Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[TurkeysGhost]

You are the one that linked to ADF, not any "TERF.". Either show where in this thread a so-called "TERF" has "sided with Christian bigots" or admit that you're just making up random accusations again.

The entire accusation that this trans woman was being a pervert in the women's locker room is a completely unsubstantiated smear originating from bigots. It has been repeated here, a skeptics forum, without a shred of evidence.

I have yet to see a retraction from those repeating this smear, despite pretty clear evidence that it is false.

So will I, to a degree. But the transwoman mentioned up thread a bit, who was using the ladies' locker room during the time that minors on the swim team were changing, and was exposing her male genitalia to the underage girls... I don't think I should treat that person as quite as much of a woman as I would a person with a vagina. I don't think she should be allowed to use that locker room any more. I definitely don't think it's reasonable that the girl's swim team ends up having to use considerably smaller accommodations in order to not have someone flashing penises at them while they change.

I say exposed, because that seem to fit the situation more effectively. It's hard to consider it an "accidental" flash, when the adult person is sitting, legs spread, watching the girls. And that is what the girls in question reported as the situation.

The transwoman in question didn't even deny it, really. Her entire argument is that she's a woman, so she has a right to be there and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

The only sources I can find this untrue telling of the story are bigoted Christian advocacy groups, like the ADF. I will note that Emily's Cat has yet to address the evidence that strongly indicates that this smearing of Francis is almost certainly untrue, and clearly motivated by anti-trans bigotry.

 

[caveman1917]

The entire accusation that this trans woman was being a pervert in the women's locker room is a completely unsubstantiated smear originating from bigots. It has been repeated here, a skeptics forum, without a shred of evidence.

I have yet to see a retraction from those repeating this smear, despite pretty clear evidence that it is false.

Even assuming that someone else made a false accusation about some trans woman, that doesn't in any way make your false accusation any more true. You are responsible for your claims, and it's patently obvious that you are the one who linked to ADF and not some "TERF" in this thread. "Someone purportedly made a false accusation about some trans woman therefor we just get to make up whatever random **** we like"?

 

[Meadmaker]

The entire accusation that this trans woman was being a pervert in the women's locker room is a completely unsubstantiated smear originating from bigots.

Said bigots being the teenage girls on a high school swim team.


You do get that ADF didn't start the case, right? They had clients they were representing.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Said bigots being the teenage girls on a high school swim team.


You do get that ADF didn't start the case, right? They had clients they were representing.

The claims of the ADF are entirely unsubstantiated by the actual evidence of the case.

I'm curious why their version of events is being presented, without citation, as truth despite their obvious agenda here as an explicitly bigoted advocacy group.

Is there even a "case"? The cops showed up and realized there was nothing wrong, a bunch of parents got pissed off that their demands to chase out a trans woman weren't going to be met, and that was the end of it. Did the ADF ever file any kind of lawsuit?

Seems to me they wanted to smear this trans woman as a sex predator as part of their lobbying effort to deny trans people civil rights.

 

[Meadmaker]

The claims of the ADF are entirely unsubstantiated by the actual evidence of the case.

I'm curious why their version of events is being presented, without citation, as truth despite their obvious agenda here as an explicitly bigoted advocacy group.

Because their version of events preceded their involvement. I remember the case as it happened, and that version of events was presented before ADF got involved. ADF was repeating the claims of their clients.

Is there even a "case"? The cops showed up and realized there was nothing wrong,

"Wrong" meaning "illegal". Whether or not there was something "wrong" is a matter of debate. Whether or not the actions ought to be illegal is a matter of debate.

a bunch of parents got pissed off that their demands to chase out a trans woman weren't going to be met,

A bunch of teenage girls didn't want to take their clothes off in the presence of the trans woman.

and that was the end of it. Did the ADF ever file any kind of lawsuit?

Seems to me they wanted to smear this trans woman as a sex predator as part of their lobbying effort to deny trans people civil rights.

Specifically, her civil right to see teenage girls naked.

I don't always go to that level of nitpicking on a post, but in this case what you are doing is trying to deflect away from what really happened. A group of teenage girls did not want to take off their clothes in the presence of someone who, in their view, was a man. They based their opinion of his manly status on the fact that he had a penis. They knew that he had a penis because they saw it.


All across the country, there are cases where teenage girls don't want to take off their clothes in the presence of people they know to be male. The lawyers at ADF didn't complain. They represented their clients. The parents didn't initiate the complaints. The parents were supporting their daughters. Call these girls bigots if you like, but don't ignore them.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't always go to that level of nitpicking on a post, but in this case what you are doing is trying to deflect away from what really happened. A group of teenage girls did not want to take off their clothes in the presence of someone who, in their view, was a man. They based their opinion of his manly status on the fact that he had a penis. They knew that he had a penis because they saw it.

