It's the same issue with the Drag stuff. There've been several cases of drag performers involved with very young children that have ended up being pedophiles. But the organizations supporting drag story hour, or drag performance days for young kids, or primary school kids dressing in drag-like clothing and shaking their behinds for dollars alongside drag performers don't take it seriously. Instead, we get a refrain about how horrible we are for pointing out the lack of safeguarding and appropriateness. We get called names for saying "hey, why didn't anyone vet this drag performer who was waggling their crotch at kids, and see that they were a sex offender who committed crimes against children in the past?". But none of those organizations have come forward to say "Holy cow, that's a problem, we're changing our policies and doing everything we can to make sure this never happens again!"It seems to me that the people dismissing this article with "It's only one or two people and they weren't even trans themselves" are missing the point. It's about the culture of acceptance of paedophiles within the T part of the laughingly-named LGBTQ+++ "community" (which is all about the T and the Q, and which vilifies the L part). That dodgy guys are not checked up on for a dodgy past, that their dodgy activities are at best ignored, and that when they're finally brought to book, the organisations they founded show not the slightest degree of self-reflection, and no sign at all that they intend to improve their child safeguarding procedures. The offenders are simply erased, and it's business as usual.
LGBTQ+ has a paedophile problem | The Critic Magazine
The question of whether predators are hiding in plain sight, in a movement graced by an unexplained plus sign, has always struck me as clinically naivethecritic.co.uk
When these organisations, and the organisations that support them - like the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and indeed the SNP - start taking this situation seriously and calling for a root-and-branch reform to ensure that there are no more of the same still in the fold and that no more will be able to join, when they start ensuring that everyone in contact with children is thoroughly vetted and DBS checked, when they start pro-actively promoting safeguarding and react with due horror to any atrocity that nevertheless happens, I might stop saying, burn the lot of them. That time is not yet.
I know the picture. And perhaps Izzard isn't actually masturbating... but whatever they're doing is generally considered inappropriate for a male to do in public, let alone when standing in a female line for a female facility. And it's something you would never catch a female doing.
Not while in visible range of many other humans.
Yeah... skim less, read more. There's a reason I said virtually all.
I implicitly consent to sharing a changing room with every other female in there because I know beforehand that it's the FEMALE CHANGING ROOM and that it is a space in which other females are likely to be partially or fully naked.
Okay, but this one might be, or at least it's not obvious why it wouldn't be.
Okay, so (1) males who say they are trans and like men, (2) males who say they are trans and like (themselves as) women, & (3) males who say they are trans but don't sincerely want to physically transition. I hastily lumped them altogether because they are all making essentially the same ask when it comes to female spaces, etc.
Just asking the question... searching for ideas that might apply. I don't know whether the obvious argument implied is sound or not yet. I'll have to think about it. It's not a prepared statement. It's the thought process, itself. I'm not being disingenuous.
Same reason that schizophrenia isn't an ADA-qualifying disability. Or bipolar disorder. The kinds of accommodations that would need to be made for mental illness is simply not reasonable. And they're not accommodations that the employer or venue can make - they're accommodations that would need to be made by all other employees or customers respectively.
Me, I don't care - they're all males. In the past it did matter, because in the past any access was discretionary and could be revoked by any female in the facility at any time. We were willing to pretend not to notice the few transsexuals who used our spaces, because they were generally of type (1). Or at least, that's what we believed, because they were expected to have had a formal diagnosis and been vetted by someone who was watching out to prevent types (2) and (3) from putting females at risk.
Agreed, and they don't. I'm quite discrete. From surfing, I'm well practiced in even stripping down right on the street and getting dressed in clothes and wetsuits non-graphically.
Honest answer to your question: all the time. In the beach town I live in, I can accurately describe the nips of maybe a third of the population. Spending a lot of time near the water in little clothing makes one a bit absent minded, IME
If you've never watched it, I highly recommend Letterkenny.Agreed, and they don't. I'm quite discrete. From surfing, I'm well practiced in even stripping down right on the street and getting dressed in clothes and wetsuits non-graphically.
Huh. I grew up in FL on the coast, and despite lots and lots of beach bums around, I never saw a female outside the beach reach down under their shirt to fully adjust their breast's position in their bra.
Of course, it's totally normal for females to have to hold their penises in order to not pee themselves, just like it's totally normal for females to have prostate problems...
Off topic, but...