Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[caveman1917]

The implication of deliberate exhibitionism for a perverted purpose is clear here

No it isn't, there is no implication made of purpose or deliberation on anything. The statement is descriptive, in that it describes a situation, it is equally consistent with any other assignment of purpose, such as: Colleen was just sitting comfortably whilst unaware of any discomfort by the teenage girls. What it is inconsistent with is accidental exposure, excluding accidental exposure does not imply asserting perverted purpose.

 

[theprestige]

I'm still trying to figure out how getting naked in a shared locker room with other people can be considered "accidental" exposure in any way. It doesn't mean you're intentionally flashing people for your own sexual gratification. But it certainly doesn't lead to conversations like:

"Hey, you're exposing your penis."

"Oh my god! I had no idea! My bad."

 

[Ziggurat]

No it isn't, there is no implication made of purpose or deliberation on anything. The statement is descriptive, in that it describes a situation, it is equally consistent with any other assignment of purpose, such as: Colleen was just sitting comfortably whilst unaware of any discomfort by the teenage girls. What it is inconsistent with is accidental exposure, excluding accidental exposure does not imply asserting perverted purpose.

Of course there's an implication. Implication is not proof. The fact that both scenarios are consistent with the observation may be true, but both scenarios are not equally likely. One of them is far more likely than the other. And that is what makes the implication exist.

 

[caveman1917]

Of course there's an implication. Implication is not proof. The fact that both scenarios are consistent with the observation may be true, but both scenarios are not equally likely. One of them is far more likely than the other. And that is what makes the implication exist.

Which one is more likely seems to depend on who you're asking here. Either way, that would be not so much an implication (which has a logical meaning) but an "I think this one's more likely than that one."

 

[Meadmaker]

Of course there's an implication. Implication is not proof. The fact that both scenarios are consistent with the observation may be true, but both scenarios are not equally likely. One of them is far more likely than the other. And that is what makes the implication exist.

There are three scenarios, not two.

1) Accidental exposure
2) Deliberate exposure for purposes of exhibitionism
3) Normal exposure that occurs as part of the normal use of a locker room/sauna

Number 1 is inconsistent with the facts.

After that, it gets tricky.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I actually don't care if it was "deliberate". She has a penis. And she was in the presence of underage females. Any sane, rational, and caring human would have had the presence of mind to be discrete and cover themselves so as to avoid any potential discomfort on the part of anyone involved.

Clearly, that did not happen. The police report indicates that at least two girls saw her male genitalia and complained about it - the police report does NOT indicate that the two girls were in the sauna at the time they witnessed said genitalia. The only source that makes that claim is the one you provided, and I would contend that it is unlikely to be an unbiased source.

On the other hand, reports at the time indicated that two girls at the time told their coach about it, but that once people started talking there were other girls who had previously seen her penis and scrotum too.

Now, here's something to think on, since the underlying assumption is that transwomen have the "minds" of women, and are women in nature internally.

A WOMAN who has a penis would not EVER have put young girls into that position, because a WOMAN would understand the inherent discomfort and risk of a 45-year-old penis being in the same environment as naked young females!

 

[p0lka]

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?

Definitely go further, how do you feel about 'real' lesbians doing the things you are complaining about?
There's possibly more of them in your private space than your current focus.

My assessment of a biological male who is attracted to females is that he likes to look at young naked women.

My assessment of a biological female who is attracted to males is that she likes to look at young naked men.

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

hmm...

Exhibiting one's hangups is a good way to show the flaws in ones position.

I think there's too much conflating going on between seeing genitals, and treating seeing 'opposite sex' genitals as a threat, for me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Definitely go further, how do you feel about 'real' lesbians doing the things you are complaining about?

I can't speak for Meadmaker specifically, but there are good reasons for females to fear sexual assault from males more than from homosexual females. For one, there's the asymmetry in physical strength: most males are stronger than most females. For another, there's an asymmetry the act of sex and its consequences. Sexual assault from a male carries a higher risk of transmitting STD's, as well as the risk of pregnancy. Sexual assault from a female carries a low risk of transmitting STD's and zero risk of pregnancy. And of course, there's also the fact that males are generally more sexually stimulated by visual signals than females, which is relevant when discussing spaces where females may be naked.

So there's no reason we should expect anyone to feel the same about homosexual females in women's locker rooms the same way they feel about males in women's locker rooms. There are obvious and relevant differences.

 

[Meadmaker]

Definitely go further, how do you feel about 'real' lesbians doing the things you are complaining about?

It's not relevant to the question at hand. Perhaps we can discuss it further as a separate topic;

There's possibly more of them in your private space than your current focus.

I doubt there are many lesbians in my private spaces.

My assessment of a biological female who is attracted to males is that she likes to look at young naked men.

I would think so, although typical male and female sexual responses are different so it isn't a perfect comparison.
ETA: Again, it isn't really relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

No. Most transgender people, and the vast majority of transsexuals are NOT perverts. But some transgender people are. I'm inclined to think that THIS transgender person is pervy.

Her OKCupid profile screenshot

Also, now unable to find...

Her personal blogs talking about her preference for young women as sexual partners, and how much she loves having sex with her penis, and how great that feels, and how taking estrogen makes her feel extra horny.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are three scenarios, not two.

1) Accidental exposure
2) Deliberate exposure for purposes of exhibitionism
3) Normal exposure that occurs as part of the normal use of a locker room/sauna

Number 1 is inconsistent with the facts.

After that, it gets tricky.

