Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Transgender issue at state college

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Transgender issue at state college

    Not sure this is the correct forum for this but I think it deals with many issues that pertain to parenting of young children so though this the best place to put it.

    ...............................

    Let me preface this with the disclaimer that to me it's one of the issues with so called transgendered people. It's also an issue when the state starts to endorse the rights of one person over the majority. As a father and grand-father raising an underaged grand-daughter i'd invoke the right to treat the person same as I'd treat a flasher or pedphile who exposed themselves to my grand-daughter. In my eyes there is no difference when it comes to exposing ones genitalia to a youth and of a differing sex regardless of how one views themselves in relationship to thier own gender.

    To me I would see a male regardless of what they claim to be or living as in that regard. No different than how the law should treat them if they were claiming to be sometihng else an exposing themselves.

    It to me becomes a really difficult issue as to where does my line in the sand to support it (Transgender equality) end and protect or raise my child / grand-child begin? In the micro-universe my commitment is to my family and what I am supposed to do for them which to me always trumps the macro-universe.

    Yet I also wish to hear what other's think of the issue, somewhat to step beyond the limitations of my own morality.

    ...............................................

    Citing state nondiscrimination law, officials at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington are standing by their decision to let a 45-year-old student with a penis use the women’s locker room, and walk naked in front of girls as young as six.

    Evergreen, a public, ultra-progressive redoubt of the liberal arts, boasts a recreation center with an 11-lane Olympic swimming pool (among many other swell amenities). Olympia-area students from grade school to high school use the facility and share the locker rooms, Fox News reports.

    The trouble started in September when a 17-year-old girl saw Colleen Francis au naturel inside the women’s locker room, reports KOMO-TV, Seattle’s ABC affiliate. Francis, a male since birth, has identified as a woman since 2009.
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/06/co...s-locker-room/
    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/11/c...s-locker-room/
    Last edited by monsnoleedra; November 7th, 2012, 11:23 PM. Reason: formatting

  • #2
    In my opinion, this is primarily conservative gay menace BS with an (un)healthy dose of good old fashioned American puritanism.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, one of my best friends is trans and she is afraid to utilize any program where she might have to use a locker room to change for exactly this reason. Knowing this person as I do, the idea that she would be a threat to anyone just by being allowed to share a locker room is ridiculous.
      Given the amount of body dysphoria that many trans women have, I think they are less likely to be sexual predators than the average woman.

      As a father and grand-father raising an underaged grand-daughter i'd invoke the right to treat the person same as I'd treat a flasher or pedphile who exposed themselves to my grand-daughter.
      A flasher is someone who intentionally exposes themselves to other people to get a reaction. A pedophile if someone who rapes children. Now, if someone in a locker room were going around saying "Hey, look to my private parts!" or touching people inappropriately, that would be a problem regardless of what parts they had, but most people in locker rooms that I have been in are just trying to change their clothes and get out. I have changed in many locker rooms next to other women, but I don't know what their private parts look like because I consider it rude to look at them.

      It to me becomes a really difficult issue as to where does my line in the sand to support it (Transgender equality) end and protect or raise my child / grand-child begin? In the micro-universe my commitment is to my family and what I am supposed to do for them which to me always trumps the macro-universe.
      I would say it ends in public areas. Other parents have ideas they don't want their children exposed too, but that doesn't give them the right to censor those ideas when other people express them. Some parents don't want their children to see people in certain types of clothing, but that doesn't give them the right to forbid others from wearing those types of clothing. Not in America, anyway.
      Better Know a Child Ballad

      My Deviantart Page

      Avatar be Andrea L. Peterson


      Comment


      • #4
        This might sound blunt but ITS A PENIS SO FRIGGIN WHAT? Sheesh. I mean she wasn't intending to flash anyone or anything.

        Comment


        • #5
          An area designated as unisex I would have less to no issue with as it would be clearly marked and known that both sexes could be present at the same time. Thereby allowing the parent / adult to decide if they wish to expose their children / grand-children to such conditions. Under such conditions I would be accepting of such potential disclosure's with my decision to utilize said facilities.

