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 3rd December 2012, 12:44 PM   #441
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Oops! You forgot to actually read that:

"Also", as in, "in addition to what we just mentioned, not "instead of" or "contrary to".
Put the straw down, I didnt say that testosterone isnt linked with aggression, just that ..."The results challenge the belief that testosterone effects are limited to promoting antisocial behavior, the study authors said. They believe, instead, that testosterone may increase pride and the need to develop a positive self-image." Which means it isnt the brutish inherently violence male hormone creating violent compulsions that its being made out to be, as the reason why we should fear men

Quote:
I don't think anything Meadmaker has said has excepted the possibility that women can be violent. There's women in prisons for attacking and/or killing people, including men, other women, and children - even in some cases their own children.

But he wasn't talking about women; he was talking about balls vis-a-vis potential for violence. They produce a chemical which is objectively associated with increased aggression.
He literally shows us from that the way he sees it he has to stop himself from his violent compulsions, saying that we as men are "capable of curbing" the affects of these violent compulsions that are inherent to being a man as if its a matter of mental will power otherwise we'd act on it. The reason this started was because he claimed a women should be scared of a man in a woman's changing room because ballz are "inherently violent". He was also acting like estrogen isnt linked with violence as well, and seems to be ignorant of or ignores the research into female violence and sexual violence shows that women are just as likely to assault and abuse. Im sorry but if you're going to just keep repeating the same thing then you can just get back to your argument in the OP.

Last edited by Edx; 3rd December 2012 at 01:06 PM.
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 3rd December 2012, 01:03 PM   #442
Morrigan
Crone of War
 
Morrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,262
Originally Posted by No Nice Things View Post
Heterosexual normative woman here. I'll give it a shot.

I'm no prude, but I'm very much of the changing as privately as possible mentality. If there is a stall, I will use it. If not, I will change as quickly as possible and with as little exposure as possible.

I'm sure every gym/pool center/etc. varies depending on factors, but in my experience this is the norm. I can count on one hand the number of women I've seen walking around naked any more than necessary. As for sauna's, I can also count on one hand the number of times I've seen a woman topless much less nude from the waist down. Even in those cases, I've never seen one sitting in the very displayed manner described.

As to the person in question: I very much support transwomen using women's bathrooms and locker rooms and their sexual preferences are irrelevant to me. However, the behavior described here would make me extremely uncomfortable even when I know the person self-identifies as a woman, (before knowing that I would have absolutely complained), is certainly not the norm, and I definitely question the motives of the individual. I strongly suspect at the very least least that she is interested in exhibitionism and that was at play here.
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
This is interesting, thank you.

Any other women with thoughts on the questions I've asked? Please do respond.
I'm not sure which questions those are, but I am a heterosexual ciswoman and I 100% agree with the post by No Nice Things above.
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 3rd December 2012, 01:28 PM   #443
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Put the straw down, I didnt say that testosterone isnt linked with aggression, just that ...
Just that saying so makes Meadmaker a man-hating woman man.

Originally Posted by Edx View Post
He literally shows us from that the way he sees it he has to stop himself from his violent compulsions, saying that we as men are "capable of curbing" the affects of these violent compulsions that are inherent to being a man as if its a matter of mental will power otherwise we'd act on it.
What exactly is wrong with this statement? Do people not have occasional base desires to harm others that they can simply choose not to act on?

Perhaps he says as a man because he probably has experience being a man, but cannot say the same for women because he's never been one.

Originally Posted by Edx View Post
The reason this started was because he claimed a women should be scared of a man in a woman's changing room because ballz are "inherently violent". He was also acting like estrogen isnt linked with violence as well, and seems to be ignorant of or ignores the research into female violence and sexual violence shows that women are just as likely to assault and abuse. Im sorry but if you're going to just keep repeating the same thing then you can just get back to your argument in the OP.
He may be "acting like" estrogen isn't linked with violence in your opinion; but he never talked about women or estrogen and violence so you actually don't know what his opinions or thoughts on those subjects are.

