IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags privacy issues , school incidents , transgender incidents , transgender issues

Reply
Old 1st December 2012, 11:28 AM   #361
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
This is unfair.

This woman has done considerably more than just say something.

She is on estrogen, she lives as a woman, she legally changed her name and status, and she's put herself in the public to face constant questioning and testing of this type.
Fair points.

Quote:
She has submitted herself to medical, legal, and social trials of her claim that she is a woman. Some people here might have disqualified her based on her attractiveness or level of transitioning, but it is not right to make her seem like a casual dabbler trying something out for the weekend.
They might, but you'd have to show where they have.

Quote:
You wouldn't casually do what she has already done.
Never said anything about it being casual.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 11:41 AM   #362
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Throughout the first part of this thread, we were told, and I believe correctly told, the way that transwomen would behave. Transwomen hide their boy parts as much as possible. Transwomen don't want to attract attention. That's what transwomen do, right?
Trans women do not want to attract the attention of people who would harass them. This is true of most women. If people then harass them, it is not fair to say that the women have not done enough to avoid harassment.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So this dude had an opportunity to have a locker room all to himself. He could have changed unseen by anyone. No fuss. No discomfort. No embarassment.

He refused. He told the teenage girls to go there instead.
No, she didn't.

This auxiliary locker room seems to be a no-fuss, no-discomfort wonderland when you offer it to the woman, but a horrible inconvenience when chosen by the coaches of the swim team. Maybe it's not that much of an unending nightmare for the minors to have chosen a room of their own?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
What possible reason could he have for doing that? Well, it's hard to read minds, but I'm thinking that one possible reason is that he looked forward to the opportunity to show off his dick to a bunch of women. Ok, well, the girls will be gone,so he can't show off to the teenagers anymore, but the college students will still be there.
Disgusting, unsupported speculation. It is "hard" to read minds. Maybe you shouldn't attempt it here. There is no evidence that anyone in this story acted lewdly.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And I've started calling Colleen "he". Is he "really" a "she"? Who can tell? It's not like he knows.
She seems to know, her doctors seem to, the law sanctions her identity, she is considered so in her social circle, the college agrees...but, who can tell if you can't?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I think he's someone with male parts, who will screw anything that moves, who likes to shock people, and who has sexual fantasies about being a woman. Does that make Colleen "really" a woman?
Since Colleen is not celibate in word and deed, you question her medically and legally tested gender identity. It shouldn't work that way. Is manhood decided by how much someone wants to have sex or not?

Why is her sexuality important to this issue? Are you in favour of asking other lesbian women to find an alternate change room?

Should pool attendants be given OKCupid transcripts? How do you want to do this?
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 12:49 PM   #363
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
They might, but you'd have to show where they have.
That's not unreasonable. I don't mind.

I looked for Washington State specific sources and found that to have changed her legal status, driver's license, etc. she would have had to follow a path similar to this.

It's not undoable, but that's not my point. I'm only supporting that she has passed tests that are there and that she is not basing her claim that she is a woman solely on her own testimony. If the claim is made that the tests should be more stringent, that is not evidence that this specific woman would not pass those stringent tests.

I'd say that she could not have a prescription for estrogen without medical supervision.

---

Not connected to your request, I also found some interesting things about the human rights protections involved.

Here are the protections offered by Washington State regarding gender identity. Germane to this issue, public accommodation is covered here. If something is offered for public use, identity is protected, unless the organization denies membership on expressive association grounds, as the Boy Scouts argued. It looks like the Supreme Court has overruled the state.

I don't think it's necessarily true that the college would be legally unable to discriminate, as they have stated, but in order to do so, they would have to go full Boy Scouts, and deny college membership based on gender identity.

In that case they could successfully ignore the state protections that are there, as the Boy Scouts do, but, being a college, they may have additional unstated legal obligations that prevent this.

And the institution (the college) isn't obligated to deny someone based on identity.

Edit:
Oh if you meant I would have to show where people said it was casual, I think the attitude that someone "only has to say it for it to be accepted" is far more casual a procedure than submitting to psychologists, judges, friends, bureaucrats, etc. I was comparing a realistic process of what it would take to convince various sectors of a person's life with sentiments more like
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Based on their interpretation of state law, they had no choice. He self identified as female, and that's all that matters.
more than sentiments you have made.

Last edited by appalling; 1st December 2012 at 12:56 PM.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 12:55 PM   #364
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
If you think someone is a "disgusting individual" what is the point of saying she is a "man". Do you hate men that much that you can't believe "disgusting individuals" can't be anything other than men?
This is a fair enough complaint; even despite my own doubts, I myself have no problem continuing referring to this individual as "she" and "her".

But it is pretty dickish (irrespective of presence of a dick) to make all the girls and women who don't want to have to deal with this one individual splaying her legs and airing out her balls in the sauna area while watching them change, use the little auxilliary locker room instead of the womens' locker room.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 01:06 PM   #365
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
I think it would have been more appropriate to have a towel on most of the time. This would have been polite.

