Split Trans Issues, Split from Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a difference between watching kids play at a pool and staring at kids in a pool. Or staring at a particular adult orany sex or gender or orientation. I know that you know there is a difference and that sometimes staring at an individual rather than just observing them can be indicative of sexual interest.

The reason that I think that staring intently at a person can be indicative of sexual intent, welcome or welcome is that has been my experience.

Someone who’s loos at me or my kid make me uncomfortable to me mean potential danger.

This is not about gay/straight/trans/cis. It’s about some people being creepy. Of any sex, gender, orientation ration, proclivity.

Insisting that someone must tolerate without responding to someone staring at them is in fact an early step of grooming. Being told that something that makes you uncomfortable, that it’s perfectly normal and natural is a step in grooming, whether it is sexual grooming or grooming to engage in racist or anti-LGBTQIA behavior or against a member of a religious group, etc.

Staring can be used to indicate disapproval.

Staring is often used to intentionally make people feel uncomfortable.

Parents can and do send kids to swimming lessons and the kids do use showers without their parents present.

Yeah, creeps exist. Nobody's saying that creeps should be tolerated. We are saying that you are falsely describing anyone with a penis as a creep.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I...

...have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women [do not] need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis [genitals] is...

..Anything other than someone exposing their genitals inappropriately so as to know that they are a pervert and sex offender.

Let me get this straight, just so we're crystal fucking clear.

You believe that a full grown adult male of the human species, with a sex offender record for serious offenses, should be allowed by law to go into the female showers and changing rooms at the local community pool and watch little girls change. And the girls and their parents should have no say about that at all... as long as he doesn't actually get his dick out.

Do you not see any potential problems with that?

The devil is in the details.

What exactly "sex offenses" were committed? Was there an actual attack, or is the "sex offense" simply being there without causing harm? There is enough distortion by the anti-trans crowd that I suspect the latter.

It's like that UK "study" that lumped everything from eyes lingering too long (something unprovable) up through rape in counting "offenses".

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘being there without causing harm.’

Do you think it harms children to have an adult with no relationship to any of them to simply stare at them as they play in a pool? Take a shower?

Are you familiar with how grooming works?

Underwear gnomes.

Presence is the same thing as staring at.

??

There should have been a not in there.

I'm saying you're making an unsupported leap.

We are talking about people going about their business, not about people staring. You suddenly jumped to staring. I was objecting to treating allegations of voyeurism as god given truth, not saying that nobody ever stares. Staring at anybody should not be acceptable in a locker room regardless of anatomy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lots of things are stopping it, namely the large procedural and medical hurdles that actually exist to establishing a trans identity in most jurisdictions.

Less than half of the states require any real hurdles. 22+ DC require nothing at all except a request and a bit of time at the DMV. Another 5 will accept a provider certification, which doesn't actually need any counseling or treatment - you can simply go see your doc and say "Hey I'm trans" and they can write you a note to take to the DMV with you.

There used to be procedural and medical hurdles. That's no longer the case in many places.

You still haven't demonstrated that ID is not a sufficient barrier.

You haven't demonstrated that ID IS a sufficient barrier.

Emily has actually done the work that of course you could not bother to do or to even read hers to know that in many states, anyone can walk into their DMV and request a new license with a newly designated sex without anything other than: they want it.

If you're going to be a misogynist bigot, at least put some effort into it. No one here is going to take your word for anything.

I am aware, you're actually making my point. This is a dog-didn't-bark situation.

If ID were not a sufficient barrier we would have plenty of incidents. But everything that claims incidents is stretching it--which would not happen if they had actual incidents to refer to.

Bullshit.

You didn’t see it and it didn’t happen to you = did not happen.

Unless it was black man.

We know you, Loren.

I haven't been in a locker room in decades, I wouldn't see it.

The point is we don't have credible reports of it happening. I find that silence speaks volumes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A parliamentary enquiry from the UK.

1) I get very suspicious of any data that comes from a legislative inquiry.

That is probably good advice in the USA but other countries do manage to hold worthwhile legislative enquiries.

It's not enquiries per se that I object to, but rather I object to presenting "scientific" data by such means.