He's already admitted that he oversimplified; so I'm not sure why you have to keep pounding on this. The "women" involved were minors, some as young as six; I think they have every right to be concerned about a naked man in the locker room because in our culture, men exposing themselves to young girls is considered an act of sexual misconduct, and men who have no interest in sexual misconduct simply do not engage in it, with very rare contextual exceptions, none of which apply to this particular situation. Yes, the "offender" in this situation was a transwoman with male genitalia, but it's obvious that the minors involved were either unaware or unable to tell the difference (because they reported a man, not a transwoman), so it makes little difference to this specific topic.

Last edited by Checkmite; 3rd December 2012 at 01:31 PM.
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 3rd December 2012, 01:35 PM   #444
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Except that there are no other possibilities, are there? Even you realize this - because even as you continue to be willing to bring up other "possibilities" to counter my other "assumptions", on this particular issue when I invited you to suggest some alternatives for what made the student report "a man in the locker room" besides glimpsing the person naked, all you responded with was "I don't want to speculate! I'm just pointing out that's not what she said!" Why the sudden clam-up; you have no problem offering alternative possibilities on other points.
Are you having trouble reading what I have written?

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Don't be disingenuous. You have embroidered a fact. Inviting me to speculate with you won't help anyone. I never said that no one else would make an inaccurate personal judgement based on her appearance.
I certainly suggest here that there is at least one other scenario where a high schooler could decide that there was a "man" in the sauna without actually seeing genitals. You have repeatedly stated that there is only one possible interpretation.

If you'd like an additional speculation, maybe the high schooler was raised by conservative christian parents, saw this person in the parking lot and, in your words "told on her" but didn't see even a nipple. Whee, speculation's fun. I can't prove this one even a bit, but it should disprove your idea that you've figured out the only possible scenario.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I would genuinely like to know how this scenario would've played out. Considering that an adult who immediately went to check found the individual naked, sitting with her "legs open and genitalia exposed", I'd really like to hear some possible scenarios for how none of the children were able to see this, yet still come to the conclusion that there was a "man" present. Just for argument's sake.
Done.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
You can't discern how likely it is that she would have that estrogen based solely on her own claims to have it. Even the "people openly antagonistic to her" are only "reporting" her own claims via social media to use "estrogen patches".
Her enlarged breasts are somehow purely circumstantial. I've already explained the likelihood that she could be faking her gender identity. It would be a lot of work just to get past the front desk of a community pool front desk. I also don't see how it speaks to her behavior.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
As for changing her legal name, the entire process takes less than a day. All you have to do is sign a form swearing that you're not a registered sex offender and that the name change is not for the purpose of harming or defrauding anyone. If you've changed your name before, you have to explain the particulars and why you want to change it again; otherwise, the form and the fee are it. It costs less money than a video game console and can absolutely be done spur-of-the-moment. There's no prerequisite "waiting period" or anything else preventing one from changing his or her name on a whim.
Somebody could change their name on a whim, but not their state-recognized gender. This takes longer than a day, as I've shown earlier. Your argument is irrelevant unless you are saying that this is all she has done. Also, is anyone arguing that this woman made changes in a spur-of-the-moment fashion? What are you arguing? Intentionally lewd behavior is equally illegal for all gender identities so I don't understand why you're so interested in commitment-testing her gender identity.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I haven't added any "words". I've made the same deduction that everyone here made when first reading the news articles which made them aware of this issue, which is that minors saw the person naked. This entire thread has gone on for pages, with people perfectly willing to accept that, arguing that an accidental glimpse while changing shouldn't have actually harmed anyone. Now I post this police report which indicates that the person wasn't found simply changing, but sitting naked with her legs open and genitals being displayed, and NOW suddenly your problem is "oh, but there's no proof any children saw anything at all (even though they felt they had to report a man in the locker room and a person with male genitals was subsequently found naked in the locker room), that's just an assumption".
You posted evidence that doesn't prove the claim and you wonder about my timing in not being convinced.

"How could you not be convinced you know what Person A saw, when you have what Person B saw right there!"
and
"Other people speculated about what could have happened, how can you look at the police report and not agree with all of the earlier speculation!"

In all your defenses, you make it clear that there has been no testimony that minors actually saw genitals, while you want people to vocally condemn showing minors genitals.

Your argument that she went to a place where women get naked, and that minors sometimes also use that space, that therefore she was only interested in being naked with children is specious. It is especially so when you can't point to the moment anyone was actually naked with children.

