They mean what they say!
In Midland, Michigan, a Planet Fitness gym revoked a woman’s membership because she complained that a man—actually a man who identifies as a woman— was in the woman’s locker room.
Company officials explained that she violated its “no judgment zone” policy. Planet Fitness policy also states members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their self-reported gender identity.
Fine.
It’s their business, and they can make whatever silly and irresponsible rules they want. If they want to make members dress like chickens, wear noodles on their heads and speak only pig latin, that’s their choice. The establishments Planet Fitness wants to run, apparently, are ones where a woman can go into the ladies locker room and run into some hairy, naked guy with his dong hanging out, and she gets dinged because she objects, not knowing that he is really all girl at his creamy nougat center.
Okaaaaay…. Eventually Planet Fitness will have a membership that is all trans, all blind, or all pathologically politically correct, or perhaps have no establishments at all. When the company says “no judgment,” it really means it, because this shows a ludicrous lack of judgment. But ethical! The policies were all communicated to all members, so the woman violated the “don’t react negatively to the showboating trans individual in the ladies locker room who shows no respect or consideration for others who might not be quite ready for a full frontal” policy, and has no defense, except offensive normalcy.
Clearly “Men” and “Ladies” labels on locker rooms and bathrooms are no longer unambiguous or effective.
What do you think about “Penis” and “No Penis” signs? I think that solves the problem, especially in places where there’s no judgment.
Ethics Alarms 
If you are physically equipped to violate and impregnate a woman… stay the Hell out of here. If you can’t handle using a urinal in the Men’s Room, go around to the back and pee on the grass.
If some guy ever walked in on my wife showering, I would be very, very un-PC about it.
I would be deadly, Joe. Under such circumstances, you cannot but assume from the onset that physical harm and/or liberties was intended against a female family member. When that ceases to be a crime, society is doomed.
That was my PC way of saying exactly that. Another one of those conundrums; we’re to believe that 1 out of 5 college girls are raped, but we’re also to presume that someone with male genitalia has no untoward intent when he or she walks into the ladies room.
Exactly, Joe.
How about just sexually integrating the locker rooms?
Did the gym give the woman her money back for what was left of her gym membership or did they steal it?
Refund. But they charged her for the peep show. Fair is fair.
Jack,
Your ignorance in this (rare) instance is palpable. You’ve recited the same “worst nightmare” nonsense that transphobic people have been spouting for years, and none of it has materialized. There are no confirmed cases (of which I’m aware) where a pedophile or some other pervert has dressed in drag, only to then go cruising for flashing opportunities at the nearest ladies room. Most perverts get off on the illicitness of what they’re doing and, if they’re freely allowed to walk in and expose themselves to whoever, the thrill is gone.
Add to which, it assumes gym officials wouldn’t be smart (or care) enough to recognize who genuinely identifies with an alternate sex and one who’s looking to share his “creamy center” (as you so eloquently put it).
“Transphobic”?? Another quaint little linguistic invention from Perverts United.
Not only am I not transphobic, there was nothing in the post that justified or even raised the issue. Neil’s been hitting the airplane glue again, I fear.
Or maybe picked the wrong time to quit!
You’re failing to assimilate. Don’t draw attention to yourself.
I always considered “assimilate” to be a rather vulgar sounding word!
Like ass-annihilate?
It sounds like an invitation to sodomy!
I don’t know what post you read, Neil, but it sure wasn’t mine. I raised no nightmares, and I didn’t say anything anywhere about “a pedophile or some other pervert… dressed in drag, only to then go cruising for flashing opportunities at the nearest ladies room.” Now that you mention it, I think once the “honor system” on gender identify gets around, this can and will happen: hell, if I were a peeping Tom, I’d try it myself.
But there was nothing in the post or even in my mind when I wrote the post that reflects the alleged ignorance you allude to, and I really think when one accuses a writer of making an ignorant comment, it should actually exist.
Maybe I’m being overly strict.
I’m saying, and I said, that if women are going to be confronted in lady’s rooms with live, dangling schlongs, some may quite reasonably find the experience unpleasant—I don’t find it especially pleasant myself, in MENS rooms—and I, like, I suspect, many females confronted with a dong parade, couldn’t care less what the “self-reported” sexual identification of said schlong-holder is, be it female, male, or crocodile. A schlong is a schlong, and schlongs should hang out together in places like bathrooms and lockerrooms, unless they are unisex. Note that my example was “the showboating trans individual in the ladies locker room who shows no respect or consideration for others who might not be quite ready for a full frontal.” I didn’t make any reference to pedophiles, perverts, phony transexuals or drag—project much??? What are you talking about? In fact, what the hell are you talking about?
My position is unchanged from this post: https://ethicsalarms.com/2012/11/04/an-easy-ethics-call-the-flasher-in-the-girls-locker-room/
A sample:
I didn’t mention your nightmare scenarios in that post, either. In the future, would it be asking too, too much to confine your criticism to what is actually in the post???
Facts: (Quoting from Transadvocate – a site I contribute to)
The sauna area was off limits to the two teens.
Unless one specifically tries to see inside the sauna, you can’t view the people inside the sauna.
Colleen Francis AND her cisgender female friend were using the sauna together. They were sitting there talking.
At no point did Francis act to expose herself to children.
At no point was Francis walking around nude in the area where children were.
So, the actual story is that two 17 year olds went into an area they weren’t allowed, attempted to view the people in the sauna and saw Francis. The rest of what you’ve probably heard about this incident is, at this point, an urban myth.
– See more at: http://www.transadvocate.com/colleen-francis-and-the-infamous-evergreen-state-college-incident_n_10765.htm#sthash.gQp81PK4.dpuf
As you can see – facts don’t matter. Yes she used a special screened off area the younger girls were forbidden to enter. No, she didn’t swing bits of any kind in public.
That doesn’t matter because no matter what is done or not done, there will always be malicious liars who will fool even people like you Jack, who should know better, and should have checked up on this.
The ethics issue at hand, however, is whether such partitioning for the sake of gentility and manners in a non-unisex setting is reasonable or not.
So you are saying that subsequent fact-checking reveals that Colleen was more or less doing as I recommended. Great. That changes the facts but not the ethics opinion. Now I’ll go update the post.
Thank you. Before you do – please go to the Transadvocate site. Listen to the audio. Fact-check. Because I cannot possibly be considered an objective source.
I will. Thanks. Wish I knew earlier.
Following on from that, the idea of dangling…parts…misunderstands the fundamental psychology of trans women. Remember, we are speaking of a group of people who are convinced that thing and it’s twin companions don’t even belong there – to the extent that if circumstances permit we go to great expense and pain to rectify that situation. Many of us loath the very SIGHT of the thing.
Under those circumstances the LAST thing we would EVER want to do is let other people look at it. I spent a couple of months in the hospital last year after suffering a broken neck. I can tell you that oe of the prime motivators for getting out of that bed is the fact that other people had to come in and give me a bath and see that part every day. It was humiliating. if i have any say-so in the matter NO stranger will ever look at it unless they are a medical professional.
THAT is how trans women think, there will be no “parading” it simply doesn’t happen. (except in porn)
I accept that completely, but it’s irrelevant. The issue is what’s allowed, and whether what’s allowed requires informed consent by anyone joining who will be using the facillity.
“requires informed consent” if applied even-handedly in all situations could turn into a much bigger circus than this. There are a LOT of things people object to.
At some point one has to take responsibility for their own biases rather than expecting the world to help enforce them.
Thanks for the enlightenment, Tammy. All my life I’ve wanted to know what “transwomen” think about things. Thank God for Pepto-Bismol.
You don’t strike me as the sort who’s ever spent 2 consecutive minutes considering what life was like for anyone who isn’t just like you.
Sure, Tammy. Give your natural arrogance full swing.
Steven, I don’t see what right you have to complain about others being insulting, given your prior performance.
Who’s complaining, Charles? I just isolate the facts, then comment or take action.
When people crazy enough not to be able to acknowledge their own sex are allowed to flaunt their unacknowledged physical realities before normal people (and their children) who don’t need the anatomy lesson, they’re asking for big trouble. If someone this insane in matters of a sexual context is also seeking to invade the privacy of women and children, it is likewise a natural matter of “concern”. Let me be just a little more blunt, to put this into a perspective that even the most clueless ivory tower liberal can understand. If I found some pervert in a private, women/girls only area where a female friend or family member were located, I’d shoot the sonuvabitch on the spot. Savvy? If I caught some Frisco Fairy forcing his attentions on a woman, I’d just shoot to wound, but shoot I would. On a child… right between the eyes. You’d have a hard time putting together a Texas jury where most of the members wouldn’t have done the same thing under the circumstances. I suspect the same can be said for Australia.
I believe you. Is there any lower limit on age of “pervert” though – 18 months maybe?
How about this one?
Do you honestly think you’re making some sort of point with that baby, Zoe? If you do, then you’re even more screwed up than I thought! Why not just put your sickness to bed for a while, huh? It must get wearisome- even for you- to continually drag the human race down to a nadir of existence in order to justify your depraved fantasies.
I don’t believe him. I bet you don’t either.
It’s unlikely, I’ll grant you that.
But you lose your bet, I can’t afford to completely dismiss the possibility, no. However, he’s in Texas, I’m in Australia, so not worth thinking about, and discussing it serves no purpose.
I’m certain that if we ever actually met socially, we’d discover we have much in common – a passion for doing right for example – and he’d be more likely to come to my aid than try to kill me. The qualities that make him such a threat to those he perceives as perverts – gallantry, chivalry even – would work for me.
But it’s been one a week in the USA so far this year. All TWOC – Trans Women Of Color. One in eight of those will die of violence. Those like me only have 17 times the chance of the general population. Enough to keep us on our toes, not enough to obsess about.
What you failed to mention, Zoe, is that a large number of those murders are the result of either self-defense from normal people or sexually induced violence from other deviants. Don’t start playing the “shrinking violet” just because I said I’d defend women and children from predators. Where I come from, that’s what men are expected to do as part of their natural duty.
you have not demonstrated the presence of, or likely presence of, said predators. That they appear in your fevered imagination does no more to justify violence than the voices in his head that told the sniper to climb to clock tower.