I object to the idea that she should be disallowed from the change room.

I also don't agree that she had an overwhelming obligation to cover herself at every instance in a room where people dress and undress.

If she had a striking bodily deformity, a shocking burn, whatever, I can make the case that it could be more polite to cover it, and smoother for just about everyone. I don't agree that you go from that to making the case that someone shouldn't be allowed to use the change room at all. I certainly don't go from evidence that something was visible to the idea that something was lustily flaunted. The most that could be said was that she was sitting in plain sight. Argue rudeness if you like.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 01:21 PM   #366
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
That's not unreasonable. I don't mind.

I looked for Washington State specific sources and found that to have changed her legal status, driver's license, etc. she would have had to follow a path similar to this.

It's not undoable, but that's not my point. I'm only supporting that she has passed tests that are there and that she is not basing her claim that she is a woman solely on her own testimony. If the claim is made that the tests should be more stringent, that is not evidence that this specific woman would not pass those stringent tests.

I'd say that she could not have a prescription for estrogen without medical supervision.

---

Not connected to your request, I also found some interesting things about the human rights protections involved.

Here are the protections offered by Washington State regarding gender identity. Germane to this issue, public accommodation is covered here. If something is offered for public use, identity is protected, unless the organization denies membership on expressive association grounds, as the Boy Scouts argued. It looks like the Supreme Court has overruled the state.

I don't think it's necessarily true that the college would be legally unable to discriminate, as they have stated, but in order to do so, they would have to go full Boy Scouts, and deny college membership based on gender identity.

In that case they could successfully ignore the state protections that are there, as the Boy Scouts do, but, being a college, they may have additional unstated legal obligations that prevent this.

And the institution (the college) isn't obligated to deny someone based on identity.

Edit:
Oh if you meant I would have to show where people said it was casual, I think the attitude that someone "only has to say it for it to be accepted" is far more casual a procedure than submitting to psychologists, judges, friends, bureaucrats, etc. I was comparing a realistic process of what it would take to convince various sectors of a person's life with sentiments more like

more than sentiments you have made.
While that's good research, and useful, that wasn't what I was asking. I was talking about 'dismissing based on her attractiveness' that some in this thread 'might' do.

What evidence did the college require? Was the state issue ID the thing that did it or did they simply take her word? Was the estrogen patch the kicker? I'm curious how they did identify her as a woman and thus able to use the locker room.

Thanks for the links.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 02:02 PM   #367
Savant
Thinker
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
What evidence did the college require? Was the state issue ID the thing that did it or did they simply take her word? Was the estrogen patch the kicker? I'm curious how they did identify her as a woman and thus able to use the locker room.

Thanks for the links.


I haven't seen any statement from the college addressing this, friend tyr13, but if she is able to get hormones* and had her ID changed, she most likely has a note from her therapist stating that she is suffering from gender dysphoria. I imagine that would satisfy the college as far as validation of her claims.

* She could be getting them mail-order without a letter - many trans people do, but if she is getting them from her doctor, he or she would probably require a therapist's letter.
Savant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 02:10 PM   #368
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
While that's good research, and useful, that wasn't what I was asking. I was talking about 'dismissing based on her attractiveness' that some in this thread 'might' do.
Oh sure. I certainly was talking about people using the quality of her appearance as evidence that she wasn't authentically trans.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Even the points raised earlier about how transwomen succeed in looking like women everywhere except for the wedding tackle don't apply to this person; Meadmaker is exactly right, "she" looks exactly like a middle-aged man wearing a dress.
I assert that this is an attempt to link her level of attractiveness to a dismissal of her claim that she is a trans woman.

Claim: Trans women succeed in looking like women [other than genitals]
Claim: This person looks like a middle-aged man to the arguer.
Conclusion: This person is not a trans woman. Initiate quotes around "she". Dismissed.

I just think her middle-aged appearance is beside the point and should not be used against a claim of womanhood. It's an argument that relies on the idea that real women couldn't look like middle-aged men. It seems petty in addition to being irrelevant.

A light-hearted but somehow trenchant exploration of how reliable "this-person-looks-like a" evidence is can be found here.

I think the argument that she is problematic because has a sexuality is much more dangerous and serious.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
What evidence did the college require? Was the state issue ID the thing that did it or did they simply take her word? Was the estrogen patch the kicker? I'm curious how they did identify her as a woman and thus able to use the locker room.
I don't know. If it's a driver's license she had one. Maybe they did take it on faith that she was representing herself correctly.

Hmm, if I think this one through, the less hassle she had at the front desk stage, the more likely it was that someone accepted that she was a woman based on her appearance alone. This would undermine any arguments that everyone looked at her and saw a "man". If, alternately, she had major hassle getting in, does that mean she had convincing documentation in the face of it? Interesting. Can't say that I know which scenario it was.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 03:08 PM   #369
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,451
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
But it is pretty dickish ...
Dickish, or maybe just unthinkingly doing as she has always done, like some men of a certain generation...