Point to the research, highlight the relevant parts: good. Present "research": it's most likely false.

2) Notably absent from this is whether the offenses occurred before or after becoming transgender.

3) Notably absent from this is whether there is evidence of being transgender before incarceration. I am not going to accept someone's word on this in a prison situation!

So you will not listen to those who claim to be transgender? Why then are you in the discussion?

Context! I said I would not listen to those who claim to be transgender without prior evidence in a custodial situation.

4) This actually makes the reverse point--they are having to stretch to find data, which says that in the general case they have no data.

How many offences need to be committed before you will say there is data?

Incidence rate, not numbers per se. Show me that sneaking in masquerading as female is in the ballpark with walking in without masquerading.

But the fact remains that the contortions they go through to show the problem in reality show the problem does not exist. We see them combining categories in a situation where there's no reason to except to pretend there's data that doesn't exist.

Other way around, we have a documented case that lead to a conviction. But despite all the noise we have nothing pointing to a verifiable case of an attack in a restroom by someone who is trans.

 

[Toni]

Lots of things are stopping it, namely the large procedural and medical hurdles that actually exist to establishing a trans identity in most jurisdictions.

Less than half of the states require any real hurdles. 22+ DC require nothing at all except a request and a bit of time at the DMV. Another 5 will accept a provider certification, which doesn't actually need any counseling or treatment - you can simply go see your doc and say "Hey I'm trans" and they can write you a note to take to the DMV with you.

There used to be procedural and medical hurdles. That's no longer the case in many places.

You still haven't demonstrated that ID is not a sufficient barrier.

You haven't demonstrated that ID IS a sufficient barrier.

Emily has actually done the work that of course you could not bother to do or to even read hers to know that in many states, anyone can walk into their DMV and request a new license with a newly designated sex without anything other than: they want it.

If you're going to be a misogynist bigot, at least put some effort into it. No one here is going to take your word for anything.

I am aware, you're actually making my point. This is a dog-didn't-bark situation.

If ID were not a sufficient barrier we would have plenty of incidents. But everything that claims incidents is stretching it--which would not happen if they had actual incidents to refer to.

Bullshit.

You didn’t see it and it didn’t happen to you = did not happen.

Unless it was black man.

We know you, Loren.

I haven't been in a locker room in decades, I wouldn't see it.

The point is we don't have credible reports of it happening. I find that silence speaks volumes.

The point for me is not that it is possible that a trans individual might pose an actual danger, might actually attack another person.

My issue is that all women using showers and dressing rooms should be able to feel safe and to be safe.

What you refuse to understand, or recognize is that for a significant portion of the female population ( cis, trans but I’m cis so I can only speak from that POV but at the same time, I know that trans women have an even greater incidence of sexual assault) , sexual assault is something that far too many of us face and far too many of us fear.

From an early age, we are conditioned by society to feel unsafe in certain situations, especially when someone or something is present that dies not seem to belong.

This includes a male appearing body in a woman’s only space where the women are likely to be naked or at least partially dressed.

If everyone were fully dressed, an individual with a penis would not likely be obvious or seem a threat. The penis would not be exposed just as it is not exposed in the bus, walking down the street, etc. if a pr is were exposed in public venues, it’s often a violation of the law and us often a sign that something is wrong. The person is either unwell, has a bathroom emergency, or is trying to cause some kind of commotion. Or worse.

If an individual with a penis were in a women’s locker room but was dressed -a lot of women would not notice or would not be alarmed if they did notice. Particularly if that person were otherwise displaying hair or clothing typical of a woman.

But if a person with a penis is bathed in front of women who are also naked and WHO BeLIEVE that no knee with a penis should be in their locker room: that would be cause fit alarm.

It could be triggering for some women. If women started screaming or telling the woman with a penis that she didn’t belong, that would also be upsetting to the trans woman.

Doors on stalls would avoid that as no one’s genitals would be on display to other women.

The potential for causing upset where none is warranted would be avoided.

I understand that for you, this is a non-issue. I’m not thinking about how YOU would feel or what you would think.

The reality is that most cis women seeing an exposed penis in the women’s locker room would assume that person dud not belong and was likely there for nefarious reasons.