Here's a speculative question for you to analyze:

If the conservative christian legal firm, with a history of strongly opposing LGBT non-discrimination legislation, could only talk about the damaging possibility of children seeing genitals, when they were hired by some concerned parents of the swim team, why do you feel you can talk about it as the only scenario possible?
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 3rd December 2012, 01:37 PM   #445
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Morrigan View Post
I'm not sure which questions those are, but I am a heterosexual ciswoman and I 100% agree with the post by No Nice Things above.
It was this:

Quote:
Any women - of any kind, so-called "normative" or otherwise - reading the thread, would any of you like to offer your opinion as to whether you would be comfortable loitering naked in a locker room in view of any number of other peoples' children while they were changing? Not merely changing your clothes and then leaving, mind you - but actually just getting naked and hanging around in that situation for no particular reason? How about sitting with your legs open so they could see your genitalia while doing so? For that matter, do you think you would be comfortable just loitering in said locker room in front of said kids even if you were clad in (nothing but) a towel? Is "hanging out naked (or mostly naked) in the locker room with the young girls" something that's just a perfectly OK woman-thing-to-do? I strongly suspect it's not, but I might be making a presumption, so women please help me out.
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 3rd December 2012, 01:38 PM   #446
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Just that saying so makes Meadmaker a man-hating woman man.
Also the manor and langauge he used shows this, yes. He may not even consider himself a man-hater, probably because he's so used to feeling like this and society backs him up.

Quote:
What exactly is wrong with this statement? Do people not have occasional base desires to harm others that they can simply choose not to act on?
You made a mistake here, you said "people". Its not people, its "men", since "men" by their very natures are biologically "inherently violent" and we as men must, through willpower, stop ourselves from acting on our base male violent compulsions....

Quote:
Perhaps he says as a man because he probably has experience being a man, but cannot say the same for women because he's never been one.

He may be "acting like" estrogen isn't linked with violence in your opinion; but he never talked about women or estrogen and violence so you actually don't know what his opinions or thoughts on those subjects are.
Nope, afraid that doesnt work either because otherwise he wouldnt specifically say that theres something necessarily violent about a person with testicels in a womans dressing room that women have reason to fear.


Quote:
He's already admitted that he oversimplified; so I'm not sure why you have to keep pounding on this.
Im only replying because you keep going on.

Quote:
The "women" involved were minors, some as young as six; I think they have every right to be concerned about a naked man in the locker room because in our culture, men exposing themselves to young girls is considered an act of sexual misconduct,
That is not the argument presented, he said it was VIOLENCE.

I dont really care to argue details about to what extent transgenders can use sex specific dressing rooms, I cared when he specifically said that women should fear men because men are inherently and biological violent and so that fear is deserved. You may well be able to convince me its justifiable to call it "sexual misconduct" but that doesnt change this.

Last edited by Edx; 3rd December 2012 at 02:06 PM.
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 3rd December 2012, 01:48 PM   #447
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Originally Posted by Earthborn
That transsexuals use hormones that block the effects of testosterone is also an objective medical fact and is rather well-known.
Relates to Meadmaker's argument with Edx how...?
Without speaking for Earthborn I suspect its because Meadmaker's argument was that testosterone = aggression and therefore women have real reason to fear someone with male genitals in their dressing room, despite the fact that transsexuals are typically taking estrogen and hormones that are blocking testosterone anyway. Which means that it really is just about female perception of males.

Last edited by Edx; 3rd December 2012 at 02:07 PM.
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 3rd December 2012, 02:01 PM   #448
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Any women - of any kind, so-called "normative" or otherwise - reading the thread, would any of you like to offer your opinion as to whether you would be comfortable loitering naked in a locker room in view of any number of other peoples' children while they were changing? Not merely changing your clothes and then leaving, mind you - but actually just getting naked and hanging around in that situation for no particular reason? How about sitting with your legs open so they could see your genitalia while doing so? For that matter, do you think you would be comfortable just loitering in said locker room in front of said kids even if you were clad in (nothing but) a towel? Is "hanging out naked (or mostly naked) in the locker room with the young girls" something that's just a perfectly OK woman-thing-to-do? I strongly suspect it's not, but I might be making a presumption, so women please help me out.
You ask a lot of hypothetical questions that are framed in slanted ways.