Originally Posted by Meadmaker
My new health club is a newer club, and the average age is much younger. One day after working out I threw my clothes in the locker, grabbed my towel, threw it over my shoulder, and headed toward the showers, just like I always had done. I looked around and realized everyone else had their towels wrapped around their waist, concealing the boy parts.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 06:14 PM   #370
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
Dickish, or maybe just unthinkingly doing as she has always done, like some men of a certain generation...
No no; the original act might've been merely thoughtless rather than intentionally lewd. I could buy that, although there's a couple of questions nagging at me about the situation still. But no, I'm referring to the subsequent banishment of all the other females who might be made uncomfortable by the scene to the horrors of the "third locker room".

I understand she's been interviewed by the media. Did she ever say that in light of the events of that night she would at least be a bit more mindful and wear a towel in the sauna? Or is she happy to let everyone else be moved to other locker rooms in order to accommodate her?
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 09:12 PM   #371
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
How is anybody being banished? The coaches have chosen that change room. No one is forcing them.

They simply have the same choice that you are implying the woman has. To use a different change room. The auxiliary change room was certainly portrayed as a perfectly adequate place when it was offered as an option to her. Was anyone talking about banishing her at that point?

I don't understand how the auxiliary goes from perfectly fine to Siberia, depending on who it is offered to.

It may have been dickish or thoughtless to forget her towel, but it's not impolite to keep using the change room. Someone is still arguing that she shouldn't be there.

Edit: I'd also point out that there are privacy screens there now that everyone can drop their towels behind. Which, as other people have suggested, aren't a bad idea.

Last edited by appalling; 1st December 2012 at 09:28 PM.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 09:52 PM   #372
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Should pool attendants be given OKCupid transcripts?
Yeah. Sounds good.

Quote:
How do you want to do this?

I don't know. You came up with the idea. You'll have to figure out the implementation deals.










Ok. Maybe that's being mean or a jerk or something, but there's a certain point where explanations are lost on those not the least bit interested in seeing the obvious.

For me, the point at which it became obvious that something was dreadfully wrong here was when I learned Colleen chose not to use the auxiliary locker room. What possible justification could there be for that decision by her?

Of course, she (or he, or whatever) had learned what to say. Start spouting drivel about Alabama and 1959. That way they make the teen girls move, and she gets to keep scoping out the college chicks.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 10:12 PM   #373
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
I haven't seen any statement from the college addressing this, friend tyr13, but if she is able to get hormones* and had her ID changed, she most likely has a note from her therapist stating that she is suffering from gender dysphoria. I imagine that would satisfy the college as far as validation of her claims.

* She could be getting them mail-order without a letter - many trans people do, but if she is getting them from her doctor, he or she would probably require a therapist's letter.
Thank you for reminding me. From her statements it seems as if she does not suffer from gender dysphoria in the way I understand it. She doesn't hate her man parts and has no wish to change them. It seems she doesn't even feel they aren't part of her. Are these not key parts of gender dysphoria?

And while I agree that the state issue ID or a medical note should be enough, I was wondering if they even asked for such at all, or if it really was the honor system.

EDIT: To put this another way, I've never been asked to show my ID to prove I identify as male to use the men's locker room.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Last edited by tyr_13; 1st December 2012 at 10:13 PM.
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 10:20 PM   #374
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I understand she's been interviewed by the media. Did she ever say that in light of the events of that night she would at least be a bit more mindful and wear a towel in the sauna? Or is she happy to let everyone else be moved to other locker rooms in order to accommodate her?
I have only seen one video clip of her talking to a local television show. In it, she describes the encounter with the coach, and then later said, "This is not 1959 Alabama. We don't call the police for drinking at the wrong water fountain." (Quote is from memory.) The reporter had introduced that quote by saying, "but Francis believes these girls need an education". (Again, quote is from memory).
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 10:46 PM   #375
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Another curious thing about this issue. CBF was taking women's studies so she had to be at least aware of Schrodinger's rapist and cognizant of the ramifications of displaying the wedding tackle in a women's space.
I had never heard the phrase "Schrodinger's rapist" before. I googled it just to be sure what it meant.

It's a good point, and one that has been made, with slight variations, on several of the lesbian and transgender sites that have been opposed to Colleen's actions.

When you compare Colleen to the girls in that locker room, Colleen is bigger than they are, Colleen is stronger than they are, and Colleen has a penis. These facts, all by themselves, should make those girls reluctant, even frightened, to take off their clothes near "her". The fact that he shows absolutely zero empathy toward those perfectly reasonable feelings is a sign of a very disturbed mind.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 1st December 2012 at 11:11 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 02:49 AM   #376
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
If you have a penis you're dangerous, dont you understand that?