Just as they would if an unexpected naked stranger with a penis ( or without) was in their bathroom or bedroom at home.

Chances are that if you woke up to see a person with an exposed penis standing next to your bed, you would not assume they were harmless. Few people would make that assumption. Most people would be alarmed and would react by shouting, calling the police and potentially attacking the stranger.

And the police would be on their side.

 

[Toni]

There is a difference between watching kids play at a pool and staring at kids in a pool. Or staring at a particular adult orany sex or gender or orientation. I know that you know there is a difference and that sometimes staring at an individual rather than just observing them can be indicative of sexual interest.

The reason that I think that staring intently at a person can be indicative of sexual intent, welcome or welcome is that has been my experience.

Someone who’s loos at me or my kid make me uncomfortable to me mean potential danger.

This is not about gay/straight/trans/cis. It’s about some people being creepy. Of any sex, gender, orientation ration, proclivity.

Insisting that someone must tolerate without responding to someone staring at them is in fact an early step of grooming. Being told that something that makes you uncomfortable, that it’s perfectly normal and natural is a step in grooming, whether it is sexual grooming or grooming to engage in racist or anti-LGBTQIA behavior or against a member of a religious group, etc.

Staring can be used to indicate disapproval.

Staring is often used to intentionally make people feel uncomfortable.

Parents can and do send kids to swimming lessons and the kids do use showers without their parents present.

Yeah, creeps exist. Nobody's saying that creeps should be tolerated. We are saying that you are falsely describing anyone with a penis as a creep.

Nobody is describing anyone with a penis as a creep.

I’m saying very rationally fir probably the 100th time in this thread that women a women’s locker room have NO WAY of telling if the person with the exposed penis is a creep or a trans person IN THAT MOMENT Abd they are likely to rec r reflexively.

 

[Toni]

Sigh. I have not suggested that transwomen are actually likely to threaten or attack customers women in a locker room. That is not the issue.

The issue—if you ever bothered to read instead of just reflexively ‘responding’ is that cus women and girls will likely have difficulty recognizing trans women who have retained a penis in a shower or dressing room as a woman. The visceral reaction will be that this is a make who is a women only space and that means he’s likely to be a threat.

Not because it’s a trans woman but because IN THE MOMENT, other women may have a reflexive reaction to a perceived danger.

Stalls with doors in shower rooms and dressing rooms would greatly reduce the risk of any woman or girl—cis or trans—being traumatized.

I know you don’t care about such things but I do t care what you ‘think’

So this amounts to it's more important that a member of your ingroup doesn't get triggered than a member of your outgroup doesn't get killed.

Well it’s your group who is the threat, Loren.

When will you address that?

I don’t want anyone to be triggered. I don’t want anyone to be harmed, physically or emotionally.

Doors on stalls are a pretty good solution to the triggering thing but YOU, who has no skin in this game thinks that spending money on doors is too expensive to solve an issue for a lot of women ( cis and trans) and judging by responses from more than one make poster in this thread—would make at least some men more comfortable.

Jayryn mentioned vetting by establishments and I’ve mentioned doors. I think that combination should really take care of assuring us that no bad actors will be around.

Your idea is that it’s not a problem for you, so it’s not a problem. We all just need to to be like you.

You are an unserious person.

You are not addressing my point at all. Nothing in what you say addresses the trade between fear and death.

What you fail to recognize is that this is about making it impossible to exist as trans. Some of the deniers have simply not been able to answer when challenged about "so where should they go?", so the non-answer of doors has been thrown out there. It's a non-answer because it's a lot more expensive (space, not materials) than you think and won't actually protect anyone so it's not going to get implemented. It lets you pretend they aren't setting up a situation where there are no answers.

No, Loren. You don’t want it to be possible to exist as trans enough to support doors, much less to address the make violence towards women ( cis and trans) as well as all queer people.

You want to remove women’s / sense of safety because you’re too damn cheap to spring for your share of doors on stalls. And too damn clueless and illiterate to read anything I’ve written with the understanding if anyone older than 10 years old.

