Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Emily's Cat]

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.

What do you consider to be the real potential dangers involved?

 

[p0lka]

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.

to be fair, Meadmaker was the person that first brought up civil rights of seeing teenage girls naked.

The logical result of what they said is that half of us have civil rights to see teenage people naked as long as they have the same genitals as us.

 

[p0lka]

What do you consider to be the real potential dangers involved?

People focusing on genitals and missing intent of people.

like, focusing on the other side of the fence, therefore completely missing what's going on, on your own side.

 

[d4m10n]

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

They do not. My local YMCA has two separate sets of sex-segregated locker rooms, under-18s and adults. Nothing about this arrangement violates any state or federal law.

 

[Elagabalus]

They do not. My local YMCA has two separate sets of sex-segregated locker rooms, under-18s and adults. Nothing about this arrangement violates any state or federal law.

Careful. That might solve this whole "dilemma" right there i.e. adult Colleen has to dress with the adults and the High School girls dress in the under-18s. Problem solved.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

I'm pretty sure that sums up the entire plan.

Once a person states that they have decided they are female, they must be treated as female and allowed access to all the places I'd be arrested for going into.

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.

And are also able to be abused for saying so.

 

[MisAndreG]

Trans women are males (ie men) who feel some kind of discontinuity between their mental and physical states when it comes to sex and gender, and they believe adopting the appearance and mannerisms of the opposite gender, as well as surgically and endocrinologically modifying secondary sex characteristics, to alleviate that incongruity they feel is right for them and will help their mental health: so no they’re not straightforwardly women, but they can imo be accommodated as women in most cases, with exceptions like sports or bathrooms. all the baggage that comes with queer theory and activist fools who think it’s okay for males to be in female spaces needlessly complicates things.

 

[lionking]

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.

This makes perfect sense. Expect this post to be largely ignored, or if it isn't, to be called a TERF...….

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

Care to quote any?

As of yet, I have seen no sources that substantiates the smears against Colleen.

It seems quite clear to me that Emily's Cat has read some source that makes this claim, but has no interest in actually posting it here for criticism. I wonder why that might be?

Could it be that this source is from unsavory, bigoted outlets making wild claims without evidence? Hard to say without review.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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"?

The implication of deliberate exhibitionism for a perverted purpose is clear here, but i have yet to see any evidence to support this smear.

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They do not. My local YMCA has two separate sets of sex-segregated locker rooms, under-18s and adults. Nothing about this arrangement violates any state or federal law.

This seems like a pretty smart policy, as much of the fear of sexual predation usually involves adults perving on minors.

 

[Earthborn]

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

It doesn't. The only reason people think sergregation is needed is because those locker rooms provide insufficient privacy.

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

Kind of depend on which visible sexual characteristics.

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.

If you're only okay with people with female primary sexual characteristics in a women's locker room, then you should also be okay with transmen in the women's locker room -- even though they tend to look like cis-males and are unlikely to show any reason to think they are not. I don't think any other position makes logical sense.

 

[Meadmaker]

Care to quote any?

As of yet, I have seen no sources that substantiates the smears against Colleen.

It seems quite clear to me that Emily's Cat has read some source that makes this claim, but has no interest in actually posting it here for criticism. I wonder why that might be?

Could it be that this source is from unsavory, bigoted outlets making wild claims without evidence? Hard to say without review.

But any outlet that disagrees with what you believe is, by your definition, an unsavory bigoted outlet.

Can I prove that Colleen Brenna Francis enjoyed the fact that girls could see "her" stuff? No. Can I prove that any underage girl actually saw it? No.

You have read the police report. Accepting that report as fact, we can prove that
1) Two members of the high school swim team complained to their coach that there was a man in the locker room.
2) When the coach confronted Ms. Francis, the coach reported seeing "her" exposed genitalis.
3) When the coach confronted Ms. Francis, the coach expressed the opinion that he ought to not use the girls locker room because the young girls who used it weren't used to seeing "that".
4) It's a friggin' locker room, where people change into swimsuits, so of course everyone's private stuff is exposed. That's the whole point of a locker room.


