November 4, 2012
"Little girls should not be exposed to naked men, period."
On the other hand: "The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity." And: "This is not 1959 Alabama. We don't call the police for drinking from the wrong water fountain."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
82 comments:
But he says he's not a man. And that's all that's required.
So deal with it, you bionormative bigots.
observed a person at the women's locker room naked and displaying male genitalia
It's female genitalia now. It's who owns it, not what it looks like.
It doesn't matter if you get your junk cut off, sew on some tits, or have an addadicktome and cut your tits off, you havent really changed sexes. You have merely mutilated yourself to serve your ego by creating an false image.
You can pretend you did, if you like, but demanding that other people formally recognize it is another thing entirely and is akin to thought and speech control.
I think the simple answer is to build a third locker room and put "Freaks" on the door.
Yeah, this is no surprise, The Evergreen State College has been completely loony for years. The place makes UW-Madison look like Texas A&M or something.
I just hope her package is smaller than mine.
I like that link tag, "On the other hand" - clever when discussing male gentialia.
"...demanding that other people formally recognize it is another thing entirely and is akin to thought and speech control."
I have previously cited Dalrymple's excellent quote as it explains the purpose of this sort of nonsense, the demand to believe and even exhale the ridiculous.
"“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” "
Exalt = Exhale in iPadspeak.
"1984"
Men don't as a rule lounge around naked in the locker room. Most cover up and those who don't are considered a little strange for not doing so.
If this guy is letting it all show while a bunch of little girls are around, there's something evil about him, not just different.
*third posting is the charm
If this guy is letting it all show while a bunch of little girls are around, there's something evil about him, not just different.
That was my thought. If this guy weren't an asshole, he would have thought 'oh shit, there's a little girl, I don't need to be naked here'. That he didn't means he needs to be banned.
(And yes, I'm calling him he. Putting on a dress doesn't make you a woman)
This is a really silly policy -- one that seems like it could be solved by simply relabeling the locker rooms as "Penis locker room" and "No Penis locker room", for example.
However, there's something really jarring about passages like: "
'Clearly, allowing a person who is biologically a man to undress and expose himself to young girls places those girls at risk for emotional distress and harm,' he wrote to the college."
Not having ever been a young girl, perhaps I'm just not aware of how fragile and sensitive such people are.
Could some of the women here comment: Do you feel like seeing a naked man in a nonsexual context would have caused you "emotional distress and harm"?
On the other hand, the fact that this college student is a 45-year-old biological man hanging out naked in the sauna in the women's locker room... and that he was living as a man until the age of 42, just three years ago... and doesn't appear to be taking female hormones...
Yeah. Really, really looks like the guy is a perv who is pretending to be transgendered in order to game the system. The real transgendered community should be outraged.
The world is being run by crazy people--but everyone here already knows that..
Nevermind..
I'd guess, hysteria-wise, that little girls can tolerate male genitalia just fine, but you don't want the guy getting off on it.
In this case, he probably isn't.
'This is not 1959 Alabama. We don't call the police for drinking from the wrong water fountain,' Ms Francis, the student at the heart of the issue, spoke out to KIRO.
Yet, separate but equal? They are drowning in their own contradictions.
The school has since set up a smaller, isolated section of the locker room for girls to change in, until the matter is resolved.
Gotta go with those saying this guy is a pervert just gaming the system.
"The college retorts that they're only following state law and have since put up privacy curtains for the women who may feel uncomfortable."
Problem solved.
As Maguro says, ESC has earned its reputation. Madison and Ann Arbor are just larger, and better known.
This seems like a problem level-headed people could solve by say, not exposing yourself to total strangers. If the person in question had not been exposed, the little girls would probably never have known what was there to be exposed.
Paraphrasing but I remember hearing/reading once that the true sign that the Totalitarian State has taken over is when you break the law for doing something and you break the law for NOT doing the exact same thing.
Here, a man exposing his genitals - especially to young girls - is against the law but stopping him from doing so is also against the law.