Rather, they appear in news releases on a pretty regular basis!
“I showered at Planet Fitness today. There were more dongs in there than a Chinese phone book.”
Jack says “I’ve got something for you to palpate”.
Or palpitate, as the case may be!
“Add to which, it assumes gym officials wouldn’t be smart (or care) enough to recognize who genuinely identifies with an alternate sex and one who’s looking to share his “creamy center” (as you so eloquently put it).” Is there some kind of test, like the MMPI, or maybe some sort of scanner?
There is a definitive test – but as it involves autopsy of the brain, it has certain disadvantages as a diagnostic tool.
MRI and PET scans cost a fortune and are no better than standard psych tests. Again, the expense is a problem. Not everyone has the spare cash to pay, and I don’t see the gyms doing it.
True, not to mention that they’re often not effective under certain circumstances without an established baseline (prior scans). It seems to me that an organic differentiating feature would be difficult to impossible to resolve with what is really a blunt instrument compared to the complexities of the brain. Of course, I’m no expert in this rapidly evolving field (physiological gender identity).
http://unswcah.tripod.com/symptoms.htm
See Figure 1- Female patient with severe masculinization from congenital adrenal hyperplasia
From Baskin, L S 2005, Abnormalities of Sexual Determination & Differentiation, in Smith’s General Urology, 16th edn, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., viewed 20 September 2007, [AccessMedicine]
Bear in mind these are not “one in a million” cases. That site only deals with the 21HO form (95%) and 11H form (>4%) of CAH, not the 3BHSD form that I have (and which is a “one in a million” situation)
I really don’t like discussing genitalia, my own or anyone else’s. But despite the fact that my UK Birth Certificate says “boy” (Intersex people can’t get them corrected) I was never as masculinised in that area as the woman shown in Figure 1.
I really don’t like discussing genitalia,either. I had to do a term paper on testicles in the 9th grade (I was absent when everyone got to pick an organ..that was all that was left) and it lives in my nightmares, especially the disease and abnormalties section.
It’s not perfect, but wang/no wang sure seems like the best, fairest, and least controversial way to avoid these awkward situations.
OK, so which restroom should I have used before puberty hit? Exactly what size qualifies? It’s a bit like the laws on miscegenation, or Apartheid. Apply a “one drop” rule, or go the full Nuremberg, deciding what degree of “Mischling” is provisionally Aryan?
Biology isn’t binary. The binary is a good approximation, and if handled with humanity and simple human decency to deal with unusual cases, would work, as you suggest
But that is emphatically not the society we live in, as the Colleen Francis case and others illustrate.
For that matter – what about men injured in accidents or wars? It could happen to you (talking about nightmares…)
There are always exceptions, and perfect rules don’t exist. When faced with an analogy, use common sense, and treat as sui generis.
Or sui genital.
I submit that the evidence shows that in this particular instance, the general rules that are generally adequate – that imperfect laws will be enforced with a modicum of “common sense” – do not apply. That in fact they never apply, as the laws are deliberately crafted by bigots so they would not be applied that way.
The only defence – one that has worked in the past 4 decades, when such laws are mooted – as they inevitably are – is not to pass them. To show how they cannot be enforced. That they will not catch genuine bad actors, but only the innocent, because that’s what they’re designed to do,
Exhibit 1: Texas HB 2801, prescribing a $2000 bounty to be paid by the school to anyone seeing a child using a “wrong” restroom. (Yes, this conflicts with Title XII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, but the object is to harass kids, not prevent misdeeds)..
Can you explain to me which parts of this provision in Texas HB 2801 you find the most horrifically unfair, insensitive and exclusionary?
Sec.A38.252. ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR CERTAIN
STUDENTS. (a) A school district shall provide reasonable
alternate bathroom, locker room, or shower facility accommodations
to a student if:
(1) the student asserts a gender identity that is
different from the student ’s biological sex; and
(2) the student ’s parent or guardian consents in
writing to the provision of alternate accommodations.
Unfair? So “separate but equal” is the policy now?
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/03/10/texas-doubles-down-transphobic-legislation-adding-2000-fine-wrong-ba
(c) This section does not require a school district to construct, maintain, or modify a bathroom, locker room, or shower facility to provide any alternate accommodations required under Subsection (a).
A honey-bucket at the back of the school is fine. Like they used to have for the colored folk.
Or maybe require Trans and Intersex kids to use adult facilities, just to ensure all the “normal” kids know about these freaks. That will work real well in Redneck territory.
The real problem with such laws is this:
Please define “biological sex”. Your penalty for getting it wrong is $2000.
For example – is someone who has 47,XXY chromosomes the same “biological sex” as someone with a mix of 46,XX and 46,XY? Or do we require genital examinations? What happens when we get a 46,XY person with female genitalia? Or a 46,XX person with male? Or a person – and we’re talking about 6 year olds here – with neither? Or both?
It’s Texas – so let’s look at what’s happened previously in Texas courts.
Littleton v. Prange (9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 872 (2000))
When the prize is $2000 – care to bet there won’t be gangs of boys doing genital inspections of all girls in the school, just so they have a chance of hitting the jackpot?
And of course there’s this to be used on all the boys too.
Now you’ve gone completely unhinged, Zoe. You’re so fixated on this sickness that you can’t even hold onto the topic at hand or offer any rational comparisons. I can only assume that it’s your fixation with the perverse that drives you to these extremes. That’s not uncommon for people with these sorts of conditions.
So, no actual answers to her points then? Just insults? You are not going to advance your point of view like that. Her comments are precisely on-point. There are in fact exceptions to the binary, for which these blunt instrument laws make no provision, and this directly suggest that the bounty makes them potential targets. Nevermind the implications of these conditions for the biological legitimacy of trans identities.
Zoe accurately notes that the bills are written with specific animus towards the trans student with the specific intent of making them targets – which will have the effect of officially sanctioning bullying of those kids. Do you dispute this? If so based on what?
I’m not really concerned with the persecution complexes of perverted persons, Tammy. As I’ve pointed out, they tend to be their own worst enemies. I’m far more concerned with the threat they pose to others through their invasions and political machinations.
Another peek into the mentality of the Deviant Continuum! Did you ever consider, Zoe, that this “bounty” might be aimed at protecting innocent girls from intruders or perverts; either students, teachers or outsiders? Yet, in your mind, anyone who defends them against such threats to their persons is a “bigot”! On the contrary, anyone who would not defend young girls from the Zoe Zombies is one bereft of manhood.
Nope
I believed the sponsor of the bill, when he said it was in reaction to a Federal court case allowing trans kids to be allowed to use the restroom that was appropriate for them. Ask him yourself.
As with the other similar bills simultaneously introduced in 6 different states, all written by and supported by anti GLBTI groups, all opposed by rape victim support groups. None of them in reaction to any perceived increase in incidents from “intruders or perverts” in schools.
Now the “traditional marriage” scam is ending, gotta find another wat of getting the suckers to part with the spondulix. And what better way than “Will no-one think of the children???” and the mental damage they will get by seeing another child who’s Intersex, or in a wheelchair, or with different coloured skin?
Heck, if they’d thought up the idea of a bounty on those “passing for white” it truly would have been “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” wouldn’t it?
I see you’re still trying to equate perversion with race! Forget it, Zoe. No one’s buying that line, black folks in particular. Every time you try to drag “intersex children” into this, you only sink yourself lower. THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS. Young children can be brought out of these misunderstandings with patience and love. There are few greater crimes that a person can commit than to allow a child to grow up psychologically disabled by doing nothing to help them cope with their realities, thus condemning them to misery for the rest of their lives. This, of course, is exactly what the deviant agenda calls for to their own twisted ends. Just another (and big!) reason to resist their evil.
Oh I understand now: you have exactly no clue what you are talking about. Intersex children don’t exist? Seriously? People have been knowing about what the used to call “hermaphrodites” since ancient times and no one ever had any illusion that those conditions only appear in adults.
Either you are ignorant of that piece of common knowledge, or you have no understanding that intersex and transsexual are different variations of the same basic condition, and in your ignorant assumption that trans people choose to be trans (they don’t) you expand that false assumption to intersex persons.
Honestly, I admire Zoe’s vast patience that she’s spent so much time trying to educate someone so very unwilling to learn even the most basic facts.
I could spend some time trying to educate you about the massive psychological harm caused to trans people by trying to force them, as youth, to conform to the assumed gender imposed upon them – those of us with lifelong experience with that (and didn’t blow our brains out as a result of the damage) can testify, while you offer nothing in reply but an ill-informed knee-jerk opinion…but i can see it would be a massive waste of my time.
Oh I understand now: you have exactly no clue what you are talking about.
On this topic? SMP has his areas of expertise, but on this one he is 100% passion and ideology. And yes, ZB knows that—she is educating the rest of us while zooming through the no-fly zone over SMP’s head. I, for one, am grateful for the enlightenment..
No, Tammy. What you’re referring to is genuine mistakes of nature, who are an exceedingly rare occurrence. I interpret “intersex” to mean those who cannot come to terms with their natural sexual identity. Apples and oranges. You’re trying to play it fast and easy, here, but your intellect isn’t up to the challenge.
Curses! My nefarious plans have been seen through!
Yes Jack, you’re exactly correct.
“What you’re referring to is genuine mistakes of nature, who are an exceedingly rare occurrence.”
Indeed, but not as rare as transsexualism. Please demonstrate why the brain is immune to these “mistakes of nature” since I’m dealing with the superior intellect here.
“I interpret “intersex” to mean those who cannot come to terms with their natural sexual identity”
Now I’m laughing at the superior intellect.
“Apples and oranges. You’re trying to play it fast and easy, here, but your intellect isn’t up to the challenge.”
Yeah. You do make it kind of easy.
Dictionary.com:
Intersex: /ˈɪntəˌsɛks/
noun 1. the condition of having characteristics intermediate between those of a male and a female
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intersex?s=t
Transsexual: /trænzˈsɛksjʊəl/
noun 1. a person who permanently acts the part of and completely identifies with the opposite sex
2. a person who has undergone medical and surgical procedures to alter external sexual characteristics to those of the opposite sex
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transsexual?s=t
So, yeah, ONE of us is making up our own definitions. Guess who?