But no, I can[t prove anything and there's no evidence, and it was covered extensively by a site called Pretendbian, but that sure sounds like TERFs to me so they don't count, and it was the subject of a legal activity, but the law firm is bigoted so they don't count, and "she" had an opportunity to avoid exposure by using a different locker room but chose not to do so, and whatever was happening the girls, remember them, the girls? didn't like it but their feelings don't matter.

And that last bit is the real point. You are calling a bunch of teenage girls bigots because they don't want to take their clothes off around a male. (Note: Shift to present tense is deliberate, because exactly the same thing continues today.)

You're entitled to your opinion. It is shared by a lot of people these days, but for Pete's sake admit it. Admit that's what you are doing.

 

[Olmstead]

If you're only okay with people with female primary sexual characteristics in a women's locker room, then you should also be okay with transmen in the women's locker room -- even though they tend to look like cis-males and are unlikely to show any reason to think they are not. I don't think any other position makes logical sense.

I mean ...

I think women who have something against transwomen in female spaces would actually be fine with that. I believe the term is "transmisogyny".

Of course, from a practical perspective, they probably couldn't know, but they would feel comfortable again once they found out. It's funny when you start thinking about these things.

But then, it's easy to come up with cases that will muddy the waters with regards to this topic. What about cis-women that naturally look like men? Cis-men that look like women? Androgyny is a thing. What about post-op transwomen who embrace their masculine looks? Etc., etc.

My larger point was that this separation exists for a reason, and it isn't because female spaces are somewhat intrinsic to the concept of femininity. The reason might be silly, it might be soaked in religious or cultural hang-ups, but the reason has never been "people whose gender identity matches are allowed to undress together".

What it comes down to is this:

Is a woman that refuses to undress in front of a cis-man but is okay with undressing in front of cis-women bigoted?

Is a woman that refuses to undress in front of a transwoman but is okay with undressing in front of cis-women bigoted?

Should the answer to these two questions really be different?

 

[Rolfe]

Narcissistic autogynaephilic men are generally pretty unpleasant, and those who are attracted to pubescent girls are more unpleasant than most. That they have succeeded in hoodwinking almost every authority on the planet into treating them as the most marginalised oppressed minority in existence, to the point where not only the feelings but the safety of pubescent girls comes nowhere if this is in conflict with the autogynaephile's compulsion to insert himself into female-only spaces, is one of the wonders of the 21st century.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But any outlet that disagrees with what you believe is, by your definition, an unsavory bigoted outlet.

Can I prove that Colleen Brenna Francis enjoyed the fact that girls could see "her" stuff? No. Can I prove that any underage girl actually saw it? No.

You have read the police report. Accepting that report as fact, we can prove that
1) Two members of the high school swim team complained to their coach that there was a man in the locker room.
2) When the coach confronted Ms. Francis, the coach reported seeing "her" exposed genitalis.
3) When the coach confronted Ms. Francis, the coach expressed the opinion that he ought to not use the girls locker room because the young girls who used it weren't used to seeing "that".
4) It's a friggin' locker room, where people change into swimsuits, so of course everyone's private stuff is exposed. That's the whole point of a locker room.


But no, I can[t prove anything and there's no evidence, and it was covered extensively by a site called Pretendbian, but that sure sounds like TERFs to me so they don't count, and it was the subject of a legal activity, but the law firm is bigoted so they don't count, and "she" had an opportunity to avoid exposure by using a different locker room but chose not to do so, and whatever was happening the girls, remember them, the girls? didn't like it but their feelings don't matter.

And that last bit is the real point. You are calling a bunch of teenage girls bigots because they don't want to take their clothes off around a male. (Note: Shift to present tense is deliberate, because exactly the same thing continues today.)

You're entitled to your opinion. It is shared by a lot of people these days, but for Pete's sake admit it. Admit that's what you are doing.

You are eliding that the claim has been made, without evidence, that Ms. Francis was exhibiting her genitals in some deliberate way rather than just using a locker room for its intended purposes, which is to change clothes or to use a sauna.

It's quite clear that these anti-trans bigots, like ADF, are attempting to smear Colleen's ordinary use of a locker room as something with perverted intentions, which they do no provide evidence to support.

