Evans Pool has a "family bathroom" separate from the segregated bathrooms where fathers can get changed with their kids (boys and girls) or people who are not comfortable changing in front of others (for any reason) can get ready to swim. I think this must be politically motivated, whether by one person, or by an organization.
@1, you said all that needs to be said on the matter.

I assure everyone most transgender individuals will choose the family/handicap accessible restroom at every opportunity.
I would direct anyone who is obnoxious about demanding their "rights" to use the family changing bathrooms.

The Lockerooms at Evans Pool are some of the least sexy and more like a Russian Gulag, even though Russian Gulags are warmer. (I swam with GLAD for years in the morning)
OK. The guy who pulled off this stunt is evidently a jerk. I had figured someone would try in light of how much publicity the issue of transgender access is getting of late.

However, I have a sincere question for you. Say for instance, you & Caitlyn Jenner are long time members (5+ years) of the same athletic club. You and she still frequent the club. Would you allow (feel comfortable with?) Caitlyn walking around nude in the shower and/or locker room? I believe it is a fair question.

Full disclosure, I frequent a club here in Seattle where an unequivocally transgender member swims, subsequently showers and dresses in the men's locker room. She does walk nude from the shower and has male anatomy. I've never in my 12 years of membership noticed a person transgender in the shower/locker room with female anatomy. In the latter situation and to be fair, I'll answer my own question. I would feel it a violation of club policy (prohibition of females in the men's locker room) and simply uncomfortable as well.

What's are your thoughts?
"as far as we know, this person didn't ogle or harass anyone"
You obviously haven't ever been in the Evans Pool women's locker room. It's not big, and it's completely open. You walk in and BAM! there's the open showers. I'm sure this creep got an eyeful.
Like a het male guy never before this proposed legislation invaded a woman's bathroom or locker room.

Because this legislation does nothing to curb those pants-wearing pervs -- who exist -- but attacks a totally nonexistent problem, legislation whose sole purpose is to discriminate.
@4 Yes, I would feel comfortable with Caitlyn walking around naked.

But I do think you raise an interesting point about the idea of comfort. I believe, for example, in the idea of "productive discomfort"--the notion that if you are feeling uncomfortable, it might be an opportunity for personal growth.

You're probably right in that not everyone would feel as comfortable as I would. If you're a cisgender woman and felt uncomfortable being in a locker room with Caitlyn Jenner, though, I think that would be a wonderful opportunity to ask, "Hey, why do I feel this way?" "Is it because I've never been exposed to transgender people before? Is it because I internally buy certain stereotypes about masculinity and femininity to be true?" It's a good time to reflect.

I also believe that it's necessary to ask what your personal comfort costs. If you feel more comfortable with a trans woman not being able to use the women's locker room, that means you're also comfortable with trans women potentially facing much more violence when they try to use the men's room. It means you're comfortable discriminating against a transgender person solely on the basis of their genitalia.

The other thing about productive discomfort is that it's usually temporary. A cisgender woman walks around a locker room with Caitlyn Jenner, feels weird about it for five minutes, and then it doesn't matter anymore. I think we've all been confronted with situations where we've felt uncomfortable initially. That discomfort fades when we discover that our prejudices are not actually true or helpful.
I absolutely hated school locker rooms where we (females) all showered naked together. As a young teenager, I wanted privacy so much. I would not use a pool or other public sports facility where the changing rooms were open. I want private stalls and showers with doors - or you shower wearing a swimsuit, not naked - or I'm not going to use that facility. It totally wouldn't bother me if a male used the changing rooms in that case. I'm not anti-mixed-changing, I'm anti walking-around-naked.
The bottom line is this: look and act like a weirdo, and you're going to get treated like a weirdo. Yes, he had every right to be in there - and you can't question him. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

You're suggesting he was an agent provocateur? Fine, I'll stipulate. But I wan't you to stipulate that a mass shooting perpetrated at the height of or just before a major gun control push is also the work of agents provocateur. Again, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
It's not the mixed gender nakedness that's an issue. That might do society some good. It's the risk of women and kids feeling unsafe.
"Productive discomfort"
You are making argument yourself, Sydney.
Check your denial.
Also, what the fuck is cisgender? Is that a legal or medical term? Is it in the DSM? Again, if you're going to act weird by using weird words that have no true meaning to normal people, you're going to be treated like a weirdo.
Like I was saying above, t rans invading womens public bathrooms and lockerooms to sexuall y ha rass is an imaginary problem.

