Author Topic: New trans laws  (Read 7301 times)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
New trans laws
« on: June 02, 2021, 02:41:54 PM »
Gonna be real for a second, I don't and never have gotten the whole trans thing. Think it's like when my Dad couldn't understand gay marriage. Probably a generational thing.

Anyway I've got no issue with anyone doing whatever they want with their own body so I'm cool with it all, and I'm also kind of curious about the recent rash of laws aiming at trans issues. Is this just an acceptable blowback against BIDEN STRONG 2020 or are right wing politicians in right wing states trying to get votes locked in with...their electorate.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2021, 02:59:20 PM »
I haven't been following the issue, so could you give a few examples of such laws?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2021, 02:59:29 PM »
A lot of them have been going at it for a while with completely unenforceable "bathroom" laws aimed at imaginary cross dressing rapists.

It is all about riling the base and getting donations and volunteers. It's a new version of "the queers are coming for your children" and we're the only ones who will stop them!

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2021, 03:01:06 PM »
Florida just passed a law preventing Trans people to participate in a sport other then their birth sex.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2021, 03:29:27 PM »
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-legislation-2021/index.html

Yeah, whether you agree with the message or not 2021 is definitely a year for conservatives to suddenly get worried about trans people.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2021, 03:35:18 PM »
Florida just passed a law preventing Trans people to participate in a sport other then their birth sex.

Yeah this is Christie thinking he's going to be the next Trump.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2021, 03:41:47 PM »
DeSantis not Christie.  Christie is NJ not FL.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2021, 03:46:19 PM »
DeSantis not Christie.  Christie is NJ not FL.
[/quote

Truth, my apologies. Remember I'm keeping an eye on it all as an ex pat from across the ocean lol.]

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2021, 07:18:52 PM »
Okay, so it is more but not necessarily new. Fair enough, thanks for the link.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2021, 06:01:19 AM »
Hey so I've been off and on here for close to 20 years and I know I've been a pain in the ass at times, and I'm sorry for that. In other news just injected myself with enough insulin to kill a herd of elephants, they won't be able to inject enough sugar intravenously without swelling my brain stem up too much, I'm out, I'm done, and I've legitimately never been more happy In the past 20 years.

Don't know what's up next, I'm not religious, so whether it's back to black or some other crazy thing I don't know but I'm gonna find out real soon. Best of luck to all ya'll.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2021, 06:07:47 AM »
And I might be American, but at least I didn't shoot up some people on the way out. Yay for me and bucking cultural trends.

Do kinda wish I had access to a gun though, would have been much quicker and cleaner.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2021, 08:50:59 AM »
Did DJQuag just commit suicide?  Mod, do you have a way to check on him?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2021, 10:16:41 AM »
Did DJQuag just commit suicide?  Mod, do you have a way to check on him?

Doubt the Mod has anyway to do that. Anyone know his real name? I think he was an American living in the UK. Anyone know more specific?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2021, 02:54:32 PM »
I didn't know we still had a mod. If we do, they could identify the IP address and narrow down a location. Plus I think there should be an email on file.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2021, 12:15:50 PM »
Horrific and sad. I try to be as nice as I can to everyone. You never know what they are going through. Will miss him. Never know what to say but saying nothing seems even more wrong. Of course I hope he's okay but if not it's just terrible. Try to hang in there everyone.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2021, 03:54:51 PM »
There is only one science about trans athletes. XX or XY? Everything else is psychological babble designed for the political benefit of the proponent. Even when the Soviets used to dope their female athletes with testosterone, they knew the XX/XY test was a baseline.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2021, 05:04:59 PM »
Did you know there was a woman who was banned from participating in women's sports because her testosterone levels were too high, as high as a man's?  And yet she had XY chromosomes.

Biology is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. :)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2021, 05:52:02 PM »
Did you know there was a woman who was banned from participating in women's sports because her testosterone levels were too high, as high as a man's?  And yet she had XY chromosomes.

Biology is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. :)

Yes it is. XX or XY. A Female doped with extra testosterone will develop man-like symptoms. There are many degrees of progesterone vs. testosterone, but the baseline is still XX vs. XY, is it not? How many USSR Olympians got broomed for being doped? Anyone ever argue the doping was not the cause of the problem? Of course a female athlete with high testosterone will be banned. It is hard to prove there was no doping up the line. Anomalies are just that - not any basis of common usage.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2021, 06:45:04 PM »
As I stated before, in this case the woman's own natural testosterone levels were in the level of a man's, without any doping.  She proved this to the committee.  But the committee still banned her, because they were so high.

So if a woman's testosterone levels can be as high as a man, what does "baseline" mean?  The average?  The normal?  If biology is so simple as being either XX or XY, how can there be exceptions?  Is it "mostly XX" and "mostly XY?"  If you have all these people who are in neither category, or in both, how can you consider that "simple?"  Or do those people simply not count?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2021, 08:02:28 PM »
It seems like DJQuag showed up as one of the users on in the last 15 minutes so that's hopeful and if it's the good news it should be then welcome back!

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2021, 09:42:25 PM »
It seems like DJQuag showed up as one of the users on in the last 15 minutes so that's hopeful and if it's the good news it should be then welcome back!

Ain't it just like a conservative to have them find some some out the way BS to call you out.

I came through, mostly due to a couple instances that wouldn't favor the people involved once it went down to UK DOL legislation. I'm choosing not to press that issue because while I'm a piece of *censored* whom deserves to die, I never have and never will hurt anyone besides myself. And the idiots thought they were just doing their job.