You’re only proving how scrambled your thinking is, Zoe.
It’s not perfect, but wang/no wang sure seems like the best, fairest, and least controversial way to avoid these awkward situations.
Thereby preventing trans men and women from accessing necessary medical treatment.
I know that sounds absurd, but part of the testing to ensure only qualified candidates are permitted surgery, is that they have to use the restrooms of their target gender for at least a year before surgery is permitted.
That’s in the medical standards of care (SOC) v6. Doctors who are accused of not following it (or v5 or v7 depending on jurisdiction) can be and have been the targets of investigation by licensing authorities.
v5 SOC http://www.tc.umn.edu/~colem001/hbigda/hstndrd.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/06/transexualism-gender-reassignment-richard-curtis
After 4 years of investigation, Dr Curtiss was finally cleared.
It is absurd, and clearly such a rule would not stand, and would make even less sense, if bathrooms were divided not by gender, or gender identification, but by an unequivocal physical test.
Zoe raises an important issue – if the SOC in fact REQUIRES the transitioning trans woman to live as a female in all aspects, including public restrooms, before being approved for GRS, and yet politicians want to make that very act illegal, it creates a situation in which medical professionals are asking patients to defy the law.
(oh and by the way, many many trans women will use female spaces regardless of law or policy, we have no choice. This is ongoing as we speak and no harm has arisen)
Also, the “wang/nowang” standard puts trans men who still have a vagina in the ladies locker room – Google “Buck Angel” and ask yourself how the woman at Planet Fitness would have felt if HE had walked in on her. After all, Buck has no “wang.”
The dick/dickless division has no advantage other than eliminating ambiguity and disputes like this one. Obviously laws that require other standards can’t coexist with them. Obviously bathroom designation will have nothing to do with gender at all, or self-identification. The advantage is, you know what you are going to get, which the PF system fails.
Except in the case of Intersex.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/09/04/the-phall-o-meter/
Surgery on intersex infants reflects a taboo on gender similarity; a moral objection to gender sameness. We must be separated… by at least .6 cm.
Yup. No disagreement. No system works in every case, and the effort to make a system work in every case is not only futile, but unnecessarily and disproportionately unfair.
It’s difficult for me to follow all the comments with this stupid phone, so please excuse me for dropping in on the tail end of this and probably missing key points, but it seems like there’s really no ethical ambiguity about this. No cutting until all identity issues are resolved, and preferably on a patient old enough to give informed consent.
Absurd? Yes.
Would not stand? You have to be joking. Of course it would.
The practice of “carry letters” commonly issued by medics to show lawful excuse before 2005 was discontinued after that date. They were either ignored, or used as evidence in trial to prove the facts of the case even if the arresting officer didn’t appear in court to testify, There’s a plethora of caselaw here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/ashley-del-valle-transgender-jail-inmate-_n_3110904.html
Del Valle’s case is similar to that of Andrea Jones, a Tennessee-based transgender woman who reportedly went topless in the parking lot of a local DMV after officials refused to change her sex from male to female on her driver’s license.
“If I was a male, I had the right to, when I stepped out the door, take off my shirt,” Jones explained at the time. “It’s not right for the state to ask me to be both male and female. A choice needs to be made. They cannot hold me to both standards.”
Yes they can. Yes they do. Convicted of a crime only females can commit according to the statute, then deemed legally male. Whichever interpretation is most detrimental to defendants.
That’s the meaning of “animus”.
My kids love discussing their genitalia. My youngest son told us that his “pee-nuss” (his pronunciation) has superpowers, and my littlest girl said “mommy, you have a HUGE vagina” recently.
“The better to expel you from my tummy with, dear”, replied Mommy with unsubtle wit.
These “no judgment” people actually have signs that say “no lunks”, and discourage the presence of said lunks by limiting their dumbells to something like 40 lbs. My wife and I went there once, considering a membership. I saw the sign, and said to the lady showing us around “do you have somewhere private where I can inject steroids?” My poor wife.
Carlotta Sklodowska went to the Midland, Michigan Planet Fitness twice. She wore leggings and a baggy t-shirt to work out in, which she admits don’t hide her masculine body structure very well. Her only use for the locker room was to hang up her coat and purse while she exercised.
Cormier complained to the front desk and then the corporate office, but Planet Fitness stood by its policy of gender identity inclusion.
Unsatisfied with that result, Cormier returned to the gym every day the following week, constantly approaching other women to warn them about who she saw in the locker room.
After she spent four straight days complaining to others, Planet Fitness Corporate called her to express concerns about the atmosphere she was creating at the Midland location. When Cormier insisted she would continue to bring up her encounter in the locker room, the company decided that she was in violation of its trademark “no judgment” policy and revoked her membership.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/09/3631333/a-transgender-woman-went-to-the-gym-and-nothing-happened/
—
Obnoxious individual deliberately trying to stir up trouble day after day, harassing patrons, is asked to desist, as there have been complaints about her conduct. She refuses. Her membership is revoked.
Why did they wait so long? No judgment, or no obnoxious judgment for 4 days?
Obviously, she wasn’t at the right gym, and never read the membership brochure.
“don’t hide her masculine body structure very well” is a pretty funny euphemism. My mother went to a gym for knee rehab. I guarantee, she would have been freaked out.
Any penis, anywhere, coming or going–one goes to the All-Penis Room.
https://scontent-nrt.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/p228x119/10922603_1571220253118813_2207732493425619202_n.jpg?oh=69d00b1426d0d38da84ede118f2602c2&oe=5573996B
Bear in mind, I have no idea of the genital configuration of either of those two people.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.224763!/img
http://www.edgeboston.com/news////74383/lesbian_mistaken_for_a_man,_ejected_from_restroom,_receives_settlement
http://www.edgeboston.com/news////74383/lesbian_mistaken_for_a_man,_ejected_from_restroom,_receives_settlement
“masculine body structure” is no euphemism. It refers to her broad shoulders and height, not genitalia. Rather like Ms Farmer’s, though she looks far more stereotypically female than Ms Farmer, who is distinctly Butch.
How do you know what her genital configuration is?
Should this person be allowed in a female restroom at a gym?
How about this person?
I wonder how many of these freaks Zoe keeps in her gallery so she doesn’t feel all alone?
5 mins Googling. If you want a collection of neurosurgeons, rocket scientists, authors, lawyers etc go to
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/TSgallery1.html
We walk among you.
You make a tiny collection of sexual misfits sound like a secret, menacing army. No doubt, you like to think of it in that manner. No doubt, either, that these creatures would like for it to be a reality. However, if they and you think you can intimidate the human race into bowing down to your perverse agenda, you had better guess again. You cannot hide the reality of your condition and motives forever. WE are the human race and you are tolerated only to a point.,
We get that a lot.
Most people don’t believe that.
I think most here will be aghast at your words. Some probably not though, you’re not exactly Robinson Crusoe here in your view that such as I aren’t really human. In fact, you represent exactly what the Texas GOP stands for, in both its good and not-so-good areas.
I genuinely believe you when you say you’d kill me if you saw me in a public restroom. I believe you when you say you wouldn’t be ashamed of doing that, that you think you’d be performing a public service, doing your civic duty.
I think you might not actually do it – even though the odds really are pretty good that you wouldn’t be arrested, let alone charged. But they’re not zero any more. The world is changing. Some – ok, a handful – of such cases actually get prosecuted now. 10 years ago, that was not the case.
But maybe not. Not that you’re “all hat and no cattle”, I don’t question your courage. I think that if you met me beforehand, you’d find it more difficult to see me as a Thing, as Not Human.
Would I bet my life on it? No.
Now, Zoe… take a deep breath, read my words carefully (this time) and you’ll see that I never threatened to kill you! Are you a physical male intent on invading the sanctuary of women and children and menacing their persons? If so, then you’re in danger from many more than me! But assuming you are not, then your reaction can only be described as hysterical.
Say… you don’t like Texans, do you?!
I think most here will be aghast at your words.
I sure am.
Good to know, though. That gives me some additional insight into what you’re up against.
You’re really going to fault people for the anatomy they were born with? I think your remarks on this page have been incredibly rude.
But they weren’t, Crella. These are people who either deformed themselves physically in pursuit of a sordid fantasy or have followed a sick fantasy to such a point that they simply deny their physical reality. Personally, I consider it rude to plaster the faces of these people across the internet and hold them up as a standard of normality. It celebrates insanity and denigrates the human race simultaneously.
FOUL! and in both senses of the word.
Inexcusably nasty comment, SMP. I don’t discourage name-calling based on the quality of an argument…for example, Zoe could call you an unmannerly boor and a bigot based on this thread (and earlier ones) and be well within boundaries, but terms like “freak” are pure ad hominem. and just the substitution of cruelty for reason.
I know you can do better, so do it.
And as the proprietor, I apologize to Zoe for this and a lot more she’s endured here. You should salute her calm, polite, and AMAZING tolerance.
If she were not a human, as you (really shamefully) allege, then whatever she is is an upgrade.
Sorry, Jack. I just couldn’t look at those photos without my stomach turning. Surely Zoe could have made a point better than to exhibit those pictures and (it seemed) to identify favorably with them.
And what good would that do?
Either it’s true – so my saying so would be redundant, and perhaps just seen as mere political points scoring.
Or it’s false – so would reflect badly not on him, but on me.
And it would certainly be unkind. There’s too much of that.
“Rev. Mr. Stewart advised three questions to be put to ourselves before speaking evil of any man: First, is it true? Second, is it kind? Third, is it necessary?”
I’m human. (OK, that’s debatable to some). The point is I am fallible. I have emotions. I feel hurt. “Hath not a Jew eyes..” etc. So I don’t always follow these precepts, for that would take a saint, and I’m a long way from that, to state the bleedin’ obvious !!
But I do try. Is it True? Is it Necessary? Is it Kind?
Others follow different philosophies. That works for them, this is just my style. It works for me.
“It works for you”? Okay. Fine. Then keep away from the 98% of us for whom it damn well doesn’t. Either that or find a way to reclaim your human heritage. Might I suggest a little church time?