Pants wearing het pervs an ongoing problem: ttp://
@13: I'm normal, and I understand what cisgender means. You're the weirdo for making an issue out of it on a liberal, LGBT-friendly site.
No, real women should not "have to deal" with freaks and perverts entering our spaces to appease transsexuals. As a victim of sexual assault, this dangerous mentality of throwing women's rights out to appease men in dresses is so frightening to me.
Is "cisgender" a standard term in medicine/science?
(That's a question whether or not this is site with nice liberal normal LGBT people.)
Thank you for your answer. It is appreciated.
@15: Liberal? Do you mean statist-progressive?
@13 The DSM is much like the Bible, it's constantly up for interpretation. It's foolish to belief that if it's not in the good book it's not "real".

@16 Your flippant use of the words Freak and Pervert is disgusting. Even if you are a victim you are disgusting for so easily perpetuating the sexual abuse of others through your use of language.

One solution would be to have totally uni-sex locker rooms (bathrooms are really the lesser issue) but I wonder how many cis-women (or trans-women) would agree to that approach. I don't think many.

So advocates better come up with some practical & legal solution because the Rule as written is absurd and will get over-turned or modified.

My fear is that the Rule will get involved with the Presidential race in which case the Dems will be truly fucked.
#3, check your privilege. You don't get to direct anybody anywhere. Get over yourself.
#7, you're so far off it is funny. Gender dysphoria is a medical diagnosis. I can know my external gender doesn't match my internal self for 20+ years. Until I get a formal diagnosis, however, I am not legally transgender. It is declared through medical means, not prosecutorial ones. It would be the job of the defendant to prove they were transgender with a doctor's note.
#17, it is in the OED for crying out loud. It is a good 20 years old. There's nothing new or unusual about it.

The Rule very specifically says that gender identity is self determined and has nothing to do with any kind of medical diagnosis. That's the whole problem, friend.
@9: My thoughts exactly. Put some clothes on!

@13, 17: Never took O-chem, huh?

@25: What is the text of the Rule anyway? Not sure where to find this.
@26: Here you go!
Sex-segregated bathrooms reinforce rape culture norms that insist [...] women are inherently vulnerable and need protection.

But the sad truth of the matter is that no space is really safe for women.

Does this place even have an editor?
There's a link back somewhere in one of Sydney's posts and the link from @27 gets you there...though which one?...😎.

But I did notice this clarification:

"Transgender individuals should not be required to provide proof of medical procedures or be subjected to a higher burden of proof than non-transgender individuals when utilizing gender- segregated facilities."

Self-determination of gender-identity is THE central problem because it indeed opens the door to deviant cis-men to abuse the law.

Do I have an answer? No. But ignoring the issue does no one any good.
"women are inherently vulnerable and need protection."

Lol! Where's the first place women turn when they feel vulnerable and in need of protection? The Patriarchy. Funny how that works . . .
If everyone is free to define their own gender, then sexual discrimination is not possible, right?
@31 how does that follow?
@29: This is the key passage here:
a higher burden of proof than non-transgender individuals

No one asks to see a cis woman's genitals when trying to decide whether or not she belongs in the women's room. No one asks her to take a DNA test. They accept, based on how she looks and acts and carries herself, that she belongs there. If she looks a bit androgynous, or perhaps a bit mannish, someone might say "You do know this is the ladies' room, right?", but if she says "Yes, I know," and goes about her business, then no further action is necessary. All trans people are asking for is to be afforded the same decency.