I mean, what kind of an *censored* can't even kill himself? Well I'll sort that out soon but, as always, nice hearing from you gentlemen/women.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2021, 12:54:46 PM »
DJ, I am very sad to hear that you feel that you deserve to die.  I doubt you deserve it anymore than anyone else--and far less than some I could name who inexplicably are still around. :)  So if only to act as a counterweight to those people, I'd like you to stick around.  I, for one, would miss you.  :-[

Just remember the immortal words of William Goldman, words which I used with my son until he is ready to smack me:  "Life is pain.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell something."

Somehow that always makes me smile. :)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2021, 12:13:19 PM »
First, I wanna say how damn relieved I am to see DJQuag post again. Seriously dude, if you need some help, please reach out. Lots of resources for you.

Now, on to the show ....

A lot of them have been going at it for a while with completely unenforceable "bathroom" laws aimed at imaginary cross dressing rapists.

It is all about riling the base and getting donations and volunteers. It's a new version of "the queers are coming for your children" and we're the only ones who will stop them!

Imaginary.

Quote
A video of a woman raising her voice against a 'man' has gone viral. The unnamed woman in the viral video shared on Instagram has alleged that a spa in Los Angeles, California, allowed a 'man' to walk around while exposing his penis, in the women's section.

However, when the woman confronted the staff members of the WI spa after being traumatized to see the naked 'man' roaming around while minor girls were also around, they defended him. A worker seen in the video allegedly told the woman that the unidentified 'man' was permitted inside the spa because of his “sexual orientation.”

The dude was walking around the women's only area, among young girls, waggling his penis around for them to view. Exposing yourself to others is a crime, with children present (as happened here) it's typically a felony.

There was no imagination here, it happened. The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman".

I think you all know, deep in your heart, that this is wrong. You're just scared to say it. So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance. Men forcing women and children to look at their penis is not something we should normalize.


Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2021, 03:46:31 PM »
Quote
The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman".

It's that kind of B.S. that The Drake was talking about:  a shallow stereotype that has no relationship with reality and is only designed to stir up fear and misunderstanding.

NO trans person that I have met or know about has ever one day just put on a quick dab of lipstick and started calling herself a woman.  ::)  In every story I had heard, it was a process that took years for the person to finally acknowledge, even if she knew it from an early age.  Years of questioning, denial, unease, emotional turmoil, and doubt.  NO ONE wakes up one morning and suddenly decides, in an instant, "gee, I'm really a woman inside."

Which is how you can tell the perverts from the actual trans people.  How many perverts do you think will dress up as the opposite sex, put on make-up, risk and typically take ridicule and abuse, just so, years later, they can expose themselves to some little girls for a few minutes?  How many will risk losing friends, family and loved ones, endure hatred from those who hate such people, being thought of as perverts, unnatural, weirdos and freaks, just so they can pretend to be trans and get away with exposing themselves a few times?  It's so very, very much easier to act like everyone else, a normal heterosexual, and wait for opportunities when you can indulge in the perversion.  Who would go through all that constant suffering for opportunities that may never materialize?

If you are truly concerned with preventing perverts from exposing themselves and just saying they are trans, then make trans an official status.   That way, only people who are willing to make it their actual lifestyle will be considered trans, and they will have documentation to that effect.  That will prevent the few dumb perverts from trying to use trans as an excuse to expose themselves, without unduly burdening actual trans people from having to deny who they really are.

But even now, how many judges would buy that a person who was cis all his life is suddenly trans, just after he exposed himself to a bunch of kids?  Only one ignorant of reality, and then more likely than not he wouldn't believe in trans people to begin with. :)  Either way, the pervert is in big trouble.

Quote
I think you all know, deep in your heart, that this is wrong. You're just scared to say it. So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance. Men forcing women and children to look at their penis is not something we should normalize.

And I think you know, deep in your heart, that you are projecting.  That you don't understand how a man could feel that he is actually a woman, and it scares you.  So you file it under "perversion," "insanity," "abnormality," and believe it doesn't need to be acknowledged and shouldn't be acknowledged, because it's "unnatural" and "against nature."  And you look for any excuse so that you can force reality into your preconceptions of how the world should be, into the reality that you want it to be, and not what reality actually is.  And I doubt you really care how many people get hurt because of your preconceptions. 

See, that's how you tell people what they really feel deep in their heart. :P

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2021, 05:17:05 PM »
Quote
So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance.

See post just above. I rest my case.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2021, 06:56:37 PM »
WS, it seems that your reply to Crunch is mostly specious. I'm not particularly taking Crunch's general position on this, but the post you responded to raises the issue that sexual molestation and living one's own gender are essentially indistinguishable in the classic locker room scenario. You can suggest that people should have a "trans ID" (I'll avoid critiquing how fraught with internal contradictions this proposal is), but even then I don't see how that addresses the issue that a person with a 'legitimate ID' could still conduct themselves in the way Crunch's article outlines. They don't need to be intentionally provocative to be doing something that would have been open and shut "sex pervert" stuff 30 years ago. I'm not really trying to take a position on how best to deal with this, but your handwaving makes Crunch's position look more credible, not less (more, in fact, than it has a right to).
« Last Edit: June 28, 2021, 07:04:24 PM by Fenring »

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2021, 07:54:47 AM »
I'll point out that a pervert that wanted to expose himself to other men or *little boys* could already do this in the exact same circumstances, and nobody seems to be terribly in panic about it as society have already found the ways to deal with that, with the usual limits that nothing in life is ever perfect.