I end up hovering around 2.5: Normal exposure that occurs as normal use of a locker room, with the full knowledge that it is outside of social norms for naked penises to be allowed around naked underage girls, and with the expectation that some of those underage girls are likely to see that naked penis and be made uncomfortable by it.

This is a case where, to me, lack of reasonable discretion suggests exhibitionism.

 

[Meadmaker]

I end up hovering around 2.5: Normal exposure that occurs as normal use of a locker room, with the full knowledge that it is outside of social norms for naked penises to be allowed around naked underage girls, and with the expectation that some of those underage girls are likely to see that naked penis and be made uncomfortable by it.

This is a case where, to me, lack of reasonable discretion suggests exhibitionism.

Agreed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Definitely go further, how do you feel about 'real' lesbians doing the things you are complaining about?

It's not actually the same thing.

A lesbian very well might get a kick out of looking at naked women in the locker room. But I don't think a lesbian would generally get a kick out of other women looking at her and being uncomfortable as a result. There's no reason to expect that any other women looking at her would be uncomfortable. Most people are unlikely to know that she is a lesbian. And for most women, seeing other naked women is not discomfiting and there's no perceived potential risk.

Similarly, a gay man might get a kick out of looking at naked men in the locker room, but there's no reason to think that he would get a kick out of other men seeing him naked, as they would not be made uncomfortable by it. Most of the other men won't know he's gay (well, unless he's *really* getting a kick out of looking at them I suppose). And in general, it's not discomfiting to see other naked men in an area that is designed for the exclusive use of naked male people.

This is not the same. This is a naked male-bodied person in a room intended for naked female-bodied people. Any semi-rational person would expect that the sight of a naked male in a women's locker room is going to make those women uncomfortable and intimidated. Even if you don't think it's fair that it causes discomfort and a perceived threat, it does. Even more so given the dramatic age difference. A 45-yo person should be well aware that naked male genitalia in the presence of female minors is not socially acceptable.

So... either Colleen Francis was trying to make a scene and push a media narrative... or Colleen Francis got a kick out of making underage females uncomfortable in the women's locker room.

 

[MisAndreG]

I can't speak for Meadmaker specifically, but there are good reasons for females to fear sexual assault from males more than from homosexual females. For one, there's the asymmetry in physical strength: most males are stronger than most females. For another, there's an asymmetry the act of sex and its consequences. Sexual assault from a male carries a higher risk of transmitting STD's, as well as the risk of pregnancy. Sexual assault from a female carries a low risk of transmitting STD's and zero risk of pregnancy. And of course, there's also the fact that males are generally more sexually stimulated by visual signals than females, which is relevant when discussing spaces where females may be naked.

So there's no reason we should expect anyone to feel the same about homosexual females in women's locker rooms the same way they feel about males in women's locker rooms. There are obvious and relevant differences.

Excellent points. Do you have a source for the lower risk of STD?

 

[p0lka]

I doubt there are many lesbians in my private spaces.

If you are female, I guarantee you that what you define as a private place, ie single locker changing rooms etc, has more lesbians in it than transwomen.

Equally, if you are male, I guarantee you that in what you define as a private place, ie single locker changing rooms etc, has more gay men in it than transmen.

This fascination with genitalia is causing people, who are naturally worried about sexual predators, to focus on things that distract from the pertinent things, intent.
You have to keep your eye on the ball.

 

[p0lka]

I end up hovering around 2.5: Normal exposure that occurs as normal use of a locker room, with the full knowledge that it is outside of social norms for naked penises to be allowed around naked underage girls, and with the expectation that some of those underage girls are likely to see that naked penis and be made uncomfortable by it.

This is a case where, to me, lack of reasonable discretion suggests exhibitionism.

You keep banging on about naked underage girls, how old were they?

I mean, you're not conflating this situation with paedo stuff are you? In which case penis or vagina would be irrelevant?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You keep banging on about naked underage girls, how old were they?

Between the ages of 6 and 18.

I mean, you're not conflating this situation with paedo stuff are you? In which case penis or vagina would be irrelevant?

No, I'm not conflating it. It's social norms and reasonable expectations of behavior.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you are female, I guarantee you that what you define as a private place, ie single locker changing rooms etc, has more lesbians in it than transwomen.

Equally, if you are male, I guarantee you that in what you define as a private place, ie single locker changing rooms etc, has more gay men in it than transmen.

This fascination with genitalia is causing people, who are naturally worried about sexual predators, to focus on things that distract from the pertinent things, intent.
You have to keep your eye on the ball.

You really need to listen to what people are worried about, instead of telling them what they are worried about.

ETA: Or telling them what they ought to be worried about.

 

[The Atheist]

No. Most transgender people, and the vast majority of transsexuals are NOT perverts. But some transgender people are.

Yahoo!

After 3984 pages and eight million posts, you've hit the nail squarely on the head for the entire subject. (outside of the sport)

I'd be very happy for my children to be in the same bathroom/changing room as a genuine trans-person choosing the facilities that suits their "chosen" gender.

Unfortunately, those perverts do exist and trans people want us to ignore that fact simply because they feel it harms their rights.

Boo hoo.

 

[Ziggurat]

Excellent points. Do you have a source for the lower risk of STD?

For example:
https://www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/female-female-sexual-transmission-hiv

This should not surprise anyone: semen is a carrier for STD pathogens, and it’s absence means a primary infection route is not available. This doesn’t mean zero risk, but it definitely means lower risk.