The notion that self-determination of identity suddenly means all bets are off is demonstrably untrue. Like the article said, the guy was asked to leave and he left. He never demonstrated any evidence, whether within or beyond the normal burden of proof that we all use every day, that he belonged in that room. (I feel comfortable using "he" to refer to this person because it's pretty clear he was trolling. His statement that "the law has changed, and I have a right to be here" is false on its face, as the law has permitted trans women to use the appropriate facilities for ten years.)

What "self-determination" means is that no government-issued identification is required, and (more importantly) no surgery or other expensive medical treatment is required, for trans people to access the appropriate facilities. It does not mean that anyone can walk into any room at any time with no recourse. Your identity must be sincerely held and (this is the important part) consistently asserted. You have to do some work to show you belong. Actual trans people will be doing that work, guaranteed. People who are just trolling, like the schmuck in this story, will not, and will be easy to spot.
I haven't read the Stranger in years, so to see this my first time back was pretty jarring. Is this a real article? It reads like a Tumblr anti- social justice satire blog, so ridiculously overwrought and filled with jargon that it makes one question its authenticity.

Can someone explain why the right of 10 year old girls to not see a penis is less important than a transgender woman's right to show her penis? I'm seriously not following the logic here. So, young girls are to be required to see a penis, and be see by someone with a penis - because of your politics? Uh, what?

And seriously, why on earth are you policing this person's gender expression anyway? Just to follow your Poe's Law schtick to its glorious conclusion, where do you get off misgendering this individual - are you the trans police? This person DOES have a right to use that changing room. They are not required to pass. You are not permitted to commit micro'gressions against them and ask them about their identity.

You just have to take it, Seattle. That's what this law means. It means that your opinion and feelings as women in the women's changing room are no longer relevant. Anyone can now show you their genitals, anyone can shower next to you, and if it makes you at all uncomfortable, you are a bigot.
Well what do you know? Yes, the "thing" conservatives have been warning about happening when you pass such laws... apparently are starting to happen. Just like every other thing we warn about - like how passing ridiculous minimum wage standards on businesses actually HARMS workers and customers. But NOOOOOO... you guys are the smart ones on the bus. Again, you care NOTHING about the safety and security of women and children as long as your ridiculous agenda passes. You care little about young girls who (GASP) might not feel comfortable with some man (transgender, whatever) who has a penis, getting naked in front of them and also getting full access to seeing THEM naked. For all the crying about rape culture/rape epidemic and "safe spaces," you care very little about the actual safe space and privacy of having a bathroom/locker room where someone of the same gender can feel comfortable. Nope - because a small percentage of the population is transgender, we simply don't want to make THEM uncomfortable. Damn the rest of society. You people literally need your heads examined. When people say liberalism is a mental disorder, this is EXACTLY what we mean.
JFC you bigots are fucking hysterical. And I mean "deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion", and not the ha-ha kind of hysterical. You honestly believe that any of the regular commenters here are going to take "YOU WANT A 10-YEAR OLD GIRL TO SEE A PENISSSSSSSS!!!!!" as a valid argument? Sure, whatever. I saw my dad's dick on numerous occasions as a kid. Never traumatised me. Perhaps you all just need to lighten up a bit.

Did you see the part where I said anyone can shower next to you in the women's locker room, and if you don't like it, you're a bigot? And then you called me a bigot? Yeah, that's kind of what I'm talking about.

What fascinates me is that you couldn't care less whether women feel unsafe. You don't care if a mother doesn't want her daughter to be seen nude by tranwomen, or if she doesn't want her daughter to see penises that aren't attached to members of their family. You don't care if a woman has experienced trauma from men, and is uncomfortable around penises. These concerns mean nothing to you.