The problem here is divided in many parts:

1. the nudity problem. One thing is a lewd act, like masturbating or touching in public, or other sexually suggestive behaviors. This is already well regulated by plenty of actual laws everywhere.

More or less innocent/temporary nudity is a bit more culturally sensitive... for example, here in Italy, it's quite rare to ever see genitals even in locker rooms: showers are individual stalls with tents, and if somebody have to change underwear first they wrap a towel around their pants.
Apart for the usual intolerant  people, here it would not be a problem what happened in that post because exposing genitals would cause troubles whatever the gender of the offender and the space where they would do it.

On the other hand, if you go to northern/eastern countries, it's quite easy to see men and women changing without any special protective care even in the open, on beaches or in parks or whatever (and I'm not talking of specific nudist beaches or things like that... those are for going around regularly naked, not only some brief moments while changing or stuff like that).

I remember at university one year I went to an international camp in Germany: we lived in a big communal area, and me as the only Italian and a bunch of Spanish boys and girls were a bit shocked the first days by the carefree attitude of the others, seeing a lot of male and female genitals (and breasts) being bared without anybody especially caring. After a bit, we got used to it. The rules are simple: you don't stare to people that get naked, you keep it discreet when you have to get naked.
There too it would be only a problem for people having specific issues against trans people, because on any beach kids can already see genitals as a matter of course (and it does not seem to be especially traumatizing).

2. what happened. Now, I don't know exactly what happened in that spa locker room, but that woman was especially vehement in attacking the trans person by strictly categorizing them as a man.

It's possible that the trans behaved badly in there (even if they were not a "fake trans using it as a trick to expose to women", category that seems to be more theoretical at this point than real, they may have been an a-hole... only because somebody belong to a discriminated category, does not mean that they can't be a-holes).

It's also possible though that she was a woman that had an axe to grind (there is the whole category of TERFs... see the previous note about belonging to discriminated category not excluding being a-holes). After all, we don't know much about the true reaction of all the other people present there... most of the articles i checked talk about the online reaction (that of course draw attention of the kind of people that
already agree with those ideas) or go directly to rants about "affront to god and nature" and such things...

3. what happens to trans people now. Trans people right now are heavily, heavily despised by a large share of the population. They are seen by those as, as an article I found online wrote, affronts to god and nature, intrinsically perverts, disgusting and a lot of other things. When they have to deal with other men, this often results in violence toward them at staggering rates.
Having to go in a man's locker room or bathroom "dressed as a woman" would then expose these people to real concrete danger.

I'm sure a lot of people that deny the existence of the "trans" category see this problem having a simple solution: don't go around as recognizably trans.
Well, sorry, but for those of us that are starting (the road is still long) to recognize the right of everybody to express their inner self that's not a solution.

Everybody freedom is a bit like a bubble: it expand till it does impact the freedom bubble of another person. Some may say, I don't want to have trans people around, have to see them doing things I consider immoral, seeing their genitals and so on. But other people say I want to be able to be myself, express myself as the gender I feel to be, for whatever reason, and don't be in danger because of it.
Finding the right balance between these things is a matter on one side for the social community, and on the other side for the state to write down as laws and rules, and this should be done based on priority of dangers, level of damage to the one whose freedoms are denied, and ideally even if unavoidably only very little on number of discomforted people (plus, of course, practicality of the solution).

When the public attitude is changing, unavoidably this process is going to be fraught with false starts, errors, trials and so on, till we reach a new equilibrium. During this process there may be debate and trials and errors, as as humans are humans, there will always be some a-hole trying to use a new rule to their advantage (like they always used any rule to their advantage).

Still, we should not allow people whose real point is "I want my personal freedom of wanting everybody to conform to my personal set of rules and morals or at the very least not offend my eye by behaving differently anywhere I may see or be aware of them even when nobody is really harmed by it" to change the discourse by exaggerating small dangers or inflate little practical difficulties.

My solutions to these problems? Oh, I don't know... talking ooma (out of my ...), without any access to reports, already existing law codes, psychologists consultations and so on, I would likely mandate the realization of a special dedicated space for trans people (or I guess any people uncomfortable with public nudity) people in any place where you *have* to expose yourself, like open-space showers and so on.
You could make it mandatory for new buildings, with a grace period for updating existing ones, and requiring a "trans may use the space they prefer but must not expose their genitals when doing it".

We had here something similar with accessibility rules here: all public places have to have a closed, single person, dedicated accessible (usually mixed) bathroom. Any other bathroom you may have, must be in addition to at least this single one (of course, if there aren't others, anybody may use it, not only disabled people). It took some years to get most buildings up to code, but now it's available everywhere.

Where the problem is simply a restroom with closed stalls, I don't see any problem in letting trans people go wherever they feel more comfortable. If they harass somebody, it's already illegal and they could do it even with the restroom limited to binary sexuality if they wanted to, if they don't and somebody still feel offended, though.

About the sport thing instead, oh, i don't know enough about sports... personally I would allow anybody do whatever they want, maybe introducing some "weight category" like they have in boxing where it could lead to serious problems, like with contact sports (I would note that in those categories this would also help cis-but-small boys compete in such activities).
But I don't really know about what's involved, I would say this would be a matter of discussion for a serious non-political panel of medics and biologists... maybe setting some basic biological parameters to determine which category you may compete in?
I repeat, i don't know, but if the objective is finding a way that allow everybody to self express freely and still compete fairly, instead of simply "either male, female or get out of here", something can be worked out.
 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2021, 08:15:07 AM »
I'm still trying to figure out the scenario where sex crimes laws on molestation, exposure, assault, are not enough to stop the would be assailant, but the bathroom law is. The only possible, highly theoretical, situation would be a passive fake trans in stealth mode trying to sneak a look at others. Which lands squarely in the "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one to hear it" category.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2021, 09:27:54 AM »
I'm still trying to figure out the scenario where sex crimes laws on molestation, exposure, assault, are not enough to stop the would be assailant, but the bathroom law is. The only possible, highly theoretical, situation would be a passive fake trans in stealth mode trying to sneak a look at others. Which lands squarely in the "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one to hear it" category.