That’s a familiar picture Zoe. The one you say is a woman. A person who happens to make facebook posts like this http://media.tumblr.com/64a8b5c530e2fb38da57d9b11fd50799/tumblr_inline_nkwmynx5iJ1rmyikz.png and the uncomfortable people are the ones with a problem?
Source: http://snowflakeespecial.tumblr.com/post/113170709608/heres-the-man-who-was-in-the-womens-locker-room
A few thoughts:
First, context is necessary – A LOT of non-trans persons are deeply invoked in one “kink” or another and a lot of them unwisely parade that in public on Facebook or whatever, that alone doesn’t invalidate her position
Second, GullusMag is a notoriously unreliable source well known for twisting anything she can find in order to discredit any transwoman in the news. Again, that’s why context matters – she did not demonstrate where she got those posts.
Third, IF in fact it is objectively true that the person in question identifies as male, regardless of a predilection for crossdressing, then i agree that for the sake of civility they ought not have taken advantage of the ladies room – the policy even says “sincerely held gender identity” – and even if there was no malicious intent, those male crossdressers who push the envelope do actual transwomen no favors.
BUT IF the person sincerely identifies as a female, her distasteful (to many) fetishes are irrelevant.
Having specific kinks related to women who work out and crossdressing wouldn’t invalidate someone’s position on say global climate change. We’re talking about accessing a women’s locker room at a gym, so in this case yes it calls the person’s claims into question.
That’s the problem, and the problem with current trans ideology, crossdressers are transwomen. You’re required to accept anyone’s claimed identity end of story. I don’t think that’s something you really want to do though, you even used the term ‘actual transwomen’ and just like that you became anti-trans and the same way and for the same reason I did. You decided that someone could lie about it. And no matter how much you support actual transwomen (as I do!) you’re just as much of an anti-trans bigot as I am. And as Zoey Tur is, did you catch these videos of her speaking out against this particular case?
As for Gallus, she got those screencaps from facebook, the photo is also on that person’s google plus profile, she spins things, the same way trans activists spin things, that doesn’t make her unreliable it makes her a pundit, the facts she works from are just that, facts. I linked Snowflake for a reason, she’s a transwoman who has some understanding of both sides and she didn’t get nearly as nasty as the gender trender comments did. There they got into some of the other posts from Carolotta that…. well how badly do you want this to devolve?
“That’s the problem, and the problem with current trans ideology, crossdressers are transwomen. ”
No. They are not. For the sake of political definitions, they are transGENDER, but they are not trans WOMEN.
Identity is all, and it does not make me “anti-trans” anything to say so. You are what your bran identifies you as to yourself. Even the expression “want to be a woman” isn’t technically accurate, a trans woman is already a woman, one born with what is essentially a sort of intersex condition in which they have gonads which do not align with their brain…in the same way that other sorts of intersex people have gonads that do not align with their chromosomes.
Ultimately that brings the question back to “what MAKES you a woman?” Not what signifies you are a woman, or indicates you are a woman – from whence does your identity arise? Your brain.
WANTING to be a woman is akin to wanting to be taller or to be able to fly, it’s not the same as KNOWING hat you are. When it is said “I wanted to be a woman” (by a trans woman) what is meant is “I wanted my body to match my brain.”
None of this is to suggest that being a transwman is BETTER or more legitimate than being a crossdresser, just that they are separate and distinct phenomena which share only the commonality that both violate the cultural perception of “normal” gender stereotypes. (notwithstanding that many trans women struggle against accepting their condition by various “compromises” one of which is telling themselves “I’m just a crossdresser”)
And Zoey Bear Tur isn’t remotely an authority on any of this. Zoey enjoys celebrity and thus, media types are quick to ask her opinion – I don’t blame her for giving it, but that doesn’t make it authoritative. It scores no points to cite her comments.
No. If your brain doesn’t align itself with your physical and sexual reality, you’re nuts.
again, to be very clear: IF Zoey’s report is accurate that the person identifies as male, I do NOT support their right to use that locker room. Such makes life more difficult for people like me. It’s why I’m not shy about pointing out that the use of the word “trandsgender” being universal is problematic. When laws and policies say “gender identity” that does NOT refer to transgender people but transsexual people.
Our terminology has gotten to be our enemy (in the interest of being able to count the highest number of people affected, in the same way that “LGB” co-opted “T” LONG before they began to take notice of actual issues affecting trans people.
Having watched the video, I think Zoey explains it well (apart from the likely inadvertent implication that you have to have some physical changes to be transsexual – some trans women simply CAN’T (say, for medical reasons) have the surgeries or even the hormones). I’d read an article attacking er for her views and having seen the videos, i think the attack was unwarranted.
But no, nothing she said makes Zoey “anti-trans”
Please have a look at the whole of that site.
Historically, this was the attitude. Trans women had to be pretty to access necessary medical treatment. Otherwise they were supposed to well, they weren’t supposed to do anything but crawl away and die quietly without bothering others..
As for Intersex people? They aren’t supposed to exist either. Their appearance upsets others.
It’s the same attitude as the ugly laws.
Many who “passed for white” defended Segregation too. It’s very human.
A crazy and illicit comparison, Zoe. Once again, there is no relationship between racial characteristics and the illness of sexual deviancy.
I read that site religiously. Perhaps you’re just unhappy about the way she complains about trans-appropriation of intersex narratives to promote their own agenda. Try pushing down your personal feelings and reading objectivly, Snowflake makes gender critical theory quite accessible and she does it in a way that still supports some people’s need to transition.
It beats the hell out of just spouting bunches of hyperbole at each other.
Okay, I’m trying my damndest to be tolerant, but “trans-appropriating”? There is no form of life lower than a thief, other than maybe a pedonecrophiliac, but a genital thief? You freaks are really complicating my life. It’s not bad enough I’ve got to worry about gypsy midgets crawling up my ass with their scaffolding and tiny hammers and cookies if I stand still long enough to completely void my bladder or put more than 2 gallons of gas in my shitty car? Stay the hell away from me!!! I’m hung like planet Pluto anyway;hard to see with the naked eye. Not worth the trouble.
You keep showing us these pictures. What is it supposed to prove? That some men can successfully pass as women and women as men- with their clothes on, of course? Sure. But that isn’t the issue, is it? The issue is sexual deviants desiring access to places where only women and children are allowed. I couldn’t care less what sex they may look like. It matters far more what sex they are and what their warped desires are liable to drive them to upon the bodies of innocents. This matters.
None of those people were “women trying to pass as men”.
One was a butch lesbian.
One was the woman at the centre of this controversy, the one that was claimed “looked like a man”.
Of the other two women, one is part of the group most against allowing trans people to exist, let alone use public accommodations like lunch counters. Her Nom de Guerre is “Dirt” or “Dirtywhiteboi” as she’s not keen on blacks either. The other is a French trans flight attendant.
Nice dodge, Zoe!
The actual She was a troublemaker… and ThinkProgress.com says so! Barf.
I’d be willing to bet there will be few, if any, instances of vaginally-endowed “men” going into men’s rooms.
http://www.vice.com/read/floridas-bathrooms-are-a-battleground-for-transgender-residents-209
You lose your bet. Happens all the time.
Not that I know Dr Barres’ genital status.
Only in your fantasies, Zoe. Women are far less likely to invade masculine areas in this manner for natural reasons that should be apparent even to you.
I agree that women don’t use male restrooms,unless they have to.
But Trans men aren’t women.
That’s because being a “Transman” is a state of derangement, Zoe.
so what you are saying is it’s perfectly alright for “no penis” folks to violate the proposed law by going in the “penis” room but not the other way round because….reasons?
My comment wasn’t intended as a statement about what’s right or not, but what I believe would be more likely to occur. It seems to me that you would find more people born as men going off the reservation than those born as women. Just a matter of personality, and my layman’s (in this area) opinion. Seems like females are more likely to be clannish, no matter where they fall on the spectrum.
Or this guy’s.
This cat was born female?
He was assigned female at birth, yes.
Most people would say “born female”.
I don’t because I base the determination of sex on brain anatomy not genital anatomy, in areas largely determined long before birth.
In my view, he was born a boy who looked superficially like a girl. He got that fixed later, as many in that position do. Chaz Bono etc. If they can afford it. If they don’t suicide first.
Or his.
Or this police officer’s.
And just who is he?
His name is Stephen Thorne.
One of the men whose pictures are on http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/TransMen.html
He transitioned over 20 years ago, and has been with the police force for about 30 years now.
“Transitioned”?? Like Bruce Jenner… only the other way?! Does “he” wear pink frilled unmentionables under his work clothes? Obviously, an athletic supporter would be excessive.
My mother was very fond of the old Irish Catholic (I assume) adage (I guess now it would be meme? whatever that is?): “We all have our cross to bear.” As we get further and further into all these variations of biology and humanity, at which point does the tail begin to wag the dog (another quaint expression)? Why can’t members of a tiny minority make any accommodation whatsoever for the majority? If I’m a guy who identifies as a woman and I want to have a gym membership, why can’t I just change and shower at home? Lots of people of all stripes do that. Sure it’s an imposition if you’d rather not, but is it worth all the consternation. Does self-restraint have any value in a society any more? I guess not.
So she’d be right with the Protestant majority saying she couldn’t use restrooms because Papists make them uncomfortable.
Some facts:
Respondents were nearly four times more likely to live in extreme poverty, with household income of less than $10,000.
Respondents were twice as likely to be unemployed compared to the population as a whole. Half of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment or other mistreatment in the workplace, and one in four were fired because of their gender identity or expression.
While discrimination was pervasive for the entire sample, it was particularly pronounced for people of color. African-American transgender respondents fared far worse than all others in many areas studied.
Housing discrimination was also common. 19% reported being refused a home or apartment and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity or expression. One in five respondents experienced homelessness because of their gender identity or expression.
An astonishing 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide, compared to only 1.6% of the general population.
Discrimination in health care and poor health outcomes were frequently experienced by respondents. 19% reported being refused care due to bias against transgender or gender-nonconforming people, with this figure even higher for respondents of color. Respondents also had over four times the national average of HIV infection.