But why do they mean nothing to you? What is it about trans identities that elevates them so far up the Stack that they eclipse mothers of young girls, and women who want, no, need a female only safe space. Supporters of these laws totemize trans people, wearing their unwavering, dictatorial and absolute support for the fulfillment of their every demand as a kind of virtue signaling Heavyweight Championship Belt.

Your strange, childish devotion to transwomen cheapens and fetishizes their struggles, and secures your place as an ally instead of integrating them into society in a permanent way. Baseless accusations of bigotry against people standing up for the sanctity of the women's locker room is not the path to social acceptance, nor are absolute demands or first-year-university political "certainty".

And really, don't dismiss agender, genderfluid, and genderqueer people. This law DOES mean that anyone can now use the women's locker room. Gender identity is self described, requires no signaling, and is subject to change at a moments notice. That is what you support, the end of women's locker rooms entirely. Folks would be a lot less upset if you stopped shrouding your radicalism in swollen writings about justice, and just admitted that no, you don't care what women think, because "women" don't actually exist.

1) Learn the term "bigot." It doesn't mean what you think it means, and when you eventually learn the definition, go stare into the mirror because YOU'RE the bigot.

2) I'm a father of 3 young boys. They've seen me getting out of the shower before because little kids tend to walk into bathrooms because they don't understand the expected privacy one naturally equates to the bathroom - you know, like normal functioning adults. But because they've seen me naked doesn't mean I'm comfortable with transgendered "men" walking into a public restroom or locker room while they're using it.

Again, you completely miss the point. Progressive liberals tend to have this habit of knocking down "fences" only to realize they have to build them back up again when the rabid dog it was keeping locked up starts biting their face. This isn't about the feelings and comfort of transgendered individuals. By all means, allow them to use a common bathroom. But when they start demanding that society cater to them in a way that infringes on OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, then this is why you have people (like me) who will be naturally outraged.
HA! Point proven!

Wait, what point? I understand Nova2 is a bit excited, but you haven't proven anything. You're a limp minded fool who's so deluded by his own sense of virtue he (she, xir?) can't be bothered to engage with anyone or make a cohesive statement.

Your position seems to be that women's locker rooms are bigotry, females may or may not have cocks, and trans identities preclude deviancy, despite more than half of transwomen maintaining a strong sexual attraction to chromosomal females.

Essentially, you're a tiny, tiny little person. You lack courage and integrity, your brains sucks, and you're a lamestain from the jump-off. Women matter. Their feelings and sense of privacy matter. Just because you'd rather wear a TG bandana in your left pocket than treat women with kindness doesn't mean that I will follow your lead. In fact I'd rather follow Rupaul into the men's room.

You're wrong. Women deserve your respect.
There's a problem
but the Rule as written
(most people haven't even read it!)
doesn't answer it
and needs revision.
@40 - Hey fucknut. I am a woman and I can damn well guarantee that I treat my fellow women with a lot more dignity and respect than you're capable of mustering on your best damn day on my worst. See, I actually believe that transwomen *are* women. GASP!

Transwomen are not men. They don't stand around scratching their balls and bellowing about the sportsballs scores in the middle of a changing room. They shower and dress just like any of the other women in that same space and that's all. Most of the time, I imagine they try to find a private cubicle. That's what I do when I'm in such a space, and I've got all the bits that I was born with.

You're beginning to froth at the mouth. You're the one imagining all kinds of sexual deviancy here, not me. And what is this nonsense about transwomen and their sexual attractions? You know who else is attracted to women? Cis-gendered lesbians. Are you going to try and exclude them from the ladies' showers too?
@40: I'm a woman too. A trans woman. My feelings and privacy matter. And I sure as shit don't belong in the men's room. Where exactly do you suggest I go?
I don't have answer for this situation.
But this Rule doesn't make sense to me.
We need more discussion.
@40: "you're a lamestain from the jump-off"
Nice Memes Where'd You Find Them

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.