I think some of these responses are hyperfocused on whether the 'man' in the women's locker room was exhibiting lewd or suggestive behavior, or whether 'he' was just going about his business. But I don't think Crunch's argument was contingent on the particulars of the behavior itself. The argument seems to be that merely exposing yourself (i.e. becoming naked nearby to) to women and children in a women's locker room was previously a well-understood crime, regardless of intent. Now it becomes 'acceptable' depending on the intention of the biological male getting undressed, which seems like where the argument must lie. Does the intention in fact matter when it comes to exposing oneself in front of women and children? Crunch argues no. The fact that an actual pervert could lie about being trans just to get out of legal danger is relevant but perhaps beside the point that Crunch is raising.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2021, 10:42:54 AM »
Maybe. But some such law as written would put post operative trans individuals into that same female locker room, no? Tying to birth certificate and such.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2021, 10:58:43 AM »
Maybe. But some such law as written would put post operative trans individuals into that same female locker room, no? Tying to birth certificate and such.

Post operative seems to also be getting stuck in the "how does the person feel inside" POV, whereas the question put forward is simply a mechanical one: exposing one's male genitals to the ladies. It doesn't seem to me that this particular question requires ascertaining the history of the person or whether they've had an operation or not. So it's not even a question of whether someone who grew up as a man can now "get to see everything" if they've had a sex change operation. In fact, if I understand Crunch's position correctly, I expect he would have a problem with a birth-female who had sex change operation to become a man going into the ladies locker room, despite having done so countless times prior to the operation.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2021, 11:24:42 AM »
The argument seems to be that merely exposing yourself (i.e. becoming naked nearby to) to women and children in a women's locker room was previously a well-understood crime, regardless of intent. Now it becomes 'acceptable' depending on the intention of the biological male getting undressed, which seems like where the argument must lie.

In the word of Crunch:
Quote
The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman".

No, no, I think you're the one misreading his argument here.



Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2021, 11:28:28 AM »
In the word of Crunch:
Quote
The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman".

No, no, I think you're the one misreading his argument here.

I suppose we can let Crunch answer for himself whether I've made a mistake or not. My assumption has been that while some very few people may expose themselves for 'perverted reasons', I sort of interpreted Crunch's point to be that anyone who would 'whip it out' in front of women and children is ipso facto a pervert.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2021, 11:36:17 AM »
I would also reiterate that the "women and children" thing is really "women and little girls", because if you have a locker room where you *can* get completely naked in front of strangers, you can already expose yourself to young kids, and this seems to be a non issue in the presented terms.

Also, the ipso-facto pervert argument, as I stated earlier, is only true in some countries: in other countries, simply doing it a bit discreetly in considered safe enough to be quite normal and have been so since forever.
 
And my counter argument is then that changing a bit our mores is worth it to be able to stop denying the inner being of a lot of people that traditionally risk being badly beaten for their status.

And if some people really are so unbearably offended by it, we can prepare other solutions like the private spaces I was referring to, instead of simply denying the problem. But I hear only complaining, not (practical, ethical) alternatives...



TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2021, 12:17:56 PM »
If exposed genitals is the issue, wouldn't it be better to simply make a rule and have facilities restrict the exposure of any genitalia? I don't really want to see guys hang dong either. Or, free market wise, just have privately run businesses post their rules and let people decide if they want to go there.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2021, 01:56:11 PM »
Quote
So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance.

See post just above. I rest my case.

Which just shows the depth of Crunch's intellectual, rhetorical and logical skills.  ;D

Try responding to arguments instead of ignoring them sometime, Crunch ;)

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2021, 02:18:54 PM »
Quote
But I don't think Crunch's argument was contingent on the particulars of the behavior itself. The argument seems to be that merely exposing yourself (i.e. becoming naked nearby to) to women and children in a women's locker room was previously a well-understood crime, regardless of intent.

And this is where you err, Fenring.  Intent has always been key to any crime.

Consider the scenario where a father is showering in a men's locker room adjacent to a women's locker room.  He hears his daughter suddenly crying in tremendous pain.  In a panic, he runs out of the men's locker into the women's, to discover that his daughter has a fallen and has a compound fracture of her arm.  He immediately picks her up and carries her out to get medical attention.

Would you say that the father was a pervert, getting his kicks out of exposing himself to women and girls?  Do you believe he is guilty of sexual perversion?  In fact, do you think he should be charged with a crime at all?

And, as fizz pointed out, do you believe that allowing this behavior to go unpunished means that we are opening the door to allowing any sexual pervert to walk into a woman's locker room and expose himself, by just saying he heard his daughter crying? ;)

Perhaps in the past it was always assumed that the only reason a man would expose himself to a group of women in a woman's locker room is because he was a sexual pervert, and so it was automatically categorized as a crime.  But in those cases, intent was assumed.  Mens rea applied to exposure even then.