You just type a post without actually reading or considering what anyone else has to say.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Loren, I haven't the energy to quote every thing you've said. I've read them, which is more than you have done for others.

1. Yes, I would protect the 50% of people who are women if I had to choose between them and whatever much smaller percentage of people are transgender. ( Not from transgender women, but from cis men who have identified an opportunity.)

2. I would not have to make that choice, because a solution exists. If every not-particularly-woke Council in country Victoria can manage to provide separate toilet and changing facilities then your local Council could, too.

Your objections seem to be philosophical, not practical, and it amounts to "the concerns and safety of people without penises should be considered only as a last resort."

I seem to remember similar arguments from you in relation to blaming rape victims. There is a pattern.

 

[Jarhyn]

How? Any time your own clothing is disordered or removed, and you are vulnerable, you are in a private space with a lock on it.

Any time someone else's genitals are legitimately exposed, they are too.

The financial argument doesn't wash. With cubicles, every toilet, shower or change room becomes a unisex. Cheaper than providing 2 distinct areas.

For consideration...

Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals

The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

www.the-independent.com

Mixed-gender changing rooms becoming a 'magnet' for sexual predators, according to new report | LBC

80 sexual assaults, 16 rapes and 65 incidents of voyeurism took place in leisure centres in 2023 – many of them in mixed-gender changing areas.

www.lbc.co.uk

Voyeurism concerns at Stevenage pool's mixed changing rooms

A police officer suggests plans to retain mixed facilities at a leisure centre be reconsidered.

www.bbc.com

Considering....nope, garbage.

The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities.

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

Keywords "complaints" and "voyeurism". This treats a rape and a claim of someone looking too much the same. Standard dirty statistics trick.

Police data obtained by the Women’s Rights Network (WRN) showed that 80 sexual assaults, 16 rapes and 65 incidents of voyeurism took place in leisure centres in 2023 – many of them in mixed-gender changing areas.

Again, lumping.

Police have raised "substantive concerns" about the potential of voyeurism taking place in the mixed changing rooms of a proposed swimming pool.

Doesn't say anything actually happened.

Keeping trotting out the same bad data provides a considerable indication that there is no good data.

Do you understand what grooming is?

Do you think that if I were to go to your favorite gym with unisex rooms and kept staring at you, you might become uncomfortable?

How much discomfort are you, personally, willing to tolerate?

How much Sysco gift should you be forced to tolerate?

What if you are 9 years old?

Do you understand that allegations aren't the same as proof? And the continual use of bad data says there is no good data.

Not to mention: it is the parent who grooms their child to shower in the open presence of adults who will and cand see them.

It is the adult who grooms their child who takes them to a pool where strangers can watch them all day.

Parents have a responsibility here to see to the welfare of their children, but that responsibility does not override the freedom of people to use public spaces around them.

If you view the exercise of freedom others have in a space as a threat, then it's up to you to avoid that space, because the public has accepted some level of creepiness as "acceptable".

There is a difference between watching kids play at a pool and staring at kids in a pool. Or staring at a particular adult orany sex or gender or orientation. I know that you know there is a difference and that sometimes staring at an individual rather than just observing them can be indicative of sexual interest.

The reason that I think that staring intently at a person can be indicative of sexual intent, welcome or welcome is that has been my experience.

Someone who’s loos at me or my kid make me uncomfortable to me mean potential danger.

This is not about gay/straight/trans/cis. It’s about some people being creepy. Of any sex, gender, orientation ration, proclivity.

Insisting that someone must tolerate without responding to someone staring at them is in fact an early step of grooming. Being told that something that makes you uncomfortable, that it’s perfectly normal and natural is a step in grooming, whether it is sexual grooming or grooming to engage in racist or anti-LGBTQIA behavior or against a member of a religious group, etc.

Staring can be used to indicate disapproval.

Staring is often used to intentionally make people feel uncomfortable.

Parents can and do send kids to swimming lessons and the kids do use showers without their parents present.

Yeah, creeps exist. Nobody's saying that creeps should be tolerated. We are saying that you are falsely describing anyone with a penis as a creep.

My thought is that there are particular ways to not tolerate creeps.