The University has no one to blame but itself.
"sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing’ in the sauna"
Guys don't this even in male-only saunas at straight gyms. This guy is a perv.
"In this case, he probably isn't."
What do you base this on? If he weren't in a special made up class and he was exposing himself to little children would you think the same?
Can the university not ban specific people for bad behavior? It seem like this should qualify.
Too bad we're in lalaland now.
Do you feel like seeing a naked man in a nonsexual context would have caused you "emotional distress and harm"?
Most women would have a reaction if their were a naked man in the womens locker room. It's creepy.
Not to mention that it's a locker room for little kids, who were also presumably supposed to be changing. This transgender thing has gone crazy, and the trangender pushers obviously care not one whit about privacy or safety concerns of anyone but themselves.
'The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity,'
Save lots of money. Just have one set of lockerrooms and toilets.
See how that goes over with the majority of your students (e.g. the ones with ladyparts)
PS: Somebody should point out to the College President that his counterpart at PSU is facing 30 years for ignoring an issue in the locker rooms
Well the idea of little girls being greatly harmed is over the top, but this guy does seem like a creep.
TWM says of normal men in normal locker room "Most cover up and those who don't are considered a little strange for not doing so." Uh, not really: true, normal men don't deliberately display themselves as this creep is doing, but they are not generally very modest either. Strenuously covering up is kinda wimpy, exhibiting oneself is creepy--normal is just being relaxed about it all. But we're talking about a male locker room there--not in the ladies' locker room!
You can pretend you did, if you like, but demanding that other people formally recognize it is another thing entirely and is akin to thought and speech control.
Nah. You can maintain whatever perception you like. No thought or speech control whatsoever.
Just comply with the law.
"TWM says of normal men in normal locker room "Most cover up and those who don't are considered a little strange for not doing so." Uh, not really: true, normal men don't deliberately display themselves as this creep is doing, but they are not generally very modest either. Strenuously covering up is kinda wimpy, exhibiting oneself is creepy--normal is just being relaxed about it all. But we're talking about a male locker room there--not in the ladies' locker room!"
Well, obviously we go to different locker rooms, but what I meant is men don't usually sit or lounge on the benches showing off their stuff. Maybe it's because I go to a YMCA gym and there are kids in and out all the time, but that's been my experience. One can be relaxed without flashing one's johnson all over the place like this creep.
"The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity."
Isn't that the whole purpose of having men's rooms and women's rooms -- to discriminate, differentiate, distinguish between men and women, as far as who should be in there? Has everybody in a position of authority just degenerated into a gibbering idiot?
.
"sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing’
If it's male genitalia, it isn't "hers". Thats just basic fucking english and biology.
"Nah. You can maintain whatever perception you like. No thought or speech control whatsoever.
Just comply with the law." phx
yea I'm sure you're all for that when a State bans homosexual marriage.
If the State cannot discriminate via sex, then they need to let hetero men into womens locker rooms.
Otherwise, you are not for equality, but for some individuals to have special rights that other individuals do not.
"Isn't that the whole purpose of having men's rooms and women's rooms -- to discriminate, differentiate, distinguish between men and women, as far as who should be in there? Has everybody in a position of authority just degenerated into a gibbering idiot?" -Ige
Just the PC leftist ones.
Men don't as a rule lounge around naked in the locker room. Most cover up and those who don't are considered a little strange for not doing so.
I spent considerable time in nudist camps as a child, young adult and adult. My parents were nudist and belonged to several (over the years) resorts. Nudity to me is no big deal. We went swimming, sun bathing etc. Most people 'dressed' for dinner, putting on at least some shorts and tee shirts or something.
The object was sun worship not flaunting your junk. I imagine that there was plenty of private flaunting, but that is different.
I can concur that anyone in that setting where it was expected to see nudity who acted like the him/her/it in the article would be summarily ejected from the organization as being disruptive and deviant.
This person is an exhibitionist and is using transgender-ness, which I believe to be an incredibly rare state, as an excuse.