Now, I'm not saying that we should allow all trans people to expose their genitals in women's locker rooms, regardless of how the other people in the room feel.  Certainly trans people should be willing to accommodate others in such a situation. But to make the huge leap from a person who considers herself a woman exposing herself means that now every sexual pervert has license to do so shows that Crunch is using emotion and perhaps fear-mongering more than reason and logic in his argument. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2021, 04:14:20 PM »
And this is where you err, Fenring.  Intent has always been key to any crime.

That's not true at all. Intent [to harm] is only one precondition of crime, but other criteria can include negligence or willful negligence, and failure to comply with regulations or orders (in certain circumstances). Now, the action leading to the criminal consequence needs to have been intentional, but the actual crime may have been unintentional. So if a fatality happens as a result of your criminal negligence, you need to have been the one to decide on not taking the necessary precautions; but obviously there was no intent for the actual event to occur that led to the death. But you are more making it sound like you need to actually intend harm to violate the law, and that's not correct.

Quote
Consider the scenario where a father is showering in a men's locker room adjacent to a women's locker room.  He hears his daughter suddenly crying in tremendous pain.  In a panic, he runs out of the men's locker into the women's, to discover that his daughter has a fallen and has a compound fracture of her arm.  He immediately picks her up and carries her out to get medical attention.

Would you say that the father was a pervert, getting his kicks out of exposing himself to women and girls?  Do you believe he is guilty of sexual perversion?  In fact, do you think he should be charged with a crime at all?

You're arguing that all crime is essentially circumstantial, rather than a blanket statement about breaking rules. Well obviously, since literally everything in life is circumstantial. That's basically a tautology. But again, you are trying to make it sound like any action at all is considered to be entirely neutral until you hear the rationale behind it, and I don't think that's correct by any means. Certain things are wrong by default, even though extraordinary exceptions can occur. The fact that these are extraordinary doesn't diminish your point that certain things, in context, are in fact not wrongdoing, but it does mean that this is not the normal standard of judging conduct. Someone flashes a woman in the park, it's a pretty clear line to "that person is a sex pervert." It is theoretically possible that the flasher was actually abducted by terrorists who made him do that at the point of a gun, and if so this extraordinary explanation could be offered in a court of law. That doesn't mean we're bigots to think of such a flasher as a pervert when we see him do it. It's pretty much a standard and reasonable interpretation such as it is. So you are offering a rare and life-or-death scenario requiring a man to do something that would otherwise be seen as a transgression. Well, fine, he had a special reason to do it. That's not a normal situation, and laws can only really cover the broad strokes of normal situations. Rare and weird situations is why we need courts and interpretation.

Quote
And, as fizz pointed out, do you believe that allowing this behavior to go unpunished means that we are opening the door to allowing any sexual pervert to walk into a woman's locker room and expose himself, by just saying he heard his daughter crying? ;)

As I mentioned, I am not outright taking Crunch's position on this, but rather reacting to the lack of addressing Crunch's point as he made it. I don't think his argument is stupid, which is not the same as saying it's clearly right. The fundamental question is, can you do a thing that was previously illegal, and have it be considered ok because of an explanation offered by the person doing it about their inner life? It's an entirely unknowable void (their inner life), and one which you have to accept on the spot, no matter how you feel, according to the theory that you have no business judging a trans person's choices. That in itself does sound logically untenable as a basic position.

Quote
Perhaps in the past it was always assumed that the only reason a man would expose himself to a group of women in a woman's locker room is because he was a sexual pervert, and so it was automatically categorized as a crime.  But in those cases, intent was assumed.  Mens rea applied to exposure even then.

You'd have to ask a criminal lawyer if this is in fact true. I have my doubts that only people who considered themselves sexual perverts (i.e. had the overt intent to sexually molest) would be prosecuted for this type of thing, but I really don't know. It seems to me like you're making a big assumption here.

Quote
Now, I'm not saying that we should allow all trans people to expose their genitals in women's locker rooms, regardless of how the other people in the room feel.  Certainly trans people should be willing to accommodate others in such a situation. But to make the huge leap from a person who considers herself a woman exposing herself means that now every sexual pervert has license to do so shows that Crunch is using emotion and perhaps fear-mongering more than reason and logic in his argument.

I like this answer more. The question at its core is what position to take on trans people who want to walk around naked in the women's locker room. If you feel that they 'should be willing' to accommodate others, does that translate from a should into a must? Because what if, contrary to your desire, some of them don't feel they should? Then they can go ahead and have at it? I think that is the border Crunch was addressing.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #38 on: June 29, 2021, 05:47:50 PM »
Quote
Now, the action leading to the criminal consequence needs to have been intentional, but the actual crime may have been unintentional. So if a fatality happens as a result of your criminal negligence, you need to have been the one to decide on not taking the necessary precautions; but obviously there was no intent for the actual event to occur that led to the death. But you are more making it sound like you need to actually intend harm to violate the law, and that's not correct.

I'll grant you that unintentional crimes can still be crimes, and this instance could very well fall under such a circumstance.  It was pretty obvious, given the facts, that the trans person did not intend to shock those women who saw her naked, nor was it to get some sexual kick out of doing so.  But it does not change the fact that the women and girls did see male genitals in a circumstance where they neither expected nor desired to see them.

However, it still does not follow that a person who does not intent to shock women with her nakedness means that those who do will get license to do so.

Quote
That doesn't mean we're bigots to think of such a flasher as a pervert when we see him do it. It's pretty much a standard and reasonable interpretation such as it is. So you are offering a rare and life-or-death scenario requiring a man to do something that would otherwise be seen as a transgression. Well, fine, he had a special reason to do it. That's not a normal situation, and laws can only really cover the broad strokes of normal situations. Rare and weird situations is why we need courts and interpretation.