Is this true? All evidence indicates that she was in the sauna. The police report only indicates that the complaining coach is the only one that actually came into direct contact with Ms. Francis.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is this true? All evidence indicates that she was in the sauna. The police report only indicates that the complaining coach is the only one that actually came into direct contact with Ms. Francis.

Maybe the girls were lying. The girls. You remember them? You don't like to talk about them much.

This case made news at the time. There were interviews.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Maybe the girls were lying. The girls. You remember them? You don't like to talk about them much.

This case made news at the time. There were interviews.

Perhaps people should quote these before smearing Ms. Francis. I have yet to see any source that supports the claim that she was doing anything improper, or even in the immediate locker room with the swimmers. The police report mentions her being confronted in the sauna, which means they sought her out to force the issue.

 

[Darat]

Isn't there laws against flashing? (Don't know the correct legal wording but certainly in the UK flashing is illegal, regardless of sex and location.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Isn't there laws against flashing? (Don't know the correct legal wording but certainly in the UK flashing is illegal, regardless of sex and location.)

The original report was investigated as possible "indecent exposure", but wasn't pursued for lack of evidence of any criminal behavior. Being trans in the sauna isn't a crime.

 

[Meadmaker]

Isn't there laws against flashing? (Don't know the correct legal wording but certainly in the UK flashing is illegal, regardless of sex and location.)

And here we go again.

Being naked in a locker room is not "flashing". That's the whole purpose of a locker room. It's a place where it's ok to be naked. If I take a shower at Planet Fitness, everyone in the locker room can see me naked. They can even see the naughty bits. That's not a crime. That's using the locker room for its intended purpose.

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps people should quote these before smearing Ms. Francis. I have yet to see any source that supports the claim that she was doing anything improper, or even in the immediate locker room with the swimmers. The police report mentions her being confronted in the sauna, which means they sought her out to force the issue.

Anything to deny the obvious.

The people who complained were girls on the swim team. They told their coach. A whole host of people ended up getting involved.

Now let us get to the key, all important, question. Did the girls who complained see Colleen's penis? I cannot prove that they did. I just know that there were a lot of references, including in the police report, saying that "her" genitals were visible. Except, that isn't the key, all important point after all.

The widely reported allegation that "her" penis was visible, not just at the time when confronted by the coach, but at the time that the girls made the complaint, is just really a minor detail that makes this particular incident somewhat more jarring than all the others like it. Remember the phrase "Can she put the towel over her eyes?"

That's what this, and every other incident like it, is all about. The girls who complained knew that there was a biological male using that locker room, and that biological male could see them naked and they didn't like it.

(Note: News stories at the time did not indicate any probe into whether the girls ought to have been arrested for flashing. No explanation has been given for this oversight. Maybe someone can think of something.)

The extra bonus details make this incident just a little extra squicky than every other similar incident. The age difference. The fact that the transwoman is a self declared lesbian. The fact that her penis were clearly visible at at least certain times during locker room use is just one more factor, but not a particularly extraordinary factor.

In addition to the sauna, she used the pool. She changed from street clothes to swimsuit in the locker room. How the heck can you do that without showing your privates? Yes, I know it is possible, but do you think she did that? Because if she had the least bit of concern about showing her privates, she could have used the small locker room that was offered to her. She chose not to, so the girls opted to use that room instead.

Let's repeat that for emphasis. If she had been concerned about concealing her male genitalia, there was a convenient option for doing so.

Call the girls bigots if you want, but don't ignore them. They are the ones who didn't want a male to watch them undress. Not the coach. Not the parents. Not the lawyers. If there are bigots in this story, it was the teenaged girls.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Anything to deny the obvious.

The people who complained were girls on the swim team. They told their coach. A whole host of people ended up getting involved.

Now let us get to the key, all important, question. Did the girls who complained see Colleen's penis? I cannot prove that they did. I just know that there were a lot of references, including in the police report, saying that "her" genitals were visible. Except, that isn't the key, all important point after all.

The widely reported allegation that "her" penis was visible, not just at the time when confronted by the coach, but at the time that the girls made the complaint, is just really a minor detail that makes this particular incident somewhat more jarring than all the others like it. Remember the phrase "Can she put the towel over her eyes?"

That's what this, and every other incident like it, is all about. The girls who complained knew that there was a biological male using that locker room, and that biological male could see them naked and they didn't like it.