I take no issue with anyone stating that these girls may have been honestly disturbed to see a penis in the locker room. I suspect many would be. It's perfectly possible to advocate for their position without smearing Colleen as some exhibitionist or voyeur, which is how these anti-trans advocacy outlets are presenting the incident. Their bigoted intent is undeniable.

Emily Cat has yet to come back and provide any evidence for this whopper of a claim. I take the silence as a concession that this is total speculation without a shred of evidence:

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.

Is there any evidence that Colleen was "watching" these girls. The police report indicates she was using the lockers and sauna for the ordinary reasons.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are eliding that the claim has been made, without evidence, that Ms. Francis was exhibiting her genitals in some deliberate way rather than just using a locker room for its intended purposes, which is to change clothes or to use a sauna.

It's quite clear that these anti-trans bigots, like ADF, are attempting to smear Colleen's ordinary use of a locker room as something with perverted intentions, which they do no provide evidence to support.

I take no issue with anyone stating that these girls may have been honestly disturbed to see a penis in the locker room. I suspect many would be. It's perfectly possible to advocate for their position without smearing Colleen as some exhibitionist or voyeur, which is how these anti-trans advocacy outlets are presenting the incident. Their bigoted intent is undeniable.

Emily Cat has yet to come back and provide any evidence for this whopper of a claim. I take the silence as a concession that this is total speculation without a shred of evidence:



Is there any evidence that Colleen was "watching" these girls. The police report indicates she was using the lockers and sauna for the ordinary reasons.

What is the evidence? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He just looks and talks like the sort of person who would do that. That's it. That's all there is. We have looked at what happened, and what he wrote on social media, and watched his interviews, or her interviews or something and based on our highly accurate abillty to judge people's intentions (because I'm told that intentions are very important here), have concluded that Colleen Brenna Francis was enjoying the site of naked female flesh of the youthful sort, and very likely enjoying the demonstration that although he identified as a woman, he was a woman that had male junk.

We have concluded that the reported behavior is consistent with that conclusion. Beyond that, there is no evidence.


The above is not sarcastic. At all. Seriously. The entire evidence for it is my (and others) assessment that the person we saw being interviewed, and whose behavior was described in those documents, enjoyed what "he" was doing.

Any questions?



By the way. You are calling teenage girls bigots if they don't want to take their clothes off in the presence of males.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What is the evidence? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He just looks and talks like the sort of person who would do that. That's it. That's all there is. We have looked at what happened, and what he wrote on social media, and watched his interviews, or her interviews or something and based on our highly accurate abillty to judge people's intentions (because I'm told that intentions are very important here), have concluded that Colleen Brenna Francis was enjoying the site of naked female flesh of the youthful sort, and very likely enjoying the demonstration that although he identified as a woman, he was a woman that had male junk.

We have concluded that the reported behavior is consistent with that conclusion. Beyond that, there is no evidence.


The above is not sarcastic. At all. Seriously. The entire evidence for it is my (and others) assessment that the person we saw being interviewed, and whose behavior was described in those documents, enjoyed what "he" was doing.

Any questions?



By the way. You are calling teenage girls bigots if they don't want to take their clothes off in the presence of males.

I appreciate the honesty. It's rare for people to be so candid that their assumptions about how trans people are just sex perverts is based on nothing but gut instinct.

 

[Meadmaker]

So, in my previous post I said there was nothing but my assessment of his/her intentions to back up the claim that Colleen Brenna Francis was enjoying the use of the women's locker room. That's true, but I want to say a brief something to defend that assessment.

Here's what we know.

1) Ms. Francis is a biological male.
2) Ms. Francis is sexually attracted to females. (He's a self-described lesbian.)

Do we need to go any further? My assessment of a biological male who is attracted to females is that he likes to look at young naked women.

I would think that the extraordinary claim would be that (s)he did not enjoy it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I appreciate the honesty. It's rare for people to be so candid that their assumptions about how trans people are just sex perverts is based on nothing but gut instinct.

I didn't say anything about him/her being a pervert.

ETA: Well, the exhibitionist part is a little bit pervy. Sort of.