Harassment by law enforcement was reported by 22% of respondents and nearly half were uncomfortable seeking police assistance.
Despite the hardships they often face, transgender and gender non-conforming persons persevere. Over 78% reported feeling more comfortable at work and their performance improving after transitioning, despite the same levels of harassment in the workplace.
Source:
Click to access NTDS_Report.pdf
Exactly how many additional accommodations to the majority do you want? 100% suicide attempt rate instead of 41%, just so you don’t feel “uncomfortable” that we exist? Serious question, many would say “yes”.
Look, I know you, and a lot of other people, do feel uncomfortable at the thought that Intersex people exist. Especially those like me, born looking like one sex, changing to look like the other. (Something that happened over 3 months…the guy who I shared an office with, Trevor Mettam – feel free to contact him on FB, took it quite well,I thought. ).
I don’t say this instinctive aversion makes you a bad person. It doesn’t, and your measured tones argue the contrary pretty convincingly.
My own position is that children should be taught that not everyone can see, not everyone can hear, not everyone has brown skin and dark hair, not everyone is clearly M or F, not everyone speaks Mandarin. Just most. And in other parts of the world, Mandarin speakers and those with brown skin are even a minority (if you can credit that).
Then maybe, just like the majority in most parts of the South accept that their discomfort that Black people exist is no excuse for banning them from restrooms, you might accept sharing an office space with someone in a wheelchair, or even someone with much of their face missing due to burns, no matter how uncomfortable that makes you feel.
I should say -about a year ago,most of my face got burnt off. But I healed pretty quickly, didn’t lose eyes, eyelids,nose, ears, lips etc like others in similar fires. I looked like a Hiroshima survivor for a while.
I do know what it’s like to only go into a supermarket 10 mins before midnight closing, just so my appearance doesn’t upset lots of people, only a few. I do make some accommodations to others, without worrying too much about whether I should have to or not. Sometimes it’s just best to be kind, regardless of injustice. Part of being human – though some would deny that I qualify there.
And sometimes you have to say ENOUGH!.. Your discomfort does not trump my safety.
I’m not sure this is wise though… but maybe it’s necessary now.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_0nBU9UcAARWry.jpg:large
No person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object or improper person to be allowed in or on the public ways or other public places in this city, or shall therein or thereon expose himself to public view, under a penalty of not less than one dollar nor more than fifty dollars for each offense.
—
City of Paris, Illinois Municipal Code, sec. 36034 (repealed 1974)
1974…. only 41 years ago. Think about it.
Why can’t members of a tiny minority make any accommodation whatsoever for the majority?
See the issue? Was repealing this law a bad thing, or was its mere existence shameful? Which side would you be on – and why?
Many of your points are incontrovertible, but isn’t there a difference between sharing an office or a cubicle and sharing a locker room? Aren’t there points at which logic carried to an extreme becomes, I don’t know, self-defeating?
Frankly, I’m a little surprised Jack didn’t Jack Marshallize the woman who complained in to the health club while waiving the Ick factor flag in her face.
Everyone’s human*. Jack has his foibles. So have I
* OK, so according to SMP I’m not.
I quote him:
Yes, he really did say that.
You know what’s the hardest thing to understand? He’s not a bad person either. Really. Neither as far as I know were the Hez’b’Allah group who tried to kill me at Haifa.They were doing what they thought was right by their God, and had a heck of a lot better reason for killing me than SMP does.
You just have to neutralise the threat. I consider him low on the list, he hasn’t the opportunity. I think it most unlikely he’ll travel to Australia. Should he do so I’ll re-assess (pretty darn quickly) but until then, not lose any sleep over it.
Zoe: I think you’re quite aware that I was referring to militant perverts! Nice try, but you’ve tried to twist the words of others too often.
You’ve called me that in the past. I prefer not to rely on your opinion of me today, as it may change without warning.
Not trying to “win” an argument here, and you’re not a bad person, but yes, should you come to Australia, I would have to consider you a credible threat. It would be imprudent not to, just as it would be hysteria to say that the threat level is medium, let alone high.
I’ll say no more on it. Loose lips etc.
Whatever makes you happy, Zoe.
since there are no militant perverts relevant to this discussion, why would you be referring to them? Indeed, perverts AREN’T “militant, they hide in the shadows and avoid attention. Where’s the “militant” campaign to legitimize child porn? Doesn’t exist.
No, you were calling US militant perverts until you talked yourself into a corner and now you are weaseling.
How hard is it to just man up and say “I apologize, i got carried away” or whatever?
I haven’t “talked myself into a corner” nor do I apologize for anything. I referred to militant perversion and I meant it. It’s pretty blatant these days, in case you hadn’t noticed. As for child porn… do you think that anyone of normal sexuality would pander, participate or preview such material? Deviance is inherent in the entire genre.
“Deviance is inherent in the entire genre.”
Exactly. Thus they are not “militant” about normalizing it.
Well… there’s an example of rationality!! Pardon my sarcasm, but that’s the kind of dislogic I’ve sadly come to expect when dealing with those who must dodge the truth on a day to day basis.
Actually, I was born without foibles.
Ah. so it’s a “Lifestyle choice” then ?
🙂
Indeed.
The solution that seems to work for us here in Australia is to have sufficient single-cublicle restrooms, specially equipped for those in wheelchairs, visually impaired etc.
Those who are uncomfortable sharing accommodations with Jews, or Aboriginals, or Asians, or Trans people, or Catholics, or those with Down’s syndrome or whatever can use those, no questions asked,no stigma attached.
It’s important that no stigma be attached, and quality of facilities be at least equal to the usual ones, as otherwise we’re just shifting the problem from one minority to another, and worse, doing so while condemning them in a moral sense. They don’t deserve that.
As one Government Minister said,”Bigots have rights too!”. As long as they don’t go around shooting “subhumans”, or threatening to shoot them, live and let live.
Most public showers etc at schools, swimming pools etc have individual stalls anyway, even if only alcoves in the older ones. Frankly, this is not an issue we understand in Australia, though it’s obviously a Big Deal in the US.
>No stigma
Especially since there’s another great reason to provide private shower and changing facilities.
There is more than one religion that commands members to not expose themselves even in same-sex spaces.
Great question, and it is the issue.
The fact is, this is one area where laws do not and cannot work…no matter which side the law takes.
Intersex and pre-op Trans women don’t go around exposing their genitalia in reality. Sometimes even after they’ve had genital reconstruction, lifelong habits are hard to break.
Trust me on this.
At High School and Middle School, I was always very careful to either leave the showers after gym before anyone else came in, or to go in after the last person left.
I looked mostly male. I was in an all-boys school (so they thought…), I think most teenage girls put in a situation where they had to shower with teenage boys would feel likewise, and do likewise, regardless of their looks, genital configuration etc.
Given the figures – 1 in 3000 Trans, 1 in 1-2000 radically Intersex – odds are pretty good you’ve encountered some like me in the past,or the present. Search your memory to see if you can recall anyone behaving in that way. “Boys” who never use urinals,only stalls for example.
I’ll admit that I have my troubles with all of the gender-ID stuff, because as it stands today, it’s relatively new, and it’s sometimes hard to not make associations between some of the angry, militant elements, and the rest of the group who are probably quietly, patiently hoping to gain mainstream acceptance at a more reasonable pace.
Such a paradigm shift will likely take time, and I believe that either pushing too hard, or even a few instances of abuse (like someone faking gender identification as a woman in order to look at naked women) could bring the whole thing crashing down, public perception and acceptance being everything with this. I hope that doesn’t happen. I think it’s just very foreign still to a lot of people, and that many are unaware that there are actual hormonal/structural differences to consider.
I certainly don’t hate, for what it’s worth. I’ve been a pariah of one sort or another my entire life, and so I can see the humanity and frailty in everyone. I hope you all can find peace and acceptance, both with yourselves and with our society. God was good enough to give us all life and unconditional love. I think the least we can do is accept that he had reasons for creating us all the way he did that we’re not privy to. It’s said that we were made in his image. I can’t imagine that any one of us are more or less like him than the rest.
Some has been in place for 30 years. Many for over 10. It’s not been an issue, until it all got politicised recently to “stir up the base”..
Illinois started issuing corrected birth certificates for trans people in 1954.
The only thing that’s relatively new are the multi-state orchestrated scare campaigns. Intersex and Trans people have always existed. Laws to protect them are in some cases 60 years old, predating even the Civil Rights Act 1964. Usually only a decade or so old though.
The following is typical:
— Cambridge Police Superintendent Christopher Burke
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533
40% of the US population live in states, cities, or counties with such laws. You could be one of them.
Given the long history and extensive coverage of such laws, if there were any real, genuine, significant rather than illusory, hypothetical and fantasy problems – then everyone would know of them. Or at least, 40% of the population would, police departments would be screaming for repeal, rape victims groups likewise.
But most don’t even know that either Intersex people, or laws that protect us, already exist. They see the issue as relatively new simply because their have been no problems in practice.
That may change of course. At Charlotte NC, where the city council debated passing such a bill to be inline with all other major cities in NC, religious groups started sending in video teams into female restrooms whenever they suspected a Trans or Intersex person was using them. Then posting the videos they took on the Net.
In Montgomery County, Maryland, a similar group started sending in members dressed as women into female restrooms “to illustrate what could happen“. They fled hurriedly when the camera crews arrived, and before the police could arrest them for disorderly conduct, but boasted about it on radio later.
So yes, there might be real problems in the future. Past experience, before this all got politicised, may not be reliable unless these groups get handed a political smackdown of epic proportions.
From 2007:
Meant to say new in terms of awareness.
Ten years? Thirty years? The present human species has been around for a quarter of a million years. The family homindae is likely two and a half million years old. We were two sexed then and we still are. No moronic bill out of the Illinois legislature is going to change that reality. That’s as stupid as when the Indiana legislature tried to change the value of pi to four.
..,,, or as stupid as the Texas Legislature deciding that everyone with 46,XY chromosomes is male? Even if they’ve given birth?
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, Zoe.
“I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, Zoe.”
clearly. And no idea that there have always been biological exceptions to your beloved binary.
And therein lies your problem.