(Note: News stories at the time did not indicate any probe into whether the girls ought to have been arrested for flashing. No explanation has been given for this oversight. Maybe someone can think of something.)

The extra bonus details make this incident just a little extra squicky than every other similar incident. The age difference. The fact that the transwoman is a self declared lesbian. The fact that her penis were clearly visible at at least certain times during locker room use is just one more factor, but not a particularly extraordinary factor.

In addition to the sauna, she used the pool. She changed from street clothes to swimsuit in the locker room. How the heck can you do that without showing your privates? Yes, I know it is possible, but do you think she did that? Because if she had the least bit of concern about showing her privates, she could have used the small locker room that was offered to her. She chose not to, so the girls opted to use that room instead.

Let's repeat that for emphasis. If she had been concerned about concealing her male genitalia, there was a convenient option for doing so.

Call the girls bigots if you want, but don't ignore them. They are the ones who didn't want a male to watch them undress. Not the coach. Not the parents. Not the lawyers. If there are bigots in this story, it was the teenaged girls.

This is what Emily's Cat said:

I say exposed, because that seem to fit the situation more effectively. It's hard to consider it an "accidental" flash, when the adult person is sitting, legs spread, watching the girls. And that is what the girls in question reported as the situation.

The transwoman in question didn't even deny it, really. Her entire argument is that she's a woman, so she has a right to be there and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Where is the evidence that Ms. Francis was putting on a private show for these girls in the locker room?

I can honestly believe that some of these girls might have had an objection to seeing a trans woman in the locker room, but there's no evidence to support this smear about Colleen was getting some perverted thrill out of being there.

 

[Darat]

And here we go again.



Being naked in a locker room is not "flashing". That's the whole purpose of a locker room. It's a place where it's ok to be naked. If I take a shower at Planet Fitness, everyone in the locker room can see me naked. They can even see the naughty bits. That's not a crime. That's using the locker room for its intended purpose.

Who has claimed being naked in a changing room is flashing?

 

[Olmstead]

Either it makes sense for locker rooms to be separated based on sex, or it doesn't.

Either it makes sense for locker rooms to be separated based on visible sexual characteristics, or it doesn't.

If you're okay with a pre-op transwoman being in a women's locker room, you should also be okay with a cis-male being in a women's locker room. I don't think any other position makes logical sense. And that's fine of course, I don't mind the idea of everything being unisex, but there is no other position that has anything to do with reality.

 

[caveman1917]

This is what Emily's Cat said:



Where is the evidence that Ms. Francis was putting on a private show for these girls in the locker room?

I can honestly believe that some of these girls might have had an objection to seeing a trans woman in the locker room, but there's no evidence to support this smear about Colleen was getting some perverted thrill out of being there.

Can you quote where anyone claims that "Ms Francis was putting on a private show for these girls in the locker room"? Can you quote where anyone claims that "Colleen was getting some perverted thrill out of being there"?

 

[p0lka]

Who has claimed being naked in a changing room is flashing?

One poster did a while back

So will I, to a degree. But the transwoman mentioned up thread a bit, who was using the ladies' locker room during the time that minors on the swim team were changing, and was exposing her male genitalia to the underage girls... I don't think I should treat that person as quite as much of a woman as I would a person with a vagina. I don't think she should be allowed to use that locker room any more. I definitely don't think it's reasonable that the girl's swim team ends up having to use considerably smaller accommodations in order to not have someone flashing penises at them while they change.

there were questions about intent and whether a vagina would be construed as flashing and that's where the conversation went.

 

[Meadmaker]

I can honestly believe that some of these girls might have had an objection to seeing a trans woman in the locker room, but there's no evidence to support this smear about Colleen was getting some perverted thrill out of being there.

I think the impression that Colleen was getting a perverted thrill came primarily from Colleen's writings on social media and interviews at the time, including with Colleen.

 

[p0lka]

This statement irked me

Specifically, her civil right to see teenage girls naked.

following that logic, females have the civil right to see teenage girls naked?

Do males have the civil right to see teenage boys naked?

nonsense.

also, focusing on the seeing of genitals rather than the intent of who they're attached to, i feel, is missing the danger.

one shouldn't let prudishness blind one to the real potential dangers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It seems to boil down to a position where Suburban Turkey is taking the position that it is the right of an adult male to undress in the presence of female minors, provided that adult male claims to be a woman. If the female minors object to the person with a penis being naked in their presence, while they are also naked... then those female minors (and anyone who supports them) are bigots and have no right to object to penises in their naked presence.