

Why is it so hard for you to accept this ?

The rest, is NIL once you find out the person do not belong to the type of people you feel sexualy attracted to.

She looks just the same as she did when you found her attractive, she still makes you laugh, she still likes to do the same things she did before. Do those things not appeal to you any more? They should, because those are apparently things you like. Finding that all along she had a penis does not change her sense of humor that you liked.

But he (or she if you prefer) isn't the same. *perception* is extremely important in love, sex, and seduction.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sure pg understands all that. He's just trying to take an extreme-tolerant position, even if it doesn't apply to personal tastes.

 

[shuttlt]

ETA: And more elaboration would take some time. I do think that we should accommodate people whose minds and bodies don't match. When I meet transpeople, I don't insist on referring to them as their birth gender, and if they actually go through with the surgery, I can't think of anything other than sports eligibility where they ought to be treated as their birth gender. More than that, things get complicated.

Why not sports eligibility? It's all governed by arbitrary conventions anyway. Are all ethnic groups equally good at sport? We don't think about banning Ethiopians and Kenyans from marathons because they are so much better than everybody else. Society could choose to let trans folks compete as their chosen gender. You'd certainly see a lot more mtf people doing well and winning things.

 

[Butter!]

ETA: From a Fox News article...this refers to Colleen Brenna. (I don't think I can post links yet.)

Ah, I must have been too hasty clicking on results.

Earlier in the thread (and I don't blame you if you didn't see it, as it's getting to be a long one!) I mentioned that the situation might be a bit different in the case of locker rooms where children as well as adults are changing and said I'd have to think about that one some more. I am still deciding my position on that.

But as far as gyms and colleges and many other places which are populated by changing adults only, I don't see any problem whatsoever. Even less so with public restrooms whether there are children or not since pretty much everything is done in the stalls. (Even if a pre-op transwoman prefers to use a urinal, it's not an option in public ladies' rooms. So no problem there, either. )