"Would any woman out there be okay if a man looked at you with a John Waters leer? Would any woman agree that genitals should be placed near a child in a suspicious way? Does anyone support the idea of someone staying in your personal space for too long? Are transgender people perfectly okay to you every time? How about when they're loiter-y? Anyone? I'm just asking. It's for a survey."
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 3rd December 2012, 02:04 PM   #449
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Are you having trouble reading what I have written?



I certainly suggest here that there is at least one other scenario where a high schooler could decide that there was a "man" in the sauna without actually seeing genitals. You have repeatedly stated that there is only one possible interpretation.

If you'd like an additional speculation, maybe the high schooler was raised by conservative christian parents, saw this person in the parking lot and, in your words "told on her" but didn't see even a nipple. Whee, speculation's fun. I can't prove this one even a bit, but it should disprove your idea that you've figured out the only possible scenario.



Done.

Wrong; you've failed to account for how the naked person with male genitals that was found in the locker room immediately after a report of a man in the locker room was made by the minor, was able to get to that location without being seen by any of the kids in the locker room. Did the person teleport into the sauna immediately after the girl saw her in the parking lot and went to tell the swim coach, and the teleporter forgot to send her clothes, too?

How about the swim coach's including as part of her apology an explanation that there were children present who were not used to seeing individuals in situations like this, as described in the police report? If they had actually not seen anything, what difference would it make what they were or were not used to "seeing"?

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Her enlarged breasts are somehow purely circumstantial. I've already explained the likelihood that she could be faking her gender identity. It would be a lot of work just to get past the front desk of a community pool front desk. I also don't see how it speaks to her behavior.

Which enlarged breasts? I haven't seen them. Have you? Where?

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Somebody could change their name on a whim, but not their state-recognized gender. This takes longer than a day, as I've shown earlier. Your argument is irrelevant unless you are saying that this is all she has done.

Who says she's changed her state-recognized gender, besides herself? Anyone - did a court officer actually confirm this? The motor vehicles office? Any of her doctors? Anyone at all?

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
You posted evidence that doesn't prove the claim and you wonder about my timing in not being convinced.

I'm wondering about the timing of this particular objection, which you hadn't seemed to feel a need to bring up before.

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
In all your defenses, you make it clear that there has been no testimony that minors actually saw genitals, while you want people to vocally condemn showing minors genitals.

Actually there is, in the swim coach's apology - see above.

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Your argument that she went to a place where women get naked, and that minors sometimes also use that space, that therefore she was only interested in being naked with children is specious. It is especially so when you can't point to the moment anyone was actually naked with children.

My suspicion is continuing to grow as more women agree that the behavior would be abnormal, even if the male genitals weren't there.

Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Here's a speculative question for you to analyze:

If the conservative christian legal firm, with a history of strongly opposing LGBT non-discrimination legislation, could only talk about the damaging possibility of children seeing genitals, when they were hired by some concerned parents of the swim team, why do you feel you can talk about it as the only scenario possible?
I'm guessing that when these groups use the word "possibility", they're referring to the possibility of damage, not whether or not genitals were seen. I'm guessing they're equally sure that the children in the locker room cannot have avoided seeing the naked person who was in the same locker room at the same time.
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 3rd December 2012, 03:26 PM   #450
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Wrong; you've failed to account for how the naked person with male genitals that was found in the locker room immediately after a report of a man in the locker room was made by the minor, was able to get to that location without being seen by any of the kids in the locker room. Did the person teleport into the sauna immediately after the girl saw her in the parking lot and went to tell the swim coach, and the teleporter forgot to send her clothes, too?
Are you seriously mythologizing a floor plan defense? The testimony that you said mattered is "sauna". You're mixing things up. The report states that the teen saw a "man in the sauna". Are you going to say that she meant the locker room because that's how people other than your witness stated it fourth hand? What nonsense is this? Can you see why I don't necessarily trust your interpretation of what was said?

Whatever. You're getting kooky now.