          But this facility made no such disclosure. It took no precautions to protect people from such exposure and placed the supposed rights of an individual above the collective rights of the majority and accepted / recognized social custom. It exposed all ages to potentially devastating social / psychological and emotional issues with the presence of said individual exposing themselves in a semi-public area. I say semi-public for it is open access to all females, regardless of marital status, age, race, creed or religious calling. As a public facility it takes upon itself a certain degree of responsibility to uphold established rules and regulations aimed at social interaction between the genders and age appropriate behaviors. Clearly such an exposure stands in opposition to accepted social conduct where minors have clear access and maybe present at any time frame. It also raises issues inregards to acceptable displays before pre-teens or younger teens and what is acceptable behavior.

          What I truly dislike is that when hidden behind a gender or trans-gender issue sexuality is supposed to be open and accepted by all in order to support supposed personal rights. Yet when those same conditions and psychological or mental issue result in conditions such as paedophilia then your not supposed to consider them equal nor hold one to the same standards and conditions that are applied to the other. Yet the revealing of ones genitalia regardless of chance or purpose by one group is punishable by prison and criminal record yet by the other is supposed to be accepted and not seen in the same potentially negative light. Heaven forbid you even compare one group to the other though the criteria identified to recognize the criminal act is the same with regards to exposure or similar actions, whether it be by intentional disclosure or accidential disclosure.

          Comment


          • #6
            This thread is ridiculous. Transgender individuals are not "so-called". That's what they are. Transgender identity is not equatable with pedophilia, nor is it a form of criminal sexual behavior (flashing). And if a public facility is open access for "all females", you need to recognize that that superlative inclusion covers more than just marital status, age, race, creed, and religion.

            Freedom is not a privilege reserved for the majority or the plurality or the group because that's not freedom - that's mob rule. Freedom is guaranteed to the individual in American society. That applies to transgender people just as much as it does to any other minority you don't like or find icky.

            And please, the next time anyone wants to bring up pedophilia in this context, just take a moment to breath, think, and punch yourself in the face.
            Last edited by Tiberias; November 12th, 2012, 11:08 AM.
            JFGI

            Comment


            • #7
              Thank you for stating that Tiberias!!!!!

              As one character from CSI (season 5, in their 100th episode) put it, "It's not about sex, it's about soul," and that is so true. From what I understand, the people who are brave enough to go through everything they have to, to become the gender they are most comfortable, feel like they are someone trapped in the wrong body. That is IT. It has NOTHING to do with legally becoming a pedophile or start doing criminally sexual acts. Seriously.

              I'm going to back away now because this subject is very sensitive to me, I have a transgender in my family and I could get VERY snarky if I let myself do so.....
              "The road to hell is paved with adverbs." - Stephen King.


              "If a book has my name on it, I wrote it. Every word of it." ~Nora Roberts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tiberias View Post
                This thread is ridiculous. Transgender individuals are not "so-called". That's what they are. Transgender identity is not equatable with pedophilia, nor is it a form of criminal sexual behavior (flashing). And if a public facility is open access for "all females", you need to recognize that that superlative inclusion covers more than just marital status, age, race, creed, and religion.
                No, what is ridiculous is the fact that if they have a penis between their legs thier biologically male, if they have a vagina between thier legs their biologically female. Society and culture have legal identifications in place to determine what is or is not acceptable behavior within a given situation. A male or female exposing his / her genitalia to minor males / females is deemed to be in violation of said rules and regulations and subject to the full ramification of the law and cultural norms. The fact he / she identifies as a woman does not remove them from the cultural and legal ramifications of what is or is not acceptable action.

                Freedom is not a privilege reserved for the majority or the plurality or the group because that's not freedom - that's mob rule. Freedom is guaranteed to the individual in American society. That applies to transgender people just as much as it does to any other minority you don't like or find icky.
                Freedom and equality always have limitations even in a fully open society. Limitations which are always defined by the majority and what is socially and culturally acceptable to said people. What transpires in public or public facilites is about more thna what an individual might desire or wish as the facility falls beneath the public concept of what is allowable or not allowable within the constructs of its morality.

                Nor has thier freedom of choice nor equality been limited any further than any other member of the society who accepts the restrictions placed upon thier ability to choose and act within said society. Society by legal installation has determined that the exposing of minors to certain situations and conditons is deemed harmful and unlawful by its occurance. The exposing of ones genitalia to underage member's of the opposite gender is illegal and to be prosecuted by the law.