No problem at all. As I’ve often explained (patiently) people born with both sexual characteristics are rare. Very rare. They have my sympathy and understanding, as they are indeed not responsible for their condition. The vast bulk of deviants have no such excuse. Genetic predisposition is such a discredited farce that even the most radical of pro-pervert pundits have backed away from it.
“I’ve often explained (patiently) people born with both sexual characteristics are rare. Very rare. They have my sympathy and understanding, as they are indeed not responsible for their condition.”
And being transsexual is rare. Very rare. Considerably more rare than intersex people. And they are not responsible for their condition.
Sensing a lack of sympathy and understanding for THEM in your comments.
When they try to force their insanity into society and thus demean the decent and logical mores of society- and when they physically endanger innocent women and children- my tolerance for their “foibles” ends, for they have thus become a menace.
“Never be so tied up with the Big Picture that you forget to be merely human”
I’m sorry you’ve been treated this way. Forget the politics and issues for a while – is there anything we can do here to show that you’re welcome?
OK, I’m atheist, don’t believe in gods,but I do believe in your words I can see the humanity and frailty in everyone.
Yes. This. Amen.
Thank you for saying that.
Damn, I wanted to reply to this tonight but my computer’s fan is squealing and about to seize up as I type this.
Thanks for saying so, bit I’m not at all sorry. The thing is, no matter how hard we try, no other human being can ever really know us. We came into the world alone, and we will die alone. It behooves us to come to terms with this, and focus our energy where it counts; knowing and befriending ourselves.We all look at life and others through an entirely unique filter. I keep that in mind at all times when dealing with others and get tempted to let them rent space in my head. I’d mentioned before that I’d had a pretty rough childhood that had crippled me in a lot of ways. I believe I needed to undergo a great many severe trials to heal. We can choose to be wounded, or we can choose to not feel sorry for ourselves and see these things as opportunities for growth. It’s the only appropriate response to these things. I’m proud of myself. Ive done battles with so many demons (bipolar 1 rapid cycling, PTSD, opioid addiction, homelessness, loss of my family, to name a few) and came out on top, had so many close calls, that normal life is exhilarating by contrast. I spend even the most ordinary days in profound gratitude for so many things that I’m sure I’d take for granted otherwise. I can laugh at myself and the funny, absurd things all around us, and not take myself or life too seriously. I actually feel bad for people that haven’t been severely tried. I’m one of the stronges people I’ve ever met, and that feels pretty good. I worry like anyone else, but I know hardship won’t kill me. I’m actually having a really good time. have a feeling you can identify with all of this. I have few regrets, too. All I have to do is look at my incredible little family, and remember that all paths I’ve taken have led me to them. Strange as it may sound, I feel like even if I’d never met them, I’d feel their absence.
Zoe: Did you ever think that your lack of a “Big Picture” (to include God, BTW) may be at the root of your personal difficulties?
No, frankly. Which particular “personal difficulties” are you referring to?
The need for medication so my skin doesn’t fall off? That’s about the only biggie I can think of. Many have worse.
You know exactly what I mean, Zoe.
Um.No? Seriously.
I do have personal difficulties – as do we all.
My PhD thesis needs working on.
My son has bronchitis.
My in-laws, 96 and 93, are getting increasingly frail – we’re their fulltime carers.
There’s still some issues about my mother’s estate that need clearing up.
Oh yes, the fact that as I’m Intersex our marriage of 34 years is voidable.by In the Marriage of C and D (1979) 28 ALR 524; – but as no-one likely to have both standing to challenge it, and thee reason to do so, exists, not as much of an issue as it could be.
I have to be careful where I fly to (including transit stops) as does anyone who’s done work for the IDF. Much of the Middle East is off limits.
I can’t get a visa to enter the USA as my passport and birth certificate details conflict.
Sorry, I’m really scraping the bottom of the barrel here…. can you help me out as to what other personal difficulties I have? Now if you were to count blessings, I’d be here all day, but difficulties… tricky.
Yep. Sure. Okay.
She could (and the woman at the center of this incident DID just that) – but should she HAVE to? I’m all in favor of civility – when I first came out 24/7 when I had to use the restroom in public I made an effort to use the one-seater where available, or use the less trafficed restroom, showing mutual consideration is fine and, let’s face it, safer for trans women in some cases.
But there is a major difference in choosing to accommodate and being REQUIRED to.
That said, the only reason people are uncomfortable with trans people is because of a false cultural tradition that we are “perverted” or whatever. That tradition will NEVER change unless it’s challenged. For example, I work at Walmart (because despite my BS it’s the only job i could find as an out trans woman in MS) and their policy supports my use of the ladies room. Some omen at my local store started out being very concerned and complained to management only to find out corporate was on my side.
BUT once it happened routinely for a few months and they experienced the fact that it turned out not to be a big deal at all, almost every one of them forgot the issue and carried on (a couple of bitter old ladies still hold out hope I’ll get fired). So it can and should be with the whole culture. Just as 50 years ago white people across the south learned from actual experience that sharing a restroom with a “colored” person wasn’t a big deal.
It’s not a natural law or a moral absolute, it’s just a cultural TRADITION and at times those need to change.
I stopped being an asshole to black people and homosexuals and people with deformities and handicapped people in about the sixth grade. Part of growing up and becoming civilized and becoming a human being. Just not sure laws and regulations for every instance are the way to go. The older I get, the more I like the golden rule.
Yep.
I might just cut and paste this into this thread every two or three comments or so.
Thank you.
Indeed, but as with most other laws – they are not for those of us who are mature and civilized, but for those who aren’t.
Your definition of “mature and civilized” would translate as “gross decadency” for most of us.
My take on this is that the descent of the discussion into dong-dinging started with the post. And continued focusing on penises which took it well out of the bounds of ethical argument.
The very foundation of Planet Fitness’ success IS its no-judgement policy, whose main attraction, which I might as well state as baldly as everything else here is: wow! a gym for fat people! Only it has turned out to have an even wider welcome: for really thin people, for body dysmorphic folks, amputees, the scarred by birth or accident, the ones bald from undergoing cancer treatment or “male-pattern” allopecia at 20-something (or just needing to feel one can workout without getting the hairpiece all sweaty), or those who are fine with their bodies and everyone else’s but who favor being able to relax in the atmosphere
… and this is where it goes prick-first post-op like-it-or-not into the realm of tomorrowland. Those people who have transitioned sex or gender — whichever you like — surgically, including adding or subtracting genitalia, fall under the Planet Fitness policy as well. If the pee-niss is the sine qua non of inclusion or exclusion, then the PT membership would have another adjustment to make. Except that it won’t have to, because that is NOT the policy. Nor is loving or accepting thy neighbor, interacting with them, nor even feeling or thinking anything at all. The policy is to NOT BE judgemental (“displaying an excessively critical point of view”).
Will others jump on the wingewagon? Sure. They always do. Whether for attention, or the great American sport of Find a Lawsuit/Get Rich, Rationalization #14, or the kind of pathology that underlies true phobia. Will the members of Planet Fitness’ reduce the number of their 800+ outlets over it? No. Membership in some places, in the (very) short run, but not the businesses. The reasons for using facilities which offer — and try to provide — courtesy, respect, invisibility, and emotional safety, will outweigh the wingers and their publicists. In fact, I’d bet several other major gym franchises have already borrowed some new ideas in that direction for their staff training. It will be a welcome change from the Gillian Michaels school of abuse.
Those who want to go where they won’t see anything to offend their eye (and who can stare an offender off the stairmaster faster than you can say “schwartzenegger,” never mind sniggering them out the door without stopping for their refunds) will go elsewhere. Unless they turn up at Planet Fitness to do their staring and sniggering … and THAT would be unethical … though not beyond the likes of those who think “it can’t be THAT serious” ….
I’m not going to argue any of the ugly remarks above because they are steeped in bias that has been aired in EA ad infinitum. Zoebrain’s report should be enough, though I know it won’t be. As I see it, the unethical person was the complainer; the ethical actor (after giving the women every opportunity to control her behavior – no one was asking her to change her mind) was Planet Fitness standing by the meaning and not just by the letter of its principles; and the one placed in the spotlight was just that and no more.
COTD from my view. But my objectivity is questionable.
You go, Zoey. Your restraint and civility has been admirable. I learn so much from you.
Ditto, Jan.
Ditto, Jan, Jack
And no, Zoe, I don’t think your objectivity is in question since you place it openly in the context of your bias AND back it up.
ANY discussion of trans issues, any time, any where, against any opponent – I get to pick only one advocate to represent me it’s going to be Zoe.
But the issue in this case IS penises, as well as mutual consideration and tolerance, as it is in the various proposed bathroom laws, and there will be people who will insist on the rights and will cross lines of consideration and manners to assert them as flamboyantly as possible.
I’m never going to be on board with any establishment that employs an overgeneralized motto like “no judgment,” since judging is essential to drawing ethical lines. If the motto is a code for “Welcome non-jocks!” then find a way to say that without implying that members can’t complain about people peeing in the shower.
The complainer had every right to complain if she had not been properly informed that biological males would be in the women’s locker room.
As I said, PF can do whatever it chooses in its own establishments, and in a dispute, has to take sides. I think “no judgment” was not the issue here, and their reliance on it was not well-thought out.
IF the ThinkProgress version of events is accurate (I haven’t checked as to whether it passes the Hillary e-mail litmus test, but I think I know), then the self-identifying woman was acting within the rules. OK. If she had covered up a little better, that would have been prudent and considerate, more prudent and considerate, in fact, and more is better.
Will get back to you point for point, Jack. Meanwhile, I think you’re arguing from a general pov, not the particular: the woman never saw a penis.
Correct. At least, based on what we have heard from the other member. If a person with one is in the women’s changing room, however, that is just moral luck.
“The complainer had every right to complain if she had not been properly informed that biological males would be in the women’s locker room.”
Ethical response:
1. voice complaint to management
2. Upon learning the policy did not meet her expectations, request refund.
3. Take business elsewhere
4. If she feels the need to “save” others from her discomfort, write a letter to the editor or something similar.
Since we are speaking of ethics.
Unethical response:
1. harass every woman in the place with your dissatisfaction when they don’t share your view (how many other women have come out and said “I’m glad she told me, I wasn’t cool with that either!”?