Edit:
Oh, I see, you're poking holes in one of my hypothetical situation that I put forth to show scenarios other than your single one could exist. Oh you got me. It must mean that your scenario is the only one there could be. Even if the high schooler might misidentify her as a "man" for reasons other than genitals, let's say it's the only way. Then we shall harumph at the woman.

Last edited by appalling; 3rd December 2012 at 03:34 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 3rd December 2012, 04:17 PM   #451
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
Are you seriously mythologizing a floor plan defense? The testimony that you said mattered is "sauna". You're mixing things up. The report states that the teen saw a "man in the sauna". Are you going to say that she meant the locker room because that's how people other than your witness stated it fourth hand? What nonsense is this? Can you see why I don't necessarily trust your interpretation of what was said?
The report also says that when these individuals called the police, they said there was a man "in the women's locker room". That's not interpretation, that's a direct quote from the report.

ETA: There was a whole rest of that post, by the way...don't feel like it?
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 3rd December 2012, 04:26 PM   #452
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
That is not the argument presented, he said it was VIOLENCE.

I dont really care to argue details about to what extent transgenders can use sex specific dressing rooms, I cared when he specifically said that women should fear men because men are inherently and biological violent and so that fear is deserved. You may well be able to convince me its justifiable to call it "sexual misconduct" but that doesnt change this.
So where were you when people were saying that the transgender person certainly can't use the men's locker room because she would certainly be assaulted or perhaps killed there when the men got a look at 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 3rd December 2012, 04:31 PM   #453
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Without speaking for Earthborn I suspect its because Meadmaker's argument was that testosterone = aggression and therefore women have real reason to fear someone with male genitals in their dressing room, despite the fact that transsexuals are typically taking estrogen and hormones that are blocking testosterone anyway. Which means that it really is just about female perception of males.
Certainly; but this transwoman was mistaken for a man; surely there was no way they could discern by looking that "he" was taking estrogen. Appalling says the individual has breasts. I don't know if that's true; but "regular men" sometimes have breast-like structures without the benefit of estrogen.
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 3rd December 2012, 04:36 PM   #454
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
You ask a lot of hypothetical questions that are framed in slanted ways.

"Would any woman out there be okay if a man looked at you with a John Waters leer? Would any woman agree that genitals should be placed near a child in a suspicious way? Does anyone support the idea of someone staying in your personal space for too long? Are transgender people perfectly okay to you every time? How about when they're loiter-y? Anyone? I'm just asking. It's for a survey."
I didn't ask a single question in that post about responding women's impressions of other peoples' behavior. I intentionally and specifically asked about what they themselves would choose to do.

I find it hard to believe you could call a question like "would you spend time naked or clad in a towel in a locker room where children were present" slanted. I even carefully worded the bit about legs being open to make sure I wasn't suggesting an exaggerated and attention-getting posture. I thought you'd be proud.
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 3rd December 2012, 05:27 PM   #455
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Okay, I did an impromptu poll of some female friends of mine in a FB group. Not everyone has responded yet. I simply asked how common it is in their experience that women are substantially naked (not counting the occasional flash while changing) in locker rooms/changing rooms/saunas.

So far: 5 answered never, 5 answered rarely (not including my vote), and one answered pretty common. None for frequently. The pretty common vote came from a non-American though.

Judging from their comments, none of them engage in such nudity themselves and several expressed discomfort with overly naked women in this context, so I can imagine the scenario here wouldn't have gone over well either.

We are an extremely pro-LGBT group. I didn't think they needed the actual discussion point to answer the more general experience question, so I didn't address it at all, but I'm confident that all or most of them would be reasonably supportive of transwomen using women's changing rooms/saunas, but not this particular behavior. Not sure if this helps, but it was interesting.

Last edited by No Nice Things; 3rd December 2012 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Added more context and updated the result
No Nice Things 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 3rd December 2012, 05:49 PM   #456
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by No Nice Things View Post
We are an extremely pro-LGBT group. I didn't think they needed the actual discussion point to answer the more general experience question, so I didn't address it at all, but I'm confident that all or most of them would be reasonably supportive of transwomen using women's changing rooms/saunas, but not this particular behavior. Not sure if this helps, but it was interesting.
Thanks for your poll! And yes, I think I would actually prefer that the transgenderism aspect of the situation that prompted the question was left out if anyone else asks such questions of their friends.