Parents sending children to swimming lessons without a vetted, responsible adult making sure that there is privacy I think is quite irresponsible.

There are all sorts of rules about loitering and malingering and all sorts of things people can do.

There are also all sorts of things that people can't do, really, in an ethical way.

I watched someone on the bus lay into an old man who had his teeth out and had something going on with how his tongue wasn't being held in by any teeth and it slipped out once in a while. The second party said he was perving.

The person who leveled an accusation of "perving" was out of line.

Moreover, while I'm fairly adept at understanding why old people lacking teeth sometimes lick their lips a lot and drool a lot, I'm not sure if 80% of the population can really distinguish that and perving at a moments notice. I think that people have an obligation to tolerate the activity even if it's "uncomfortable".

The fact is that there are clearly and obviously situations where people are allowed to be perverted pigs of human beings, it will happen, and we DO have to raise our kids to be capable of accepting that and tolerating discomforts within certain bounds.

Not doing that will lead to Karens. Everywhere. Complaining about all manner of behavior that makes them "uncomfortable", behavior like walking through a neighborhood on your way home while appearing "poor", liberally mixed in with lies about "casing houses".

After all, those wealthy people have a right to not feel uncomfortable and appearing poor in a wealthy neighborhood is a red flag, right? Better confront them (even though that's exactly why Trayvon Martin got shot and killed).

There is literally no material difference between looking at houses to "case" them and looking at houses to "get ideas for your own home".

I'm sorry but we don't have "thought crime" legislation. Being "creepy" is about thoughts rarely rising to material actions. It's not something you actually have a right to stop or oppose legally, unless the specific rules of the space ban the specific material actions being taken (and then the rules can be enforced by actions rather than genders).

 

[TomC]

I’m saying very rationally fir probably the 100th time in this thread that women a women’s locker room have NO WAY of telling if the person with the exposed penis is a creep or a trans person IN THAT MOMENT Abd they are likely to rec r reflexively.

This is exactly the elephant in the room.
The large majority of us males are not the slightest bit of a problem. Most of us would be a security asset. The few who are the pervy type cause a great deal of damage. It may not show up in the stats trans activists prefer to refer to, but it's real.

Ya know what else?
I came out of the closet in the 80s, just as the AIDS epidemic got underway. I went to a ton of support groups in the following decades. I didn't hear much mention of trans women having big problems with women's restrooms. A male woman who put a solid effort into presenting, and then behaved properly, rarely got a stronger reaction than a raised eyebrow. I think that the big differences between then and now are:
Cis women like my mom are much more aware than they were.
And pervy males feel entitled to push people's boundaries then claim to be the victim. I actually know someone like that. He's kinda a freak.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Sheldon is a highly rational person, in an extremely safe space for him, and fully anticipated being pranked by his friends.

He still had a very strong reaction.

 

[Derec]

A serious question: I get that many women may be uncomfortable with a trans woman with a penis in the women's locker room. But at the same time, a trans woman with boobs would look out of place in a men's locker room too.
Barring individual dressing rooms, which most gyms don't have, what should be the solution?

 

[thebeave]

A serious question: I get that many women may be uncomfortable with a trans woman with a penis in the women's locker room. But at the same time, a trans woman with boobs would look out of place in a men's locker room too.
Barring individual dressing rooms, which most gyms don't have, what should be the solution?

A transwoman with boobs would look out of place in a men's locker room, but they would not be looked at as a threat per se by the other occupants. At least no more than an undressed biological male also in the locker room. I don't think anyone would have a traumatizing reaction to seeing that, but likely the incident would end up being mentioned at the company water cooler the next day, accompanied by a few chuckles.

 

[Toni]

A serious question: I get that many women may be uncomfortable with a trans woman with a penis in the women's locker room. But at the same time, a trans woman with boobs would look out of place in a men's locker room too.
Barring individual dressing rooms, which most gyms don't have, what should be the solution?

As I’ve written many many times in this thread: Universal individual stalls with doors: bathrooms ( already the norm for women’s bathrooms), shower rooms and dressing rooms.

Jahryn up thread mentioned vetting by the establishment (pertains more to clubs, gyms, etc) that management do vetting ).