As far as I know – zero.
As for the “flamboyant” opportunist, to suggest all of us give up our accommodation because the very rare individual misbehaves is akin to saying we ought to close all churches because the very rare (or is it?) minister molests a child in his congregation.
Punish the guilty, do not pre-emptively punish the innocent lest a guilty might theoretically appear.
THAT is the ethical response too, by the way.
Here comes the “pedophile priests” gambit! The shame is incurred when an organization neglects to police itself of perverted interlopers when they become apparent. Any group- religious or secular- that takes upon itself responsibility for the safety of women and children must bend every effort in their behalf. This is hardly any justification for deviants as a group unto themselves.
Funny you mention the priest thing. My wife and I were talking today about how, statistically, priests are much less likely, per-capita, to molest children than the rest of the population. Granted, it’s particularly bad considering the unqualified trust they’re given, and the cover-ups, but the church has been so obviously and tirelessly attacked by that group of people who, ironically,profess such saintly devotion to the poor and downtrodden. It’s ironic to me because, correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t the Catholic church the #1 source of charity on the planet? Seems like you’d want to not throw out that baby with the bathwater.
If you can’t trust the church to get rid of molesting priests, you can’t trust the church. If you can’t trust a church, to hell with it. Simple as that. The % is irrelevant. A systemic cover-up is signature significance…when a charity acts like a racket, then it is a racket that happens to do good deeds. “The baby with the bathwater” cliche quickly deteriorates into, “But Hitler did some good things too!” The issues is ethical values. If an organization chooses group loyalty and image over the welfare of children, not just one but thousands, that is corruption. Good deeds don’t make the corrupt trustworthy.
That’s exactly the case. And that’s also why the churches are under such vicious attack from the Left and their deviant allies. They preach virtue and compete with illicit big government in areas such as schools, hospitals and orphanages… not to mention standing for a Power beyond the governmental. The churches are thus, to some, an active menace to be suppressed.
if you are under the impression that molesting a congregant was limited in any sense to Catholics then you are ill-informed to a far more vast degree tan i had suspected.
Be that as it may, if you are logically consistent and say “we need to keep out trans women lest a pervert take advantage of their access (punishing the innocent rather than the guilty – something conservatives are suppose to abhor) then you are obliged to say “we wlll have no churches lest ministers occasionally take advantage of their positions to molest women or children”
Logically, they are the same principle.
Not quite… it’s more like “close down all Baptist Sunday Schools because a pedophile Catholic Priest might pretend to be a Baptist pastor and molest children”. Even though there’s no record of that ever actually happening because, you know, it could.
Some of the results of this hysteria:
http://www.today.com/parents/sign-banning-boys-over-6-ladies-room-sparks-debate-2D80545254
You’re just blabbering now, Tammy. Having run out of substance, you’re trying to cherry pick words and phrases in the usual snarky manner that your crowd seems to think makes them seem intellectual. Actually, it only makes you seem what you are; small minded and pathetic to boot. But keep it up, by all means.
Your ethical response sequence is, of course, exactly right.
But the fact that she over-complained doesn’t mean she had no legitimate grievance. The attitude of “yeah, well tough, here’s a refund if you don’t like it” isn’t admirable either.
Jack – please see this photo.
It’s the literal truth. It’s what the “no penis policy” means in reality.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10354689_632290300205313_7714022210193819204_n.jpg?oh=93ed9e484f8e8613ebe635319fbd94bb&oe=557DBFE4&__gda__=1438412430_1244a971aa7b4ad1f6307ef3eb24dd88
Talk about unintended consequences…. though depending on what combination of the 4 bills before the Texas house pass, he might be forbidden from using a male restroom. Because while his biological sex and ID match “male”, his chromosomes don’t.
But forbidden from using a female restroom too, because neither his biological sex nor ID match “female”, only his chromosomes.
See how extremely silly this is? This is not the first time such laws have been attempted – it’s not even the hundredth. It’s the first time though that a $30 million warchest has been behind it, along with a 2000-strong group of Christian lawyers.
Well, to begin with—and good morning, everybody!—I think having laws on this issue is ridiculous. This is common sense and ethics. I never mentioned laws at all. PENIS ROOM/ NO PENIS ROOM, and if there’s a good faith question, use your best judgment. Is that really so hard? I’ve used Ladies Rooms at least four or five times in my life when I wasn’t paying attention. (They are much nicer than the men’s rooms.)
But if people are going to fight over that too, which is a terrible reflection on the stupidity and rigidity of mankind, then fine: unisex, and that’s the ball game. It works in college dorms, it works in gas stations, it is what happens in dressing rooms of small theaters like mine. When I read that some places want to ban mothers from changing make toddlers in the Ladies Rooms—morons. We are estopped from ever again laughing at the Puritans. Or Muslims, for that matter.
How about BRAINS/ NO Brains rooms?
Given my name – Zoe Ellen Brain – I assume I’d be in the first.
Though SMP might differ on that (as many others do) and say I belong in the second.
A Zoe/ No Zoe divide would be great for your privacy, but that other dressing room would be like the Black Hole of Calcutta. And SMP would be lonely…
Well… I would never invade the privacy of any of the females here. What I said about others covers them, as well. In fact, I’d stand guard at the door upon request. As I’ve pointed out, that’s what men are for.
The old-fashioned male virtues. Courage. Duty. Honour. “Women and Children First”.
When I was young, I didn’t want to be a girl. I was one, but boys got to be astronauts not beauticians. And when I saw one of the little kids being shaken down for his lunch money, I attacked the bully, no holds barred, none of this “fair fighting” stuff. I fought with all the instinctive ferocity of a mother protecting her children, and if I was outnumbered, my opponents bigger than I was, that was just unfortunate.
Courage. Duty. Honour. Children and the weakest first.
It took me a while to realise that while those are traditional masculine virtues… that girls can have them too, and not cease being girls for all that.
I don’t think SMP has gotten that far in his thinking yet, despite the long history of Texas pioneer women who would give any opponent pause. No matter, he’s worth a million who are deadbeats, male yes, macho, yes, but not men. He’s the kind any woman not a complete airhead would realise is a keeper. Just with a few… quirks. That need work.
Pity he thinks I’m not human. C’est la vie.
I think it was the Apache whose word for their own group was “The People” or “The Humans”. In all other tongues, they were just known as “The Enemy”.
Conan, what is best in life?: https://youtu.be/6PQ6335puOc
Yeah, I like and respect SMP a lot too. We just have to come to terms with the fact that very few people can be absolutely perfect like me.
Zoe should note that a lot of women have gone into space and a lot more will, God willing. Spacemen need spacegirls… like Flash and Dale! BTW: Schwarzenegger was directly quoting Genghis Khan in that scene. And, as Robert Heinlein famously related, the basis of every healthy society is the cry, “Women and children first”.
A few more comments for Zoe. You once again have a completely erroneous impression of what I’ve tried to tell you. First: I do not think you’re less than human. However, your advocacy aids those who wish to spread the doctrine of dehumanization and degeneracy. And, as a student of history (including Texas!) I am well aware that women can and will fight ferociously in defense of their homes and families. As any burglar will tell you, the most feared scenario imaginable is facing a frightened woman with a sawed-off cradled in her hip! The purpose of true men is to stand in the breach BEFORE it comes to that.
You’re right; that is silly, and this is obviously a complicated issue, needing something more than a reductionist explanation and dismissal. If you can look at this particular situation and not come to the same conclusion, you may have to question your motives.
Zoey,
I’m sorry, but I think you’re wrong on this one. What you’re looking at is the situation from the trans-person’s perspective, which is proper, but not from the perspective of the people around that person, which I think leaves you in a strange place. Can you explain how a person could tell the difference between a trans woman and a man when there aren’t any clothes involved? If a woman walks into a change room and sees a person walking around who looks for all intents and purposes male, is she just supposed to assume that the person is trans? How do you distinguish between a non-violent sexual predator and a trans woman? In the absence to good answers to those questions, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for women to object to people who look for all intents and purposes male.
What you’re saying is that women don’t have a reasonable expectation to be with women in places like change rooms, that they aren’t entitled to a safe place, because in the absence of a way for the average person to distinguish between a naked trans woman and a man, I can’t think of a scenario where this isn’t overly susceptible for abuse.
I realize I’ve misspelled your name, and I apologise… I have a cousin who spells it Zoey.
Meh – thanks for the apology – I’ll keep it in reserve for a time when you do something worth apologising for. This wasn’t such a case. It was kind though.
More pics – here are two twins. One transitioned early.This illustrates the change that comes from (lack of) a male puberty. The girl was too young to take HRT, this is purely the effect of puberty blockers. The boy had the usual pubescent male development, and the girl, without puberty delaying treatment, would have looked identical.
Which is psychologically devastating. We lose so many Trans girls at that age without treatment. Some studies say 25% kill themselves in the most severe cases.
(Yes, I’ve used these photos in other comments – only without explanation, as I was asking questions based purely on the photos, not background information)
“Simple. They look like women. Some women are Intersex, others just rather plain. Some Trans women look pretty, with or without clothes. Some look pretty dreadful. Same with non-Trans (cis) women.”
I think it bears saying that the trans woman involved did not look female, so while in some cases, what you’re saying is absolutely true, in many cases, I would argue the majority, because we are talking about naked people, and the majority of trans people cannot afford the operation. The penis is kind of a give away.
I don’t know what the rule should be… Most facilities I frequent have ‘family’ (read: unisex) change rooms. And that might be the best answer, although many facilities are unable to accommodate that because of the way they were built. I think we really do need to figure out a simpler way to deal with things like this though, lest we need to start installing 5 different types of bathroom because the gender binary didn’t cover all the bases. And it might seem arbitrary, but I don’t think a person’s sex organs is an unreasonable line to draw.
I also think you’re still failing to take the experiences of the people who aren’t trans. You’re arguing for the right of trans people to use the change room they are most comfortable with, to the discomfort of the people around them, because you admitted (and I’m paraphrasing) there that walking into a woman’s change room and seeing a person who identifies as a woman on the inside, but is stifled with a penis might freak some people out. What’s the number? How many people should we be willing to discomfort before we use some zero-sum ethics and assign the change room most appropriate to the person’s physiology?