I notice that you even left out the part about minors being present, and yet it still seems as if open nakedness in a locker room or sauna is not something that your friends were comfortable with even when they're thinking about an all-adult situation. Interesting!
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 3rd December 2012, 05:57 PM   #457
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
Are you sure you didn't mean to say: "If you say that men shouldn't be aggressive, that's not a male hating statement. If you say that men are generally aggressive, that's much more of a male hating statement." ?


No. Why would I say that?

Aggression is not a bad thing, when channeled appropriately. Men are naturally aggressive. Saying that men should stop being aggressive is saying that there's something wrong with men.

I meant what I said. Saying that men should stop being aggressive is a male hating statement.


Quote:
That transsexuals use hormones that block the effects of testosterone is also an objective medical fact and is rather well-known.
Agreed. In a previous post, I suggested that a person who had undertaken steps to have himself surgically altered to a female could perhaps be allowed to use women's changing facilities. Part of that rationale was that the hormones might render him impotent and less aggressive, and therefore less dangerous to the naked women and/or girls nearby. You stated I was being illogical, and I ultimately agreed. As much as it would be nice to find a compromise, I don't think it's possible.
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 3rd December 2012, 06:00 PM   #458
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Who says she's changed her state-recognized gender, besides herself? Anyone - did a court officer actually confirm this? The motor vehicles office? Any of her doctors? Anyone at all?
The anti-Colleen bloggers have fished out the records. I know I've seen the name change paperwork. I think the gender change is there, too, but I wouldn't swear to it.
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 3rd December 2012, 06:00 PM   #459
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Thanks for your poll! And yes, I think I would actually prefer that the transgenderism aspect of the situation that prompted the question was left out if anyone else asks such questions of their friends.

I notice that you even left out the part about minors being present, and yet it still seems as if open nakedness in a locker room or sauna is not something that your friends were comfortable with even when they're thinking about an all-adult situation. Interesting!
I thought it best to only ask about frequency. The discomfort aspect were from comments and expressed without solicitation as I thought any level of judgement about the acceptableness of nudity versus the frequency of it in the poll might skew the results.

I'll update later if I get more responses, and I likely will.
No Nice Things 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 3rd December 2012, 06:14 PM   #460
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
That is not the argument presented, he said it was VIOLENCE.


I dont really care to argue details about to what extent transgenders can use sex specific dressing rooms, I cared when he specifically said that women should fear men because men are inherently and biological violent and so that fear is deserved. You may well be able to convince me its justifiable to call it "sexual misconduct" but that doesnt change this.
When someone commits an act of sexual misconduct, it is reasonable to infer that the person committing the act is unconcerned about the discomfort or anxiety produced. In fact, the creation of anxiety may be part of the motivation. It's a display of power.

If someone shows such callous disregard for the feelings of others, especially in a sexual context, one might reasonably suspect that he is unconcerned with others' wishes, and might disregard the word "no".

Yes, I'm serious. You like to do research. Check out research regarding rapists and empathy.
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 3rd December 2012, 06:15 PM   #461
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
The report also says that when these individuals called the police, they said there was a man "in the women's locker room". That's not interpretation, that's a direct quote from the report.

ETA: There was a whole rest of that post, by the way...don't feel like it?
No my heart wasn't in it when I saw how much of it was Birther-level nonsense of whether she was even a trans woman.

I like how you interpret inconsistencies in the report as multiple sightings.

Your questions are leading. You ask if women would be okay with loitering.

I'm not going to ask you how you could think that is not biased. I don't think you understand your own bias enough to have a conversation about it.
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 3rd December 2012, 06:17 PM   #462
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The anti-Colleen bloggers have fished out the records. I know I've seen the name change paperwork. I think the gender change is there, too, but I wouldn't swear to it.
I've seen the name change one too; however, I haven't seen any gender change paperwork.

I couldn't even find the procedure, but probably mostly because I'm not sure which office would handle that kind of thing.
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 3rd December 2012, 06:19 PM   #463
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Certainly; but this transwoman was mistaken for a man; surely there was no way they could discern by looking that "he" was taking estrogen. Appalling says the individual has breasts. I don't know if that's true; but "regular men" sometimes have breast-like structures without the benefit of estrogen.
See, it's garbage like this.