Could some of the women here comment: Do you feel like seeing a naked man in a nonsexual context would have caused you "emotional distress and harm"?
Sure. It would depend on the woman/girl and her upbringing. As you can see, I wouldn't be emotionally distressed. Some other people might. There are many women, and I suspect men too, who are not comfortable being naked around even their same sex.
The issue is that you are seeing something where it isn't expected to be seen, and when that happens it is jarring and disconcerting. The girls locker room is supposed to be a safe environment where you can be naked, shower, fart, whatever. To suddenly have a man.....I don't care how much make up he wears....sitting there flaunting his penis and balls at you is disconcerting and for those who are not used to such things, can be threatening and frightening......at the least....just plain icky.
yea I'm sure you're all for that when a State bans homosexual marriage
Indeed. I'm no hypocrite about this. Apparently you are trying to justify your own hypocrisy.
I gather you're with the tea party.
Remember, this is the school that trained St. Pancake.
clint: However, there's something really jarring about passages like: "
'Clearly, allowing a person who is biologically a man to undress and expose himself to young girls places those girls at risk for emotional distress and harm,' he wrote to the college."
Not having ever been a young girl, perhaps I'm just not aware of how fragile and sensitive such people are.
Could some of the women here comment: Do you feel like seeing a naked man in a nonsexual context would have caused you "emotional distress and harm"?
You're putting us on, right, clint? Because I can't believe you're really furrowing your brow, all befuddled, over the mysterious, nay inexplicable sensitivity of, say, some 10 year old girl who doesn't want to be confronted with some exhibitionist asshole's junk at the local pool locker room. ("But, but, she's seen that stuff in art and science class, right? What's the prob?")
Yeah. Really, really looks like the guy is a perv who is pretending to be transgendered in order to game the system.
Ya think?
The real transgendered community should be outraged.
Back up. You reached overthinking overdrive on this with your first "on the other hand".
If it were just adults, I wouldn't be as bothered by it. Probably not happy, but it is young girls that we are talking about.
It isn't male genitalia, per se, that is the issue, at least for me, but rather, that it was allowed to be flagrantly displayed by strangers in a supposedly somewhat secure location.
Why the difference between male and female genitalia with the opposite sex (or, why would this not be as much of an issue in the mens locker room)? Because males exhibit their genitalia in certain situations as threat behavior, as well as to show sexual dominance. And, yes, we want our girls to know this. At a younger age, not maybe the why, but to be uncomfortable around exposed male genitalia, at least outside the immediate family. We help protect them from unwanted sexual contact (and, yes, rape) by essentially teaching them that this is a danger signal. They are supposed to be uncomfortable, so that they can run from it.
Yes, there are societies where male genitalia are routinely exposed, and, maybe even enhanced. But, what I think is significant there is that the members are not strangers. If a young girl is molested, she will most likely be able to identify him, and he will likely quickly suffer the consequences. But, here, we are talking total strangers. And, that is why I don't think this policy is viable for the larger society.
Yes, there are societies where male genitalia are routinely exposed, and, maybe even enhanced.
Trying to reconcile this with DBQ's nudist camp, I think that I might have gone too far with the "known" part of it, but presumably the nudist camp was a "safe" place where display of male genitalia is not taken as a sexual dominance or threat situation. Maybe not quite at the level of the home, but clearly not at the level of a gym where the girls were changing for swimming.
Bruce Hayden@11/4/12 9:36 AM:
Sensible comment. (Then again, though you wouldn't exactly feel threatened, you probably would feel all kinds of uncomfortable if some 45-year old female started ostentatiously flopping about the male locker room and claiming that she was male, get over it, if anybody complained.)
This is why all the LBGTFHJIOUIWEYHN stuff fails when it's put to a vote by the people.
The politicians are scared to death of the homosexuals and cave on command, no matter how ridiculous the demand.
As a practical matter, if the perv had exposed himself to my daughters, I'd have kicked his ass.