Thats why many domestic violence shelters dont even allow boys over 12 to stay there, 12 year old boys, especially boys of abused families are monsters and are likely to assault or rape the women there. Women have to fear every man, anyone could rape them at any moment for any reason and there's nothing any of them can do about it. Women have total justification to be petrified constantly so long as they are in the presense of a human with a penis.
/sarcasm

Last edited by Edx; 2nd December 2012 at 02:52 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:34 AM   #377
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
This is a fair enough complaint; even despite my own doubts, I myself have no problem continuing referring to this individual as "she" and "her".

But it is pretty dickish (irrespective of presence of a dick) to make all the girls and women who don't want to have to deal with this one individual splaying her legs and airing out her balls in the sauna area while watching them change, use the little auxilliary locker room instead of the womens' locker room.
So what classes of people who others might find discomforting can be excluded in this fashion? Homosexuals and blacks seem obvious targets. So why is it suck it up for that but not trans people.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:38 AM   #378
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
This is a fair enough complaint; even despite my own doubts, I myself have no problem continuing referring to this individual as "she" and "her".

But it is pretty dickish (irrespective of presence of a dick) to make all the girls and women who don't want to have to deal with this one individual splaying her legs and airing out her balls in the sauna area while watching them change, use the little auxilliary locker room instead of the womens' locker room.
Are you willing to have the same rules for female-male transsexuals? Or is there something inherently disgusting or violent about ballz?
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:44 AM   #379
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Thank you for reminding me. From her statements it seems as if she does not suffer from gender dysphoria in the way I understand it. She doesn't hate her man parts and has no wish to change them. It seems she doesn't even feel they aren't part of her. Are these not key parts of gender dysphoria?

And while I agree that the state issue ID or a medical note should be enough, I was wondering if they even asked for such at all, or if it really was the honor system.

EDIT: To put this another way, I've never been asked to show my ID to prove I identify as male to use the men's locker room.
I know a transwoman who has a full beard. Not all trans and gender queer individuals are the same. For example few transmen get genital reconstruction as it can cause sexual dysfunction.

People are complex not simple. She my or may not want genital reconstruction, it is expensive and she might prioritize other surgeries first.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:51 AM   #380
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I had never heard the phrase "Schrodinger's rapist" before. I googled it just to be sure what it meant.

It's a good point, and one that has been made, with slight variations, on several of the lesbian and transgender sites that have been opposed to Colleen's actions.

When you compare Colleen to the girls in that locker room, Colleen is bigger than they are, Colleen is stronger than they are, and Colleen has a penis. These facts, all by themselves, should make those girls reluctant, even frightened, to take off their clothes near "her". The fact that he shows absolutely zero empathy toward those perfectly reasonable feelings is a sign of a very disturbed mind.
Yes and if we couple the SR concept (which Colleen HAD to be aware of ) with Colleen's statement about these girls needing an education, we're forced into the conclusion that the wiener display was a deliberate act.

Why ? Who Knows ? It could have been something as simple as trolling for potential partners or something more complex like an attempt to redefine womanhood.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:25 AM   #381
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Yeah. Sounds good.




I don't know. You came up with the idea. You'll have to figure out the implementation deals.










Ok. Maybe that's being mean or a jerk or something, but there's a certain point where explanations are lost on those not the least bit interested in seeing the obvious.

For me, the point at which it became obvious that something was dreadfully wrong here was when I learned Colleen chose not to use the auxiliary locker room. What possible justification could there be for that decision by her?

Of course, she (or he, or whatever) had learned what to say. Start spouting drivel about Alabama and 1959. That way they make the teen girls move, and she gets to keep scoping out the college chicks.
Way to dodge.

I was asking why you think her sexuality is important. You keep bringing it up. Defend your argument instead of just using it as a character smear.

You seem most offended that she might like women.

Are you against lesbians in change rooms?
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:36 AM   #382
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
...is there something inherently disgusting or violent about ballz?
Testicles produce testesterone, which promotes both muscle growth and aggression.

Yes, there is something inherently violent about balls.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:39 AM   #383
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Thank you for reminding me. From her statements it seems as if she does not suffer from gender dysphoria in the way I understand it. She doesn't hate her man parts and has no wish to change them. It seems she doesn't even feel they aren't part of her. Are these not key parts of gender dysphoria?

And while I agree that the state issue ID or a medical note should be enough, I was wondering if they even asked for such at all, or if it really was the honor system.

EDIT: To put this another way, I've never been asked to show my ID to prove I identify as male to use the men's locker room.
Here.

Apparently, it's not all about balls.

I think the ID thing is mooted. She wasn't found to be doing anything illegal and whatever happened with ID wouldn't seem to have had an effect on anything that happened.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:40 AM   #384
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Testicles produce testesterone, which promotes both muscle growth and aggression.