What you are neglecting to acknowledge is that the broad strokes of the situation have changed.

Years ago, when homosexuality and transsexualism were illegal, the normal reason a person would flash a woman was for sexual kicks.  Saying it was because the person was a transsexual would simply have been confessing to another crime.

But with the normalization of transsexualism, and especially in this particular case, the reason for the exhibition was not for sexual kicks, unless it was an extraordinary circumstance.  Which means these situations that once were weird and rare are now normal.  The law simply hasn't kept up with the changing circumstances, and still treats those who do it for one reasons (transsexualism) as if they were doing it for another reason (sexual perversion).

Once we recognize that the courts should not treat extraordinary circumstances as if they were the normal circumstances, then we can acknowledge that, when the normal circumstances have changed, they should not be treated as the previous normal circumstances.

And they certainly should not be construed as justifying or legalizing the previous normal circumstances.  Saying that they do shows that the person acknowledges no difference between the old circumstances (sexual perversion) and the new (transsexualism).

Quote
It's an entirely unknowable void (their inner life), and one which you have to accept on the spot, no matter how you feel, according to the theory that you have no business judging a trans person's choices. That in itself does sound logically untenable as a basic position.

As I pointed out, you can judge a person's inner life by the way they consistently act, especially over the years.

A man who calls blacks "ni**ers" for years and says they should be segregated from white people is a bigot, even if you don't know his inner life. :)

A man who likes looking at naked women and gets a kick out of it, but not so with men, and has done so for years, is a heterosexual, even if you don't know his inner life.

A male who calls himself a female, dresses as a female, wants to be called a female, has declared that he is a female, and has done so for years, is a transsexual, and you don't need to know her "inner life" to know that is true.

To deny it after months or years of demonstrative behavior has more to do with whether you want to accept a person's "inner life" than if it is true or not. ;)

Quote
If you feel that they 'should be willing' to accommodate others, does that translate from a should into a must? Because what if, contrary to your desire, some of them don't feel they should? Then they can go ahead and have at it? I think that is the border Crunch was addressing.

No, it wasn't.  I think, if you read again the entire post, he was not addressing the question of how to balance the conflicting needs of trans people and cis people in a locker room setting.  He was providing what he thought was an example of how allowing trans people to behave as they see themselves to be will allow an excuse for sexual perverts to molest (if only visually) women and girls.  How it will lead to allowing sexual perverts free reign.  I saw no implication that there should be any accommodation for trans people.

Feel free to quote me any such passage. :)

Of course, if Crunch would like clarify this position on this, I would be delighted if he would.  If I misunderstood his position, I would like to know that.  But so far, all I've heard is "See, you're defending sexual assault of children!"  ::) 

So I wouldn't hold my breath.  :D

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #39 on: June 29, 2021, 06:35:27 PM »
Not to be crass, but the "point" is that high school girls were exposed to a stranger's penis.

Does it really matter if it was a woman's penis instead of a man's penis?

It almost seems like it's all some sort of joke or a Monty Python skit.

In a British accent:

"You're offended? Why? That's not a man's penis. That's a woman's penis. If you're offended then you shouldn't be; you should be ashamed of yourself. And that goes for your little girls in the sauna too. All women have the same right to show little girls their penises as men do."

"I am SO sorry!!! It's just... well... it looked like a man's penis."

"Oh really? So "they all look alike" to you, eh? I wonder where I've heard that before. Sure enough, scratch a transphobic person and you find a racist underneath."

"Huh?!..."


Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #40 on: June 29, 2021, 06:48:52 PM »
Quote
Not to be crass, but the "point" is that high school girls were exposed to a stranger's penis.

So if high school boys were exposed to a stranger's penis, that's okay?
Or if high school girls were exposed to a stranger's vagina?

If a woman was flashing her vagina to girls in a park, or a man flashing his penis to boys, wouldn't they be perverts too, just as much as if a man was flashing his penis to girls?

I don't quite get your mores, I guess.

I understand the women in the specific sauna or whatever wanted a penis-free zone or whatever. Then the simple solution would be to have the rules of the place talk about people with penises vs people with vaginas.

Of course, then the women would still get bearded trans men in their space. People that look like this (https://www.sfaf.org/collections/beta/my-life-with-anorexia-as-a-trans-man/). Those trans men would have vaginas though, so I guess that's okay?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2021, 06:56:31 PM by Aris Katsaris »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2021, 11:44:16 AM »
I was thinking about this subject last night, when I suddenly remembered something I had buried in my memories.

I, too, once sexually assaulted a young girl.

I feel ashamed to admit it, as I did at the time, but, as Fenring argues, a crime is a crime, regardless of intent.

It was years ago, when my family was visiting a friend of my father’s.  I was hanging around with their young daughter—she must have been three or four at the time, maybe two, it’s hard to remember—and I had to go to the bathroom.  She followed me in.

Rather than kick her out, since I had to go really bad, I just unzipped my pants and did my business right in front of her.

It traumatized her as you would expect.  I remember her saying, “I don’t have that.”  And me, worldly-wise, simply said, “I know.”

Anyway, I finished my business, washed my hands, and that was the end of it.  We never spoke of it again.

I’ve never done anything like that since then, and never will.  But I am still ashamed of it.

I suppose that one of you could report me as a sexual pervert and have me put on a list of sexual offenders now.  Except that I’m pretty sure the statute of limitations has run out on this crime.  It happened sometime around 1965 or 1966.  Maybe as late as 1967.  As I said, it’s hard to remember, since I was around four or five at the time.