Moms and Dads don't have to put up with stupid shit when the well being of their children is threatened.
What's the abstract ideal being trumpeted here? Whatever it is, it needs to die. It's not compatible with 99+% of Americans, and it makes no sense to try to accommodate it.
How about, sorry, you can't use the locker here. We aren't going to build another locker room to satisfy your odd sexual identity. Go find enough people like yourself and build your own pool.
And tomorrow he will be in the little boys locker room because that's where he wants to be anyway. Some times you feel like a nut, some times you don't.
How is one to differentiate this "woman" from a perv off the street who puts on a dress to gain entrance to the ladies room?
Trying to reconcile this with DBQ's nudist camp, I think that I might have gone too far with the "known" part of it, but presumably the nudist camp was a "safe" place where display of male genitalia is not taken as a sexual dominance or threat situation.
I think that idea is that at the nudist camp, there are still rules and boundaries. Remember camps are organized places with paid memberships and in some cases property ownership of cabins etc. There are also many free nudist beaches and or course swimming hole locations. Which tend to be a bit less rigid but there are still unspoken rules and boundaries.
In my experience, people in those situations tend to be rather more appreciative and careful of the personal space that exists around all of us. Everyone is enjoying the freedom of nudity, but that freedom doesn't include intruding onto the freedom of others. Think of it like the way that the Japanese have adapted to living in a very close environment.
The thing is that those who violate the rule, who are obviously there for deviant or exhibitionist purposes are not tolerated. I've seen guys, and gals, physically ejected from the locality or being told that they are not welcome in other ways.
Just because this person claims transgender, doesn't allow him/her/it to be able to break the rules of behaviour by exhibiting his genitalia in an obviously provocative manner.
Wake me up when we finally arrive at Reductio ad absurdum.
I haven't read EVERY comment yet - but so far none seems to speak on behalf of women and girls who don't want to see nude men casually exhibiting themselves in a locker room.
Have they any privacy rights in this discussion? Should they be forced to accept a small, curtained area set aside just for them within what is logically their otherwise private space - to accommodate ONE emotionally defective person?
(Oh come now. Don't even start with me. This is one fucked up dude. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Just admit it.)
I think this guy is seriously mentally ill.
Why is it that when people think they are Napolean (which they clearly are not) we don't label them 'trans-historical' and offer them plastic surgery and costuming to make them feel better? Because we clearly see that as a sign of mental illness.
The added feature of his exhibitionism is a real problem. Evidently I was raised in a more puritan atmosphere than others here but if I was 7 and I saw a full grown man lounging and showing off his genitalia I would have been freaked out.
In my experience women in the locker room do not wander around naked at all. There are towels for a reason.
This is what happens when we abandon common sense. There is a reason for tradition, tradition has been tested over the ages.
If the transgendered community wishes tolerance and acceptance from the straights, shouldn't they exhibit some sensitivity towards the feelings of straights. This is a fair complaint that the parents have, and it should be heeded. I also think that a transgenered figure would have an equally traumatic effect on boys in the male locker room. If you're transgendered you have trouble finding shoes and locker rooms that fit. There are worse problems.
I only regret that this option was not available when I was in college.
Even if he was doing it for entirely lascivious motives, he would still have the legal right, no. Couldn't he be completely obnoxious about it waving it all around and still be allowed? It's the law.
Evergreen is truly Wonderland and a great place to get an utterly useless, content-free education. I actually like reading these kind of stories because every time something like this happens, rational people feel a little less constrained by political correctness. These are the rocks upon which "progressives" founder and sink.
If the transgendered community wishes tolerance and acceptance from the straights, shouldn't they exhibit some sensitivity towards the feelings of straights.
Exactly. You are trying to make it carte blanch for a man to throw on a dress and invade any women only environment there is.
Do none of those idiots understand that women might have understandable reservations about this?