                And please, the next time anyone wants to bring up pedophilia in this context, just take a moment to breath, think, and punch yourself in the face.
                Not true. The exposing of onesself to minors is also an aspect of pedophilia as well as the flasher nor is it always done for the concept of sexual pleasure or influence. Exposure not resitricted to intentional action either but also defined as unintentional or accidential with the same legal ramifications potentially levied upon the abuser. Nor do the legal statures strickly define the exposing of ones genitalia to minors to be sexual in nature or purpose but are deemed inappropriate to social and cultural concepts of correctness.

                So if it's good for the goose then it should be good for the gander and both should be held to the same cultural, social and legal ramifications of said actions. In a public facility where minors are expected to be present the display of male genitilia to minor females is in violation of those cultural and legal specifications and the person should be held equally accountable for thier actions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Again. Breath. Think. Punch in face. I'm not going to waste my time responding to such ludicrously ignorant bigotry with anything further.
                  Last edited by Tiberias; November 12th, 2012, 10:15 PM.
                  JFGI

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tiberias View Post
                    Again. Breath. Think. Punch in face. I'm not going to waste my time responding to such ludicrously ignorant bigotry with anything further.
                    Well thanks Tiberias, it's good to know i'm not at the far right that thinks we should abandon all laws and rules for the conduct of society to accommodate the position of the transgendered above all others or the far left that finds them to be abominations and should be given a high lead diet and eradicated from the face of the earth. To be called a bigot from both sides makes me feel good about myself.

                    To think i'm just pushing that an adult who exposes themselves to a minor should be held to the same legal standard regardless of what thier gender identity within thier own mind is. But hell, why worry about the minors of society when we have to change for the minority group of a society and what's good for them not what's believed to be best for the minors.

                    Hm, perhaps the lead diet is not that far off after all, no can't align with that one as much as I dislike your position from its appearance.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't think any minors will be harmed or traumatized just by glimpsing some genitalia they do not possess themselves in a locker room.
                      I also was not aware that flashing was only a crime if done to someone of the opposite gender. I guess I can go around flashing all the women I want and not get in any trouble for it. Good to know.
                      To be called a bigot from both sides makes me feel good about myself.
                      It makes you feel good about yourself that you're making the lives of perfectly innocent people more difficult for no good reason?
                      Better Know a Child Ballad

                      My Deviantart Page

                      Avatar be Andrea L. Peterson


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Djiril View Post
                        I don't think any minors will be harmed or traumatized just by glimpsing some genitalia they do not possess themselves in a locker room.
                        I also was not aware that flashing was only a crime if done to someone of the opposite gender. I guess I can go around flashing all the women I want and not get in any trouble for it. Good to know.
                        The law disagrees and explicity state prohibations of exposure of the genitals in open or public spaces and before minors. While most instances are directed against exposure of one gender before the other, especially pertaining to age, it doesn't rule out prosecution of same gender situations. Most of it falling beneath protection of public and social morality, decency, indecent exposure statues and child protection services and statues. It's the same set of rules and stipulations that are used to convict flashers, pedphiles, lewd conduct charges, public nudity statues, etc. Ones gender identification does not in my opinon remove them from adhearing to those requirements nor being prosecuted by ignoring them.

                        It makes you feel good about yourself that you're making the lives of perfectly innocent people more difficult for no good reason?
                        Nope. It makes me feel good knowing that I am not so blind as to fall upon the extreme's and endorse / deny a minorities rights over the majority or at the expense of the community and society which decides what are acceptable standards. I support holding all parties to the same degree of legality and responsibility before the laws of the land. If we are going to prosecute one group for the offense then it should be applicable to all for the same offense. The fact a person may not consider themselves to be the gender conveyed by their genitalia does not remove them from being held to the same standard, conditions and legalities applied to society at large.