You're simultaneously arguing that a girl had to specifically see genitals and nothing else to describe the person as a man while arguing that people could mistake her for a man without seeing her genitals.

Why discuss something when someone is showing such bad faith?
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 3rd December 2012, 06:21 PM   #464
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Quote:
The results challenge the belief that testosterone effects are limited to promoting antisocial behavior
I love this part. Especially the bolding.

Imagine it! Testesterone may actually have positive effects! Who could have believed it?

And yet, scientific studies say it is so.



So, who are these morons that held that belief in the first place?


ETA: But I did check out the link from which the quote was taken. It's a fascinating result.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 3rd December 2012 at 06:47 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 3rd December 2012, 06:23 PM   #465
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I've seen the name change one too; however, I haven't seen any gender change paperwork.

I couldn't even find the procedure, but probably mostly because I'm not sure which office would handle that kind of thing.
In the lengthy paperwork that appalling posted, the procedure was described for Washington state. You have to have a letter from a therapist, and go before a judge.
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 3rd December 2012, 06:24 PM   #466
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
No my heart wasn't in it when I saw how much of it was Birther-level nonsense of whether she was even a trans woman.
I know right? It's about as ridiculously nitpicky as insisting that the fact a naked "man" was found in the locker room sauna mere moments after kids complained about a "man in the sauna" is coincidence because the police report doesn't quote the kid as having said "naked".
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 3rd December 2012, 06:29 PM   #467
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
See, it's garbage like this.

You're simultaneously arguing that a girl had to specifically see genitals and nothing else to describe the person as a man while arguing that people could mistake her for a man without seeing her genitals.

Why discuss something when someone is showing such bad faith?
Where did you get the bold part from? I don't see it in my post.

Perhaps it wasn't clear; but I was trying to imply that once they saw male genitals, the mere presence of "breasts" might not necessarily lead them to conclude the person was on estrogen (i.e. a transwoman). The people I was responding to were talking about people taking estrogen and its relation to violence. Remember?

Last edited by Checkmite; 3rd December 2012 at 06:32 PM.
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 3rd December 2012, 06:33 PM   #468
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In the lengthy paperwork that appalling posted, the procedure was described for Washington state. You have to have a letter from a therapist, and go before a judge.
I missed that post and it's a long thread; but I'll accept that.
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 3rd December 2012, 06:36 PM   #469
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I know right? It's about as ridiculously nitpicky as insisting that the fact a naked "man" was found in the locker room sauna mere moments after kids complained about a "man in the sauna" is coincidence because the police report doesn't quote the kid as having said "naked".
That would be nit-picky.

It shows you don't understand what was said.
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 3rd December 2012, 07:50 PM   #470
Morrigan
Crone of War
 
Morrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,262
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Any women - of any kind, so-called "normative" or otherwise - reading the thread, would any of you like to offer your opinion as to whether you would be comfortable loitering naked in a locker room in view of any number of other peoples' children while they were changing? Not merely changing your clothes and then leaving, mind you - but actually just getting naked and hanging around in that situation for no particular reason?
I don't see why I'd do that, but it wouldn't bother me.

Quote:
How about sitting with your legs open so they could see your genitalia while doing so?
That seems strange and slightly exhibitionist. I would not do that, even in a sauna, regardless of whether or not kids would be present.

Quote:
For that matter, do you think you would be comfortable just loitering in said locker room in front of said kids even if you were clad in (nothing but) a towel? Is "hanging out naked (or mostly naked) in the locker room with the young girls" something that's just a perfectly OK woman-thing-to-do?
Yes, that would be fine with me.

Note: I am not a prude American.
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 3rd December 2012, 08:04 PM   #471
Janadele
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,515
Well it would not be fine by me! Disgusting... and dangerous for any one using the facilities.
Janadele 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 3rd December 2012, 08:20 PM   #472
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
I find it rather surprising that so many people link nudity to sex, and sex to violence, so readily. It's a public place, this locker room, isn't it? Is one man, or shemale, or whatever, such a threat that he or she can terrorize all who behold him or her by merely being present? Or does he or she have to punch through some brick walls and rip some heads off to get that level of intimidation? "Eeek a penis! We're all doomed!" and then all the ladies pray for a swift death? What the heck?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 3rd December 2012, 08:20 PM   #473
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Morrigan View Post
Yes, that would be fine with me.