I wonder how many are aware of the experience of Johns Hopkins Medical Center, one of the foremost US medical institutions. It was probably the first to offer a transgender program back in the 60s. A lot of surgery was done and they began to realize that all was not well. They were seeing patients with serious psychological problems after the sex change and some who wanted to be changed back to the original gender. Finally they ended the program and now discourage new patients. This has led to considerable anger on the part of the trans community but, as far as I know JH is content to be on the sidelines.
From the Wiki link:
In 1967, John Money, a prominent sexologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital, recommended that David Reimer, a boy who had lost his penis during a botched circumcision, be sexually reassigned and raised as a girl. Despite being raised as a girl from the age of 18 months, Reimer was never happy as a girl, and when he learned of his sex reassignment, he immediately reverted to living as a male. Money never reported on the negative outcome of Reimer's case, but in 1997, Reimer went public with the story himself. His case, as well as several cases of intersexed infants with conditions such as cloacal exstrophy who have been reassigned and raised as females, suggest that gender identity is innate and immutable. Milton Diamond, the winner of the Norwegian Diversity Prize for his research efforts on behalf of transsexual and transgender people worldwide, had tracked down Reimer, discovered the failure of his sex reassignment, and exposed his case.
In 1979, when Paul McHugh became chairperson of the psychiatric department at Johns Hopkins, he ordered the department to conduct follow-up evaluations on as many of their former transsexual patients as possible. When the follow-ups were performed, they found that most of the patients stated that they were happy as members of their target sex, but that their overall level of psychological functioning had not improved. McHugh reasoned that to perform physical gender reassignment was to "cooperate with a mental illness rather than try to cure it." At that time, Johns Hopkins closed its gender clinic and has not performed any sex reassignment surgeries since then.
Needless to say, this is not PC.
The moved the girls to a separate space, which is weird because they already had a separate space called the "women's locker room."
Yeah, this is no surprise, The Evergreen State College has been completely loony for years. The place makes UW-Madison look like Texas A&M or something.
Truth. My brother went to Evergreen. He was far left at the time, but there he was considered a strident conservative.
You'd hope someone would be considerate when demanding the consideration of so many others.
"I was born a woman with the body of a man and the mind of a troll."
This is what happens when you fuck with the natural order of gender. Gender identity is a convoluted malformation of professorial proportion that has no meaning of any rational basis outside of being male or female. Everything is turned upside down in the name of making sure that the fucking freaks have their day. I don't put up with it and neither should anyone else, but no one does anything because they don't want to appear to be or labeled as being hateful bigoted prejudiced genderphobes.
Michael K,
I have heard that, too. I have attended conferences, as well, where urologists have stated the same. They no longer perform sex re-assignment because the recipients are not psychologically healthier afterwards, and in fact, may be worse off psychologically. I have only known two people who have expressed interest in sex change surgery. It was pretty clear, even in casual conversation with them, that there were some severe underlying issues that needed to be dealt with before you could proclaim that their desire was a "healthy choice."
Could some of the women here comment: Do you feel like seeing a naked man in a nonsexual context would have caused you "emotional distress and harm"?
As a physician, I am no stranger to the sight of naked men. However, i would find it distressing to encounter one in a women's locker room. In a women's locker room, I myself, would be in a vulnerable position since it is a place to dress and undress. I would also be taken aback in a less vulnerable public setting, though. It is the unexpectedness and non-normality of it that makes it distressing. When you see it where you shouldn't, you have to think, "What's that guy up to?"
...she observed a person at the women's locker room naked and displaying male genitalia...
Maybe Ms Francis is a transgendered lesbian.
Do good manners count anymore or is it just all about political correctness?
Good manners dictates that not everyone is comfortable with your desires, therefore you suppress them in order to be considerate.
When I was a child I saw a mans genetalia by accident. It was no one's fault and was non sexual I was a little freaked out about it. I still remember it, so yeah, I guess you could say it's a little bit of a trauma.
Most women don't sit around in the sauna naked with their legs spread, nor do they stand around naked. If they did, asking them to cover with towel wouldn't be inappropriate. Respect goes both ways. Seems that Ms. Francis just needs to practice a little respect.