                        Equality of rights should be driven by being equal for all and applicable to all equally in standards, application and / or enforcement there of not changed from group to group to support or endorse some agenda. If the revealing of ones genitalia has been identifed as breaking said applicable laws then it should be applied equally regardless of how a person identifies themselves and their gender. Thus if person A can be prosecuted for intentionally or unintentionally revealing thier female / male genitalia to a person of the opposite or same sex then a person who possess male / female genitalia but identifes as opposite thier birth gender is still equally guilty of breaking the same law.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MonSno_LeeDra View Post
                          Nope. It makes me feel good knowing that I am not so blind as to fall upon the extreme's and endorse / deny a minorities rights over the majority or at the expense of the community and society which decides what are acceptable standards.
                          "Acceptable standards" change all the time and that is how it should be. I am much more concerned with the actual physical effects that these regulations have on people's lives than any sort of legalistic thinking.
                          It is clear we are not going to agree on this issue any time soon. I honestly think that the need for separate locker rooms has much more to do with cultural aspects of gender than physical differences. I would not feel comfortable changing in a men's locker room, not because I am afraid of their naughty bits, but because I find homosocial male groups intimidating.
                          For that reason, I do no think a transwoman using the women's locker room is upsetting the status quo in any meaningful way.
                          Equality of rights should be driven by being equal for all and applicable to all equally in standards, application and / or enforcement there of not changed from group to group to support or endorse some agenda. If the revealing of ones genitalia has been identifed as breaking said applicable laws then it should be applied equally regardless of how a person identifies themselves and their gender. Thus if person A can be prosecuted for intentionally or unintentionally revealing thier female / male genitalia to a person of the opposite or same sex then a person who possess male / female genitalia but identifes as opposite thier birth gender is still equally guilty of breaking the same law.
                          I don't know if you know any transwomen, but the effects of the hormones and testosterone blockers change the body in ways that it no longer looks physically male in many ways. Should she also not use the men's locker room for fear of traumatizing young boys with her boobs, or is it only what's between the legs that counts?
                          Better Know a Child Ballad

                          My Deviantart Page

                          Avatar be Andrea L. Peterson


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Djiril View Post
                            "Acceptable standards" change all the time and that is how it should be. I am much more concerned with the actual physical effects that these regulations have on people's lives than any sort of legalistic thinking.
                            I don't disagree that it constantly changes as society changes. Yet until it does one has to equally apply the rules and laws to all not selectively for some. With regards to physcial effects / affects and / or limitations upon people that is applicable to all regardless of ones gender identity. Expectations that something should be changed for select people ensures inequality for all. In my opinion it also endorses and supports many forms of discrimination and hatred against said so-called special conditions or situations.

                            I don't know if you know any transwomen, but the effects of the hormones and testosterone blockers change the body in ways that it no longer looks physically male in many ways. Should she also not use the men's locker room for fear of traumatizing young boys with her boobs, or is it only what's between the legs that counts?
                            Truthfuly I think she should be allowed to use the women's facilities but there should either be a condition that it occur when no minors are prone to be present (the article specifically stated the facility was used by local elementary schools) which could be realized by the facility posting that from time A to time B the facility would be open to transgendered people. Alternatively, an area that is identifed during all hours that may have transgendered people utilizing it which cis-gendered people could avoid if they desired nor would the "parts" be on public display under those conditions with minors restricted from going in that area.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MonSno_LeeDra View Post
                              I don't disagree that it constantly changes as society changes. Yet until it does one has to equally apply the rules and laws to all not selectively for some. With regards to physcial effects / affects and / or limitations upon people that is applicable to all regardless of ones gender identity. Expectations that something should be changed for select people ensures inequality for all. In my opinion it also endorses and supports many forms of discrimination and hatred against said so-called special conditions or situations.
                              Just like gays can marry someone of the opposite sex in any state they want.
                              It's not a question of the rules being changed or "special exceptions" being made. It's a question of whether a person who is essentially stuck in gender limbo can have access to the same facilities as everyone else or whether they should be banned or segregated because their very presence is "traumatic."

                              Truthfuly I think she should be allowed to use the women's facilities but there should either be a condition that it occur when no minors are prone to be present (the article specifically stated the facility was used by local elementary schools) which could be realized by the facility posting that from time A to time B the facility would be open to transgendered people. Alternatively, an area that is identifed during all hours that may have transgendered people utilizing it which cis-gendered people could avoid if they desired nor would the "parts" be on public display under those conditions with minors restricted from going in that area.
                              That sounds much too close to Jim Crow for my comfort, and it also sounds exactly like you're advocating that they apply the rules "selectively for some."
                              If your society's standards require that people who already feel terrible about their bodies be treated as second class citizens whom "normal" people (or children) need to be protected from accidentally looking at, then that society needs to change.

                              If you want to keep your children out of locker rooms until they reach a certain age, that is your right, and that is the only way to keep it from trampling on other people's rights. The children will eventually get older and be able to make their own decisions. They don't have to wait until they can save up for surgery that their health insurance plan doesn't cover to have access to the same privileges as everyone else.
                              Better Know a Child Ballad

                              My Deviantart Page

                              Avatar be Andrea L. Peterson


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X