Note: I am not a prude American.
I don't consider a towel naked in a changing room, so no problems here either. Even though I am an American
No Nice Things 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 3rd December 2012, 08:22 PM   #474
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I find it rather surprising that so many people link nudity to sex, and sex to violence, so readily. It's a public place, this locker room, isn't it? Is one man, or shemale, or whatever, such a threat that he or she can terrorize all who behold him or her by merely being present? Or does he or she have to punch through some brick walls and rip some heads off to get that level of intimidation? "Eeek a penis! We're all doomed!" and then all the ladies pray for a swift death? What the heck?
I don't take that extreme of a response, but it's because in my experience it isn't normal for ladyparts to be prominently displayed, much less manly dangly bits in a women's changing room/sauna.
No Nice Things 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 3rd December 2012, 08:25 PM   #475
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
Originally Posted by No Nice Things View Post
I don't take that extreme of a response, but it's because in my experience it isn't normal for ladyparts to be prominently displayed, much less manly dangly bits in a women's changing room/sauna.
And heaven knows anything not normal is a terrible threat to all and sundry.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 3rd December 2012, 08:30 PM   #476
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And heaven knows anything not normal is a terrible threat to all and sundry.
I just said I didn't have an extreme response. However, seeing something very much out of the norm, especially in the context of what most of us consider a "vulnerable"* situation, can produce pretty significant discomfort at the very least. As far as I can tell her behavior would have been uncomfortable for people had she been a cisgendered woman. Now add in the possibility that she was truly and reasonably mistaken for a cisgendered man.

I remember having to do an experiment in college of standing facing the wrong way in a full elevator. People did not like.

*vulnerable mostly because of the nudity thing and much, much less because of fears of sexual predation
No Nice Things 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 3rd December 2012, 08:43 PM   #477
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
And at the risk of being misinterpreted as me painting the individual as a definite sexual predator of some sort I do find it odd that this particular transwoman with male genitalia (and no plans to modify this) who is attracted to women and may or may not have visible breasts would be more comfortable hanging around nude in a women's sauna rather than a men's sauna. Not efficiently changing and oops there's a flash, or wearing a towel, but nude.

Or better yet, like the vast majority of us (women and presumably transwomen) who in my experience seem to not hang around nude at all. And you notice I'm only referring to the verified info, not the stuff about minors being exposed to the nudity.
No Nice Things 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 3rd December 2012, 08:49 PM   #478
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by No Nice Things View Post
I just said I didn't have an extreme response. However, seeing something very much out of the norm, especially in the context of what most of us consider a "vulnerable"* situation, can produce pretty significant discomfort at the very least. As far as I can tell her behavior would have been uncomfortable for people had she been a cisgendered woman. Now add in the possibility that she was truly and reasonably mistaken for a cisgendered man.

I remember having to do an experiment in college of standing facing the wrong way in a full elevator. People did not like.

*vulnerable mostly because of the nudity thing and much, much less because of fears of sexual predation
Most of why this issue initially seems dodgy is due to the fact that most of the story and "concern" came from press releases from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative christian lobby firm that is actively opposed to non-discrimination laws.

It was framed as a moral panic with rampant child endangerment with a college that didn't care about children.

This woman apparently used the center for years with no complaint. This gets lost in the outrage.
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 3rd December 2012, 08:54 PM   #479
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
That's fine, but that is absolutely not my position at all. I find the behavior in this particular case odd. I do not find the idea of transwomen, pre-op or not using changing rooms or bathrooms or saunas threatening at all. I do not find exposure of genitals of either type within the norm threatening. I do not even find this behavior threatening. I do find it odd, outside the norm of behavior and anywhere between poor judgement to exhibitionism depending on intent.
No Nice Things 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 3rd December 2012, 09:02 PM   #480
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
It's odd.

I would say that the only witnesses to the oddness of it were people who were trying to get rid of a "man" in the first place.
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
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 03:47 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.