"...a 45-year-old student...". 'nuff said right there.
"This is not 1959 Alabama". Totally comparable to Bull Connor's dogs and truncheons. The African-American community certainly appreciates having its history co-opted by Glen-or-Glenda exhibitionists.
"The school has since set up a smaller, isolated section of the locker room for girls to change in...
Why not a "...smaller, isolated section..." for the fair Colleen?
"The college retorts that it is only following state law......in holding the raincoat for the pervert at the playground fence.
On the one hand, it may be completely irrational of us to make this sort of distinction between men and women. On the other hand, if a particular irrationality is hard-wired in 99% of people, the law shouldn't necessarily ignore or try to squelch that. The purpose of the law should be to permit us to live together, mostly free, but unfree to the extent that it's necessary to prevent our rough edges from gouging into each other too much.
On a different set of hands, the idea that the difference between men and women is as minor as the difference between white people and non-white people or black people and non-black people is pretty clearly irrational itself.
Back in the early 80s, I was in a doctor's waiting room and read about David Reimer in a medical journal. I was horrified that anyone thought you could make a little girl by just cutting off a boy's penis and testes. They declared it was a success. Spit.
Reimer eventually committed suicide. Do you really need a medical degree to realize that this was sick and wrong! wrong! wrong!?
Liberalism eats its own young.
Fantastic.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer state. Screw Washington and its libs. I hope they vote for gay marriage and get the full gay monty.
Look, if you don't like these results, change the law.
"Any reasonable person would view this as dangerous to the young girls involved."
Well, I'm obviously unreasonable. Discomfiting, sure, but dangerous?
As long as he is allowed in a women's locker room is he also allowed one free feel?
If it's really upsetting them, the parents and other private citizens must intervene and remove this man from the women's locker room. Forget about appealing to authority and act like an adult.
Or else save everyone the time and trouble of dealing with the inevitable and drop the pretext of separate male and female locker rooms.
I think the Muzzie has the thread-winner. Couldn't agree more.
I don't see how a 'No penis display' in the women's room discriminates against men who identify as women.
Neither men who identify as men, nor men who identify as women, can show penises in the women's room.
Sorry, I've been out today so I am just now catching up.
Overall, what do you really expect from an institution whose official motto is "Let it all hang out!"
References:
Wikipedia
1990 commencement address by "founding faculty member" David L. Hitchens, PhD
Honestly, if she were really a woman, she would agree that little girls should not be exposed and would somehow make other arrangements, coverage, or whatever.
This insistence at the expense of the others, especially the young, is very, very "typically" male.
MadisonMan said...
I don't see how a 'No penis display' in the women's room discriminates against men who identify as women.
Neither men who identify as men, nor men who identify as women, can show penises in the women's room.
The idea that men or women have to identify that they are men or women at all is stupid.
lge said, ""The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity."
But, it doesn't have to. All it has to do is to stop confusing "gender" with "sex."
"Masculine" and "feminine" are words that describe/define gender; "male" and "female" are words that describe/define sex. Therefore, it follows that if an animal (or person) has a penis (or XY chromosomes, for that matter) then although that animal may be feminine, it is nonetheless a male animal (or person).
Further, we can then define a "man" as an adult male person, and a "woman" as an adult female person.
"Isn't that the whole purpose of having men's rooms and women's rooms -- to discriminate, differentiate, distinguish between men and women, as far as who should be in there?"
The purpose of gender activists is to replace considerations based on sex (which is biologically determined) with considerations based on gender (which is constrained only by imagination, and thus infinitely plastic). But that doesn't mean the rest of us must go along.
If a man says he's a woman, does that make it so? If so, what if he insists that he's Napoleon, or a barnyard chicken, or he's really 100 meters tall but you just can't see it- must the world acknowledge all such claims as legitimate, even when we can see that they are obviously not?
Is it truly discriminatory to just define locker-room use on the basis of sex instead of gender, and be done with it?
Post a Comment