Yes, there is something inherently violent about balls.
What does estrogen do?
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:45 AM   #385
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Are you willing to have the same rules for female-male transsexuals? Or is there something inherently disgusting or violent about ballz?
Of course not; it's the same darn thing. Walking into the men's room asserting that you're a man, acting like a man, everything else; then walking into the sauna area and splaying your legs and female genitalia in front of all the changing boys is just as stupid and should get that person kicked out of the locker room too, pending a sit-down talk about some obviously-lacking common sense.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:51 AM   #386
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Of course not; it's the same darn thing. Walking into the men's room asserting that you're a man, acting like a man, everything else; then walking into the sauna area and splaying your legs and female genitalia in front of all the changing boys is just as stupid and should get that person kicked out of the locker room too, pending a sit-down talk about some obviously-lacking common sense.
You've already claimed that nobody would want to talk to an offender because of your "Don't Seem Gay" policies.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:03 AM   #387
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
They simply have the same choice that you are implying the woman has. To use a different change room. The auxiliary change room was certainly portrayed as a perfectly adequate place when it was offered as an option to her. Was anyone talking about banishing her at that point?

I don't understand how the auxiliary goes from perfectly fine to Siberia, depending on who it is offered to.
Didn't you just earlier refer to sending her to the men's locker room (as a theoretical example) as an inconvenience, as singling her out? You're now rhetorically asking why people talking about the swim club that way are doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Edit: I'd also point out that there are privacy screens there now that everyone can drop their towels behind. Which, as other people have suggested, aren't a bad idea.
But this wasn't a case of her merely being seen changing, which you keep insisting on forgetting. She obviously wasn't in the pool locker room just to change clothes, or into or out of a swimsuit; she was there to be naked and sit in the sauna area. Privacy screens to stand behind while changing have no bearing on the fact that she'll still be sitting there showing off - that's the whole reason the swim coach decided it would be better to have all the kids use the third locker room despite the new privacy screens in the women's locker room.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:17 AM   #388
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Didn't you just earlier refer to sending her to the men's locker room (as a theoretical example) as an inconvenience, as singling her out? You're now rhetorically asking why people talking about the swim club that way are doing the same thing.
It would be an inconvenience, if it wasn't chosen.

There is no decree that the swim team have to avoid the common change room.

You're asking someone to feel remorse that people "have to" go somewhere else because they agree with conservative christians that she is somehow disgusting.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
But this wasn't a case of her merely being seen changing, which you keep insisting on forgetting. She obviously wasn't in the pool locker room just to change clothes, or into or out of a swimsuit; she was there to be naked and sit in the sauna area. Privacy screens to stand behind while changing have no bearing on the fact that she'll still be sitting there showing off - that's the whole reason the swim coach decided it would be better to have all the kids use the third locker room despite the new privacy screens in the women's locker room.
You keep insisting on forgetting that the only testimony we have simply said that she was sitting in plain sight. It doesn't say anything about "splaying" "flaunting" or somehow parading. If you say that you prefer privacy stalls, fine, but don't then shift the goalposts to, she's going to continue showing off. "Showing off" implies active intent, and you don't know that.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:28 AM   #389
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Way to dodge.

I was asking why you think her sexuality is important. You keep bringing it up. Defend your argument instead of just using it as a character smear.

You seem most offended that she might like women.

Are you against lesbians in change rooms?
To illustrate the answer, I'll begin with a rhetorical question.

I'm going to the health club this afternoon. Suppose I went there and I went into the women's locker room, and just sat down. The men's locker room has no privacy partitions. I'll guess that the women's doesn't either. Even if it does, I'm sure that somewhere in there I could catch a glimpse of a naked woman.

Should I be arrested for that action? Of course I should, but why? I'm not behaving lewdly. I don't represent a threat. All I'm doing is sitting in a locker room. No harm, no foul.

But there is harm. Really. Even if I simply go in, sit down, remain totally clothed, and leave after a while, there is still harm. My mere presence, my very existence, would create anxiety among the women in the locker room. It would be obvious that not only is a man in the locker room, but there is a man who is not the least concerned about their wishes and their desire for privacy. If I were to go into the women's locker room, I would be displaying utter contempt for their wishes, and they would have a legitimate fear that, given an opportunity to do so, I might disregard other wishes about their sexuality, specifically their desire not to have sex with me.

That's the situation with Colleen. It beomes especially obvious if the young women are aware that Colleen is a "lesbian". In that case, what do they see when they see Colleen? They see someone who is big, strong, and has a penis. Not only that, but if they are aware of Colleen's sexual preference, then there is someone present who is big, strong, naked, has a penis, and would like to shag them. But wait. It's worse. Colleen is big, strong, naked, has a penis, would like to shag them, and doesn't care one whit if that causes them anxiety. That's a scary combination.


I'll let you decide whether or not an "ordinary" lesbian would,or should, cause a similar degree of anxiety. My own opinion is that the situations are barely comparable.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:32 AM   #390
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Here.