I am not opposed to trans women being in women only spaces.

I think it only prudent to have some doors in order to protect everyone’s privacy and modesty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is we don't have credible reports of it happening. I find that silence speaks volumes.

The point for me is not that it is possible that a trans individual might pose an actual danger, might actually attack another person.

My issue is that all women using showers and dressing rooms should be able to feel safe and to be safe.

And herein lies the heart of the difference. I care about "is safe" far more than about "feels safe".

And I very much oppose exposing person B to actual danger so person A can avoid a fear that does not appear to reflect reality.

What you refuse to understand, or recognize is that for a significant portion of the female population ( cis, trans but I’m cis so I can only speak from that POV but at the same time, I know that trans women have an even greater incidence of sexual assault) , sexual assault is something that far too many of us face and far too many of us fear.

From an early age, we are conditioned by society to feel unsafe in certain situations, especially when someone or something is present that dies not seem to belong.

Yeah, and from an early age whites used to be conditioned to fear blacks.

Just as they would if an unexpected naked stranger with a penis ( or without) was in their bathroom or bedroom at home.

Chances are that if you woke up to see a person with an exposed penis standing next to your bed, you would not assume they were harmless. Few people would make that assumption. Most people would be alarmed and would react by shouting, calling the police and potentially attacking the stranger.

And the police would be on their side.

The important part is someone standing where they aren't allowed to be, not whether they have an exposed penis.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a difference between watching kids play at a pool and staring at kids in a pool. Or staring at a particular adult orany sex or gender or orientation. I know that you know there is a difference and that sometimes staring at an individual rather than just observing them can be indicative of sexual interest.

The reason that I think that staring intently at a person can be indicative of sexual intent, welcome or welcome is that has been my experience.

Someone who’s loos at me or my kid make me uncomfortable to me mean potential danger.

This is not about gay/straight/trans/cis. It’s about some people being creepy. Of any sex, gender, orientation ration, proclivity.

Insisting that someone must tolerate without responding to someone staring at them is in fact an early step of grooming. Being told that something that makes you uncomfortable, that it’s perfectly normal and natural is a step in grooming, whether it is sexual grooming or grooming to engage in racist or anti-LGBTQIA behavior or against a member of a religious group, etc.

Staring can be used to indicate disapproval.

Staring is often used to intentionally make people feel uncomfortable.

Parents can and do send kids to swimming lessons and the kids do use showers without their parents present.

Yeah, creeps exist. Nobody's saying that creeps should be tolerated. We are saying that you are falsely describing anyone with a penis as a creep.

Nobody is describing anyone with a penis as a creep.

I’m saying very rationally fir probably the 100th time in this thread that women a women’s locker room have NO WAY of telling if the person with the exposed penis is a creep or a trans person IN THAT MOMENT Abd they are likely to rec r reflexively.

Same logic as the hajib and bursa. A can't behave so B must avoid triggering them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are not addressing my point at all. Nothing in what you say addresses the trade between fear and death.

What you fail to recognize is that this is about making it impossible to exist as trans. Some of the deniers have simply not been able to answer when challenged about "so where should they go?", so the non-answer of doors has been thrown out there. It's a non-answer because it's a lot more expensive (space, not materials) than you think and won't actually protect anyone so it's not going to get implemented. It lets you pretend they aren't setting up a situation where there are no answers.

No, Loren. You don’t want it to be possible to exist as trans enough to support doors, much less to address the make violence towards women ( cis and trans) as well as all queer people.

You want to remove women’s / sense of safety because you’re too damn cheap to spring for your share of doors on stalls. And too damn clueless and illiterate to read anything I’ve written with the understanding if anyone older than 10 years old.

You just type a post without actually reading or considering what anyone else has to say.

I'm looking at what's going to happen--doesn't mean I support what's going to happen, just that I'm willing to consider scenarios with no good outcome. People will not want to pay the costs associated with retrofitting doors into changing rooms etc.

You are looking at this in isolation, I'm looking at it as part of the attempt to make it impossible to be trans. It's an impractical evasion to "answer" the question of where should they go after the trans-hunters got caught not being able to answer that question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you understand that allegations aren't the same as proof? And the continual use of bad data says there is no good data.