Now I can imagine how Crunch would argue that excusing such a crime would open us up to having any pervert just claim he has the mentality of a five-year-old and getting off scot-free for exposing himself.  After all, how can someone prove a person is mentally more mature than a five-year-old when we can’t know a person’s intent or inner thoughts?  There is no way, is there?  ;)

Of course, this also means that a lot of people who “played doctor” when they were younger are also guilty of sexual assault.  Because, after all, just showing your junk in front of young girls is a felony.  :)

As I said, I don’t advocate that trans people be allowed to show their genitals in front of anyone they want to.  Even in a locker room, consideration should be shown to other people.  But let’s agree that one incident of a trans person walking through a women’s locker room is the same as sexual assaults like touching a woman’s privates or worse.  And that a few people excusing such an incident does not mean that tomorrow every pervert who wants to expose himself to women and girls will have the right to do so.  Can’t we all just use some common sense? :)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2021, 02:45:17 PM »
Thanks for the anecdote, WS. As it was a conciliatory gesture I would like to add that I think you're being too hard on yourself about it. Just on the legal side of it I suspect there's a large difference even in law depending on the circumstance and individuals involved. For instance a young boy (like an 8 year old) running around naked in front of his family is up to them to decide whether it's ok or not; but that same boy running around naked into a girl's locker room would be treated much more harshly. Perhaps due to his age they'd just yell at the parents and let it go. And a third case, an 8 year old running nude out of the water at a lake or watering hole in a small rural town...likely no big deal, even if there happened to be others nearby. Now take each of these cases again with an adult, and I think we would find that even an adult would not be treated the same was under the law walking around naked (a) in a public city park, (b) at a beach in France, (c) in a women's locker room in the U.S., or (d) in front of their kids at home. Morally speaking, I think more needs to be taken into account than just "could what I did be interpreted badly". That is too far. An example of what I mean is certain excesses of the Metoo movement (of which to an extent I'm a proponent). In the effort to make public the horror of abuse and sexual assault, many people have seen fit to accuse themselves (or others...) of "rape" in order to prove some kind of point. I've heard cases of this that take the form "I once slept with a girl, except that I didn't specifically ask "is this ok" every step of the way, so I raped her. I am a bad man." This sort of excess is IMO a vice nearly as bad as denying bad actions, as it has an equal and opposite effect of distorting perceptual reality.

I can't judge you or what you did, and thanks for sharing it. But just based on my limited opinion, I hope you're not beating yourself up over something that was really not a big deal, if it was even wrong at all (I don't know if it was). While it's true that crimes can be crimes regardless of intent, sins (if you'll allow the term) take understanding and intent very much into account. While a sin is still a sin if you're ignorant of its implication, it's far far lesser than if you knew exactly what you were doing and did it anyway, to the point where a simple "then go and sin no more" should be enough as a way forward from it.

As I said, I don’t advocate that trans people be allowed to show their genitals in front of anyone they want to.  Even in a locker room, consideration should be shown to other people.  But let’s agree that one incident of a trans person walking through a women’s locker room is the same as sexual assaults like touching a woman’s privates or worse.  And that a few people excusing such an incident does not mean that tomorrow every pervert who wants to expose himself to women and girls will have the right to do so.  Can’t we all just use some common sense? :)

To me the only question is how much of a defense is given to such an act, and how significant the power base is of those who do it. We have seen in very clear terms historically, and right now, that a rather small group of radicals can in fact penetrate the mainstream consciousness, go viral if you will, and affect government and law in serious ways. The conservatives are no doubt terrified of this happening in regard to trans people and the laws involved, and I don't blame them in the least. It would be good if things were as you suggest, that we can be reasonable and try to make everyone feel at ease. But that doesn't seem to be how radical movements actually go about things. And worse still, the moderates in such movements tend to be elbowed out (or killed, depending on the movement) by the extremists who care for nothing but their own agenda. Moderates don't have the sheer determination to win in the same way zealots do, and will rarely use the same means.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2021, 02:52:42 PM by Fenring »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #43 on: June 30, 2021, 05:59:12 PM »
Thanks for the anecdote, WS. As it was a conciliatory gesture I would like to add that I think you're being too hard on yourself about it.

I think WS was joking in his self-condemnation.

I'm not sure if you're also joking by pretending to not get that he was joking, but thought to mention it anyway.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #44 on: June 30, 2021, 06:22:05 PM »
Thanks for the anecdote, WS. As it was a conciliatory gesture I would like to add that I think you're being too hard on yourself about it.

I think WS was joking in his self-condemnation.

I'm not sure if you're also joking by pretending to not get that he was joking, but thought to mention it anyway.

Now that I'm re-reading it, maybe you're right. It didn't occur to me on a first read that it could be a joke, because IMO it would be incredibly tone-deaf to make mock of what would or wouldn't traumatize a woman/girl. I'll just hope WS was being serious.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #45 on: July 01, 2021, 06:53:42 PM »
Well, I was over-dramatizing my reaction a bit, for dramatic effect.  I do feel remorse over the incident, and would gladly go back and undo it, but I do recognize that I was young and stupid and not entirely culpable for my actions.  Heck, I once shot my dad in the back of the neck with a toy B-B gun when I was older than that.  :)  I definitely wasn't the brightest bulb in the pack.