Apparently, it's not all about balls.

I think the ID thing is mooted. She wasn't found to be doing anything illegal and whatever happened with ID wouldn't seem to have had an effect on anything that happened.
Thanks for the link, but note that I haven't claimed it's all about balls.

From your link, the symptoms in teens and adults.

Quote:
1. without doubt that your gender identity is at odds with your biological sex
2. comfortable only when in the gender role of your preferred gender identity
3. a strong desire to hide or be rid of the physical signs of your sex, such as breasts, body hair and muscle definition
4. a strong dislike for and a strong desire to change or be rid of the genitalia of your biological sex
Numbered by me for reference and not because of any primacy or hierarchy implied. Of those this woman by her own words and actions does not have three and four, doesn't seem to have two, but asserts one. Now that could very well be good enough, I'd argue that it is, but it does in fact come down to what the person says.

As for the ID question being moot it isn't for me. I'm curious. I've never been asked for state issued ID to use a locker room.

One of the transpeople I knew in college was a short fat bearded person with breasts the size of my head, and I have a giant head. I'm still unsure which direction they were going, male to female or female to male. We just called this person 'Big T'. I was 'in' the Pride Alliance and have spent a lot of time with homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Yet I still don't know nor do I have a strong basis for guessing which restroom or locker room Big T would or should use. We just never talked about it. I'm starting to wonder why we didn't in a group meant to discuss just this sort of thing. I could very well be that I wasn't at that meeting as I couldn't make most of them.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:59 AM   #391
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
To illustrate the answer, I'll begin with a rhetorical question.

I'm going to the health club this afternoon. Suppose I went there and I went into the women's locker room, and just sat down. The men's locker room has no privacy partitions. I'll guess that the women's doesn't either. Even if it does, I'm sure that somewhere in there I could catch a glimpse of a naked woman.

Should I be arrested for that action? Of course I should, but why? I'm not behaving lewdly. I don't represent a threat. All I'm doing is sitting in a locker room. No harm, no foul.

But there is harm. Really. Even if I simply go in, sit down, remain totally clothed, and leave after a while, there is still harm. My mere presence, my very existence, would create anxiety among the women in the locker room. It would be obvious that not only is a man in the locker room, but there is a man who is not the least concerned about their wishes and their desire for privacy. If I were to go into the women's locker room, I would be displaying utter contempt for their wishes, and they would have a legitimate fear that, given an opportunity to do so, I might disregard other wishes about their sexuality, specifically their desire not to have sex with me.

That's the situation with Colleen. It beomes especially obvious if the young women are aware that Colleen is a "lesbian". In that case, what do they see when they see Colleen? They see someone who is big, strong, and has a penis. Not only that, but if they are aware of Colleen's sexual preference, then there is someone present who is big, strong, naked, has a penis, and would like to shag them. But wait. It's worse. Colleen is big, strong, naked, has a penis, would like to shag them, and doesn't care one whit if that causes them anxiety. That's a scary combination.


I'll let you decide whether or not an "ordinary" lesbian would,or should, cause a similar degree of anxiety. My own opinion is that the situations are barely comparable.
First, I asked you about your repeated objections to her sexuality not to her appearance. Let's get this clear. No one in your rhetorical or actual examples would be able to tell if you or Colleen enjoyed the thought of women or were sexually repulsed by women just by looking at hem. No one looking at Colleen would somehow just know that she would like to shag them. No one in this specific incident has complained about sexual behaviour.

You have not explained why her sexuality is important here. You are using it as a character smear and to assign unknowable motives. You have again dodged your repeated and forceful condemnations of her sexuality by changing the argument to rely on her appearance.

You have responded to "Why is her sexuality important" with the idea that it is as long as you know that she has a penis and looks like a man to some people, but you would be threatened even if you didn't know her sexuality.

Your idea that "if they are aware of Colleen's sexual preference" then they are somehow extra-threatened, is still an argument against any lesbian in there. Your admission that the situations are "barely comparable" is because your true argument does not rely on her sexuality at all. You add it as a character smear and a way to ascribe unknowable motivations.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 11:11 AM   #392
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
You have again dodged your repeated and forceful condemnations of her sexuality by changing the argument to rely on her appearance.
"Big, strong, and has a penis" is not in any way a comment about appearance. It is about function. The key feature about a penis is not some aesthetic attribute. The key feature of a penis is that it can penetrate a vagina during sexual intercourse. The "big" and "strong" attributes are not about some artistic representation. The reason those attributes are important is that big, strong people can force small, weak, people do things that the small, weak, people do not want to do.

My post said absolutely nothing about "appearance".
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 01:01 PM   #393
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Thanks for the link, but note that I haven't claimed it's all about balls.
I'm sorry, I was putting it crudely. I was responding to this idea...