Not to mention: it is the parent who grooms their child to shower in the open presence of adults who will and cand see them.

It is the adult who grooms their child who takes them to a pool where strangers can watch them all day.

Parents have a responsibility here to see to the welfare of their children, but that responsibility does not override the freedom of people to use public spaces around them.

If you view the exercise of freedom others have in a space as a threat, then it's up to you to avoid that space, because the public has accepted some level of creepiness as "acceptable".

I'm confused here. You are presenting a position of coexistence, but somehow excluding the changing area.

Yeah, creeps exist. Nobody's saying that creeps should be tolerated. We are saying that you are falsely describing anyone with a penis as a creep.

My thought is that there are particular ways to not tolerate creeps.

Parents sending children to swimming lessons without a vetted, responsible adult making sure that there is privacy I think is quite irresponsible.

There are all sorts of rules about loitering and malingering and all sorts of things people can do.

You are presenting what appear to be (I haven't looked for problem cases) reasonable anti-creep measures. But then you throw in trusted adult ensuring privacy. Which is implying that being seen undressed causes harm.

Not doing that will lead to Karens. Everywhere. Complaining about all manner of behavior that makes them "uncomfortable", behavior like walking through a neighborhood on your way home while appearing "poor", liberally mixed in with lies about "casing houses".

The problem here is that the trans-hunters are already being Karens.

After all, those wealthy people have a right to not feel uncomfortable and appearing poor in a wealthy neighborhood is a red flag, right? Better confront them (even though that's exactly why Trayvon Martin got shot and killed).

There is literally no material difference between looking at houses to "case" them and looking at houses to "get ideas for your own home".

If you're looking to get ideas you'll be looking in good light.

I'm sorry but we don't have "thought crime" legislation. Being "creepy" is about thoughts rarely rising to material actions. It's not something you actually have a right to stop or oppose legally, unless the specific rules of the space ban the specific material actions being taken (and then the rules can be enforced by actions rather than genders).

We can't stop all creep behavior, we can reduce it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A serious question: I get that many women may be uncomfortable with a trans woman with a penis in the women's locker room. But at the same time, a trans woman with boobs would look out of place in a men's locker room too.
Barring individual dressing rooms, which most gyms don't have, what should be the solution?

A transwoman with boobs would look out of place in a men's locker room, but they would not be looked at as a threat per se by the other occupants. At least no more than an undressed biological male also in the locker room. I don't think anyone would have a traumatizing reaction to seeing that, but likely the incident would end up being mentioned at the company water cooler the next day, accompanied by a few chuckles.

The threat goes the other way around--conservative areas, they might be attacked.

 

[Toni]

You are not addressing my point at all. Nothing in what you say addresses the trade between fear and death.

What you fail to recognize is that this is about making it impossible to exist as trans. Some of the deniers have simply not been able to answer when challenged about "so where should they go?", so the non-answer of doors has been thrown out there. It's a non-answer because it's a lot more expensive (space, not materials) than you think and won't actually protect anyone so it's not going to get implemented. It lets you pretend they aren't setting up a situation where there are no answers.

No, Loren. You don’t want it to be possible to exist as trans enough to support doors, much less to address the make violence towards women ( cis and trans) as well as all queer people.

You want to remove women’s / sense of safety because you’re too damn cheap to spring for your share of doors on stalls. And too damn clueless and illiterate to read anything I’ve written with the understanding if anyone older than 10 years old.

You just type a post without actually reading or considering what anyone else has to say.

I'm looking at what's going to happen--doesn't mean I support what's going to happen, just that I'm willing to consider scenarios with no good outcome. People will not want to pay the costs associated with retrofitting doors into changing rooms etc.

You are looking at this in isolation, I'm looking at it as part of the attempt to make it impossible to be trans. It's an impractical evasion to "answer" the question of where should they go after the trans-hunters got caught not being able to answer that question.

You’re trying to make it impossible to be a woman, period.

All I’m asking for is doors.

You’re the one whining about too much money I guess you are not the supporter of trans women you like to claim to be.