As far as traumatizing her, I certainly hope I did not.  I rather doubt it.  She was very young, and had no idea of the "significance" of the body part. :)  Also, I'm sure she was exposed to it later on, if only from various animals that she encountered, such as dogs.  And in no way did I show or imply the secondary function of the member, beyond the use for waste management.  I didn't know it myself at the time. :)  In the end, the most I think I did was introduce her to the fact that boys and girls are different, and provided a real-life example of that difference--at my own expense.  :-[

Of course, I was not the one who should have broached this subject, and I hope her parents were not offended by what I did.  That, too, I regret.

People do have different views on the subject.  I went to U.C. Santa Cruz, where my dorm had co-ed bathrooms, and the beaches there were all clothing optional. :)  I heard a story once that the city council had tried to bar being bare on the beaches.  This lead to a protest where some of the women in the group protested bare-chested.  They could do this because, while the council banned nakedness on the beach, they had neglected to do so for the downtown area. :)  They eventually compromised, in that you could go naked on the more isolated beaches, but to do so on the popular beaches would subject you to the anti-lewdness ordinances.  As far as I know, you can still drive along the coast there and see now and then men and women scampering about in the buff.  It has not lead to a complete breakdown of society there yet, depending on your definition of societal breakdown. :)

Which illustrates another reason that Crunch was overblowing the entire incident.  Depending on where you are, these felonies happen every day, and no one gets overly excited by them.  Some places don't even consider them much of a crime, and depending on the location, not even a crime at all.  So why are we supposed to condemn an entire group of people who are trying to gain the right to be themselves because a few might expose themselves, in an entirely non-sexual and non-malicious way, while trying to exercise that right.  And it's this lack of maliciousness that makes his stance so offense.  He equates a pervert who knowingly and maliciously tries to shock and offend women with someone who thinks himself as being just another woman.  It would be like equating my childhood naiveté with a flasher.  It is really smearing those trans people.

I may have been kidding about my childhood incident, but it was kidding on the square.  I regret it, but probably not as much as I may have implied.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2021, 12:30:12 PM »
I'm shocked--shocked!--to learn that the incident Crunch referred to may have been completely fabricated. Turns out no one can find this mysterious trans person chilling naked in the woman's locker room. I'm just so terribly surprised that the story which could have been made up to further the anti-trans agenda was in fact made up to further the anti-trans agenda. No one could have seen this coming.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #47 on: July 12, 2021, 11:00:00 AM »
The more I read about this story of the man at the spa, the more I realize Crunch has been suckered. :)

According to this article, the Wi Spa in LA is "a high-end spa that is well known for being LGBTQ-friendly."

Well-known for being LGBTQ-friendly....

This brings up a lot of questions.  Why did she go into this expensive spa?  People don't usually wander into spas at random, especially expensive, high-end ones.  Usually they know something about them.

Why did she bring her daughter there when she didn't know anything about this spa?  Oh, wait, none of the articles I saw mention she had a daughter with her.  She was worried about other people's daughters, whose parents probably knew where they were taking them.  Parents who probably weren't worried about their children seeing the naked bodies of adults of either sex.

So really what this story is about is that this woman was outraged--OUTRAGED!--that people can go to a private business where trans people are treated like their preferred gender in front of minors with their parent permission.  That this is an example of how sexual perversion will run rampant if we allow transgender people to live their lives as they want.  ::)

In other words, this was, almost doubtlessly, a faux-outrage set-up by a transphobic woman designed to fool people.  It causing protests and some violence was just the icing on the cake. >:(

What do you think she will do next?  Go to DeAnza Springs Resort and start yelling about how they are allowing under-age children to see adult men parading around naked, which we all know is a felony?  Because, after all, DeAnza Springs Resort is a well-known nudist colony in San Diego County, not far from LA.  But Liberals have told us that this sort of thing wouldn't happen if we allowed nudist colonies.  ::) ;D

I did notice that the original article did not mention this salient fact, so I understand how Crunch was fooled.  I'm certain that he did not intend to fool us about the situation by leaving out this important fact.

But you do owe all of us an apology for this, Crunch.

Let us know that you did not intend to make any of us believe that this was an incident in a normal spa, that could happen anywhere.  That you did not realize that this was an incident in a private establishment well-known for being trans-friendly and that any reasonable person would expect such behavior in it, and would therefore give implicit consent to it by entering.  That you did not know that this spa was special in this way, and so was not a good example of how this type of behavior could become common.

Because, otherwise, you accused me of excusing criminal sexual perversion based on a lie you knew about.

And that is inexcusable behavior for any decent human being.

I look forward to your reply, Crunch.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2021, 11:02:52 AM by Wayward Son »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #48 on: July 12, 2021, 11:13:52 AM »
I wonder if she works for Project Veritas?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2021, 05:19:25 AM »

I look forward to your reply, Crunch.

Well, I had to wait for the full story to come but now it is.

Quote
Sources with knowledge of the case but not authorized to speak publicly say four women and a minor girl came forward to allege that Darren Agee Merager was partially erect in the women's section of Wi Spa.

Right. You denied a young girl was involved but now we know that you were lying. The dude was aroused. He was getting off on it.

Quote
Besides being a suspect in this case, Merager is facing multiple felony charges of indecent exposure over a separate incident in Los Angeles.

Well, well, well. Seems like a pattern is emerging.

Quote
Law-enforcement sources revealed that Merager is a tier-one registered sex offender with two prior convictions of indecent exposure stemming from incidents in 2002 and 2003 in California. She declined to comment on the convictions. In 2008, she was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender.

Well what do you know, this is a convicted serial sex offender. And you're excusing it, defending it even, in the name of political correctness. Pretty sick.