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
She doesn't hate her man parts and has no wish to change them. It seems she doesn't even feel they aren't part of her. Are these not key parts of gender dysphoria?
I was trying to answer your question and point out that it it's not always about the man parts and that "hating man parts" is not "key" to the idea of gender dysphoria. More on this....

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
From your link, the symptoms in teens and adults.

Numbered by me for reference and not because of any primacy or hierarchy implied.
Those symptoms are "may feel" not "must feel" and are prefaced as such on that page. It is a list of possible symptoms, not a checklist that all true trans people feel. It also says people may experience depression or suicidal feelings. Some people don't. It doesn't disqualify. I think you understand this, but I thought I'd explain my argument.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Of those this woman by her own words and actions does not have three and four, doesn't seem to have two, but asserts one. Now that could very well be good enough, I'd argue that it is, but it does in fact come down to what the person says.
I would say that ultimately it comes down to how the person truly feels.

As far as medically, it does not come down to what the person says, it comes down to what the person says to someone medically qualified to assess that testimony from learning how people actually operate and not just using ad hoc gut feelings about bodies. Not "just saying"

As far as legally, it does not come down to what the person says, it comes down to what the person says to someone while under oath to a legal authority, often with direct judicial review. Not "just saying"

As far as socially, it does not come down to what the person says, it comes down to what the person says to friends and peers, and whether those people support the testimony.

As far as ultimately, a mute trans person could still be alone on a desert island, still trans without trial. But it wouldn't be because something was "just said". It would be because something was.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
As for the ID question being moot it isn't for me. I'm curious. I've never been asked for state issued ID to use a locker room.
I found it interesting as well, I was trying to argue that it was moot to a claim that she shouldn't be in the change room at all. I was speculating about it too. I could mean she was either passable to the front desk, or the front desk made a decision based on knowledge of gender spectrum, or they believe in the supremacy of little plastic cards. Or none of that. But I don't know how to find this out.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
One of the transpeople I knew in college was a short fat bearded person with breasts the size of my head, and I have a giant head. I'm still unsure which direction they were going, male to female or female to male. We just called this person 'Big T'. I was 'in' the Pride Alliance and have spent a lot of time with homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Yet I still don't know nor do I have a strong basis for guessing which restroom or locker room Big T would or should use. We just never talked about it. I'm starting to wonder why we didn't in a group meant to discuss just this sort of thing. I could very well be that I wasn't at that meeting as I couldn't make most of them.
This is interesting, too. Good experience. I find myself opposed to arguments that people like 'Big T' should just go where no one would ever have to interact with them as a solution. I think interaction takes away a lot of these fear-of-the-unknown arguments.

Last edited by appalling; 2nd December 2012 at 01:02 PM. Reason: quote marks
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 01:10 PM   #394
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
"Big, strong, and has a penis" is not in any way a comment about appearance. It is about function. The key feature about a penis is not some aesthetic attribute. The key feature of a penis is that it can penetrate a vagina during sexual intercourse. The "big" and "strong" attributes are not about some artistic representation. The reason those attributes are important is that big, strong people can force small, weak, people do things that the small, weak, people do not want to do.

My post said absolutely nothing about "appearance".
You're not making the type of argument that could not be made about a big, strong, lesbian.

If your argument is about the penis, then make it without dragging in appearance, sexuality, or other types of function. You have not made the claim that strong people should not be allowed to use the change room.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 01:48 PM   #395
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
You're asking someone to feel remorse that people "have to" go somewhere else because they agree with conservative christians that she is somehow disgusting.
Is that why they're choosing to use the auxilliary locker room? Because "they agree with conservative christians that she is somehow disgusting"? No other possible reason, huh?

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
You keep insisting on forgetting that the only testimony we have simply said that she was sitting in plain sight. It doesn't say anything about "splaying" "flaunting" or somehow parading. If you say that you prefer privacy stalls, fine, but don't then shift the goalposts to, she's going to continue showing off. "Showing off" implies active intent, and you don't know that.
From the report:

Quote:
while she was at the pool, a female high school swim student came up to her and stated there was a man in the sauna. The lifeguard requested [the swim coach] to go to the sauna and check it out and she did at which time she observed [the transwoman] sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing and Tiffany said to her, "you need to leave."
Open, splayed, parted, apart - her legs were spread and her male genitalia were on display. "Splayed" and "open" aren't even semantically different; it's like starting a debate over "frustrated" versus "upset".

As for intent, I'll freely admit I'm "inferring" that, but because the alternative is that the transwoman really was so incredibly stupid that she could walk into the locker room, notice that it's full of children, and actually be completely oblivious that stripping and sitting down with her legs spread open in a place where they could all get a good look at her genitals might not be a good idea.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 02:13 PM   #396
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Is that why they're choosing to use the auxilliary locker room? Because "they agree with conservative christians that she is somehow disgusting"? No other possible reason, huh?
Sure, but even if it's for other reasons, it's still a choice. You wanted to frame it as a dictate instead of them choosing a workaround. That's how it was framed it when you suggested it for the woman.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Open, splayed, parted, apart - her legs were spread and her male genitalia were on display. "Splayed" and "open" aren't even semantically different; it's like starting a debate over "frustrated" versus "upset".

As for intent, I'll freely admit I'm "inferring" that, but because the alternative is that the transwoman really was so incredibly stupid that she could walk into the locker room, notice that it's full of children, and actually be completely oblivious that stripping and sitting down with her legs spread open in a place where they could all get a good look at her genitals might not be a good idea.
A towel would have been polite. It's not fair to go from that to intent to attack. You've said you're okay with pre-op trans women already. You're somehow not okay with no-op women, even though they are supported medically, legally, and socially. There is no other difference here. It is fallacious to use the fact that she is a no-op trans woman to back up your claim that you know her intent.

I don't think it's a great idea to imply malicious intent when it is not spoken to by the people who were actually there.

Edit:
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
notice that it's full of children,
I noticed that you are using an inference to back up your inference. Kind of the problem with this line of argument.

Last edited by appalling; 2nd December 2012 at 02:32 PM.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 02:54 PM   #397
Morrigan
Crone of War
 
Morrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,262
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'd actually say that wrapping a towel about you in a suna when there are kids about is a reasonable solution full stop, regardless of if it's single sex or not.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And here's some information from "her" blog:

“I am polyamorous, bisexual (I very much favor women though, and my therapist calls me a lesbian…makes me smile) and kinky.”

“Colleen Brenna” means “Raven Girl” in Irish Gaelic. A former rodeo rider, he is an avid hunter and competitive handgun shooter.

He started wearing a low-dose estrogen patch two years ago and has written that he has no intention of ever getting “sex reassignment” surgery, stating “Yes, I still have those parts too, although they aren’t disgusting for me. I’ve never hated then. I saw LONG ago, in childhood that those were what I was given, and beung the very, very sexual creature that I was/am, I used them. Enthusiastically. I decided not to be robbed of the blessing of sexuality simply because I came wrapped in the wrong package.” [sic]



This isn't really the sort of person who qualifies as the typical transwoman described earlier in this thread.
Indeed, and on this post s/he even identifies as he? WTF?

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It has made me quite confused.

I'm all for a person with male genitalia who completely identifies and lives as a woman and is in the process of physically changing into one as well using the womens' locker room. Up until this business about the person in question's social account pages, I thought we were dealing with what the thread title evokes: a pre-op transwoman.

But I'm not sure about that anymore. If the new information is true, this person isn't "pre-op"; they're 100% comfortable with the way they look, never plan on changing, and merely seem to prefer to call themselves a woman whilst enjoying having sex with women and men the way men have sex. It seems to me now to be a case of nothing more than a bisexual man who likes to wear dresses.
She did get estrogen, so it's a wee bit more than just a cross-dresser, but yeah, not a whole lot.

Regardless of her sexuality, though, she seems like a complete jerk and I would not be comfortable with this person using the locker rooms at my local facility. At all. I would have zero problem with actual transwomen, but honestly I fail to see why this person would want to identify as a woman when s/he's so happy and proud of his/her birth genitals. It makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Maybe it is a transgendered person who acted like a jerk.

However by this person's own description of themselves before all this happened doesn't sound like a transgendered person but like a bi guy who likes to dress in drag.

If the qualification for being transgendered nothing more than, 'because that's what they say they are', then yeah, it's a transsexual being a jerk (doing something I would find objectionable from a man in the men's locker room by the way). If to be transgendered you have to have the other indicators then not so much.

Either way, I'm now having a hard time feeling bad for or siding with this person even though I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt.
Ditto.
Morrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 03:06 PM   #398
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
You're not making the type of argument that could not be made about a big, strong, lesbian.
A big, strong, lesbian, assuming she is the ordinary sort of lesbian, cannot use her penis to penetrate a woman's vagina because ordinary lesbians do not have penises. An ordinary lesbian cannot cause an undesired pregnancy because ordinary lesbians don't create sperm.

This whole penis thing matters.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 03:10 PM   #399
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Morrigan View Post
...honestly I fail to see why this person would want to identify as a woman when s/he's so happy and proud of his/her birth genitals. It makes absolutely no sense.
Gender dysphoria does not equal genital hate.

Gender does not equal genitals.

This isn't a new idea and it doesn't just apply uniquely to this example.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 03:17 PM   #400
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Morrigan View Post
Indeed, and on this post s/he even identifies as he? WTF?
I may have created some confusion there. Mea culpa. The material I quoted from was a blog post about Colleen, and that blog post contained quotes from Colleen's own blog. The blogger referred to Colleen as "he", but Colleen refers to herself consistently as "she" at least in the material I have read.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 2nd December 2012 at 03:21 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.