In Canada, they’re finding out.
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-man-takes-selfie-campaign-fight-ridiculous-bathroom-bans120315
That’s the alternative, you see. Either legally compel such sights to be commonplace – thereby genuinely encouraging miscreants to take advantage of the camouflage provided… or show some common sense, allowing women, trans or not, intersex or not, to use female restrooms, and men, trans or not, intersex or not,to use male ones.
It’s either the situation shown in that picture, or recognise the fact that some women, intersex or not, trans or not look mannish, and some women, intersex or trans, will have masculinised genitalia – not that you’ll know that as they tend to keep that hidden.
As they do now. As they have done in the past 200 years. So effectively that most people haven’t realised that they exist.
It doesn’t matter what they look like, Zoe. What matters is what they ARE.
There I agree with you. A boy who looks like a girl at birth is still a boy. That’s who they ARE (as you put it).
If you accept that, then where has this contention been coming from?
Where the contention is….
Your position appears to be that sex is defined by external appearance at birth. If a child looks like a boy at birth, then it is a he, no matter what it might look like later.
My position is that about 1 time in 3000, a girl is born looking like a boy, or a boy looking like a girl. (Compared to about 1 in 1-2000 times where the child’s appearance is so ambiguous you can’t even say “mostly sorta girl-like I think…” and the 1 in 300 where “well mostly girl… probably” is appropriate).
Your position (and please again correct me if I’m wrong here) is that if a child is born looking like a boy, *he* is a boy, and no matter how *he* changes *his* appearance to look female through surgery, hormones, whatever, *he* just is a boy, regardless of appearance.
My position is that some girls are born looking like boys (or mostly like boys, or more ambiguous than that and surgically changed shortly after birth to look male).
Many of them can’t stand this. Some of them – those with sufficient financial resources – have their appearance altered to look like the women they are and always have been. They always were women, they just didn’t always look like it. The earlier they “transition”, the less psychological damage, as a general rule, Do it early enough, and there’s none, apart from being unable to give birth.
I know you’re sceptical of all such research, but here’s another bit, hot off the press.
Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment t De Vries et al Pediatrics peds.2013-2958; published ahead of print September 8, 2014,
RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-2958.abstract
Where we agree is that current appearance is irrelevant to who you are. Where we disagree is that you think appearance at birth always and forever defines who someone is. I think it’s just a very reliable – but not completely reliable – indicator.
After all – I looked mostly male at birth, that situation only changing at puberty. Intersex is common, more common than transsexuality. Intersex involving a natural change of appearance, that’s rare. So rare that until the 70s it was thought to be a myth.
I remember when I was in 3rd grade or so, there was a kid at school, named Curtis, who one day asked me if I wanted to link arms with him and skip into the cafeteria doing the Laverne and Shirley opening sequence. I was mortified. That was the first time I encountered a gay person. I also have a niece who has had very androgynous traits, physically and behaviorally, since a very early age. She had mentioned, at a very early age (not retrospectively) that she was exclusively attracted to girls. I have to admit that, up until recently, I had somewhat of a hard time accepting this, though I always treated her with love. This, despite being science-oriented and considering myself relatively open-minded. I think, though, that for me it’s sometimes difficult to separate this from the group that many seem to have, unfortunately, aligned themselves with. Maybe a lot of the backlash felt is actually collateral.
If a person is born with male genitalia (and thus the ability to produce sperm and testosterone) isn’t that a good indication that the person is a “he”? Just how much proof do you need, Zoe? He sign of Mars tattooed on his forehead from birth, perhaps?!
A masculinised superior parietal lobule and other areas such as the BSTc layer of hypothalamus.
Again, an anatomical criterion like yours. But at least this one doesn’t change naturally (yours can) and determines personality and identity.
Destroy a Republican’s genitals and the person remains the same sex. Destroy the brain, and they vote Socialist Workers Party.
And destroy their soul and they dwell in Hell forevermore. What shape is yours in, Zoe?
I don’t believe any Deity that keeps a private torture chamber is worthy of worship.
If there is a Hell – then my place is there, giving what aid and comfort I can, while doing penance for my own sins.
Matthew 19:12 first phrase refers to “eunuchs born of their mothers womb” – a variety of Intersex. Isaiah 56:3-5 promises such people a special place in Heaven as long as they keep basic laws. Well no thanks, not if others were suffering. Being amongst sadistic monsters reveling in the agonised cries of sinners being tortured? Ewwwwwww.
But that’s just my personal belief.
Moving right along….
I personally don’t see how putting a $2000 bounty on Trans kids has anything to do with preventing “forcing people into soulless slavery”, or ensuring the safety of children.
Similarly the pair of bills, HR1747 and HR1748, that between them would preclude many Intersex people from using either male or female restrooms: the first because our ID doesn’t match that one (not that we’d want to use it), the second because we’re “genetically impure” so can’t use the other one either,
However, I’m told this is to prevent incidents like the one below. Exactly how they do this, I’m not sure.
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/06/16/child-attacked-walmart-bathroom-shawn-miller
It’s not my place to condemn you to Hell, Zoe. That judgment belongs to God. It’s certainly not a responsibility I’d care to have! Just consider, though, that your disbelief is meaningless. I have no idea at all what this “$2,000 bounty” on “transkids” (a fallacious condemnation in itself) is supposed to mean. You seem to be really reaching for an emotional appeal now, being unable to sustain any logical basis for your assertions of sexuality that can withstand scrutiny.
I must say, I am impressed not only at ZoeBrain’s continued superior scientific mastery, but the good cheer with which she continually rises above the self-righteous moralizing of others on this subject.
I for one don’t see “radical judges attempting to force people into soulless slavery” to anyone. But what’s very clear is proto-KKK bible thumpers attempting to force their binary opinions – good/bad, black/white, male/female, Christian/heath – even to the point of arguing who counts as human.
It’s a gross form of arrogance, and I am impressed at Zoe’s continued ability to remain cheerful in the face of it.
Charles: Have you lived in this little goblin world of yours all your life or were you just driven there by some anti-nerd frat rats at college? It’s amazing to me how you can throw around empty terms with the utter arrogance of a dedicated liberal and still have the audacity to project your own character failings onto others. I suggest you read Jack’s column on the Capehart “apology”. You might see a little of yourself there.
SMP wrote:
It means Texas HB 2801, prescribing a $2000 bounty to be paid by the school to anyone seeing a child using a “wrong” restroom.
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/03/10/texas-doubles-down-transphobic-legislation-adding-2000-fine-wrong-ba
The article gets it slightly wrong – it allows any student to claim the $2000 bounty (plus court costs), not just cis students, leaving open many opportunities for the unscrupulous. Any school district taking federal funds, even ones in Texas, has to adhere to Title XII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, putting them in an invidious position. Sued if they do, sued if they don’t.
Intersex kids of course can’t use either restroom, as “biological sex” is not defined in the bill. That would be up to expert witnesses to argue about.
SMP – this bill is being described as “emergency legislation” by your own party. Surely you must be aware of its details, given its stated overwhelming importance to the state?
” Can you explain how a person could tell the difference between a trans woman and a man when there aren’t any clothes involved? If a woman walks into a change room and sees a person walking around who looks for all intents and purposes male, is she just supposed to assume that the person is trans? How do you distinguish between a non-violent sexual predator and a trans woman? ”
The trans woman is the one NOT undressing in front of strangers. And the less her body physically conforms to typical female type appearance, the less likely she is to do so. We are notoriously our own harshest critics and we’re the last one to flaunt male-typical physiology. You’ll note the woman objected to in this case did NOT undress at the gym.
Also, “sexual predators employing these policies to victimize women” is a scenario that virtually never happens. In the rare case it does, laws and policies have no effect either way. if you are willing to assault someone, you are willing to violate club policy.
I took one look at the comment number this morning and almost spit out my coffee, before I thought back for a moment and remembered that anything about heterodox sexuality here is typically a “trigger” issue. Most of us try to, indeed have no choice but to, “play the hand we were dealt.” In the case of gay folks, sometimes it’s just about behaving yourself. Choose to act in a flamboyant manner or obviously check out a hetero person in the locker room, and you shouldn’t be surprised if there are issues. BUT, that’s an issue of behavior, not presence.
With transsexuals, it’s not simply a matter of living with an issue that’s only as visible as you make it. It’s a matter of possibly not living with the body you were dealt, leading to embarrassing situations like this, “Crying Game” type affairs, and sometimes elective mutilation. I have a tough time with the latter, because if someone said he was a unicorn and wanted to have a horn surgically attached you would think he was nuts, but if he says he’s a woman and wants the body he was born with carved up to reflect that, suddenly it’s a civil rights issue. I “get” the concept of the right of privacy and control over your own body, but, total control of one’s own body is a shibboleth. You can’t legally inject certain substances into your veins. You can’t legally attempt suicide, at least not in most of the US. The government can take your body, put it in a uniform, issue it a gun, and send you off to war. Where do we draw the line between bizarre behavior to be disallowed and bizarre behavior to be protected? Certainly we should draw it before ordinary women going about their business get a free sausage-fest.
“Where do we draw the line between bizarre behavior to be disallowed and bizarre behavior to be protected?”
If you love liberty, the answer to that is when your action causes actual harm (note: being made uncomfortable or asked to reconsider your traditions is not actual harm) to an uninvolved bystander.
Do i think the guy who wants a horn is loopy? Pretty much. Do I wish to make him conform to my view so that I’m not made uncomfortable? Not. A. CHANCE.
Always amazes me how quickly some folks are willing to ditch liberty over such small things.
Correct answer.
How unnecessary would this discussion be if people were simply decent and considerate of others?
If people don’t want to be defined by their sexual whatever they could just give it a rest and be civil.
If they WANT to be defined by their sexual whatever then this (Planet Fitness incident, endless discussion, pictures on the internet, acting like perverts etc.) is precisely the way to go about it.
My question is why?
My understanding is that the member was asked to leave after a few days of her discussing her disgust with the transgendered individual being in the women’s room with multiple other members (not friends) who had an ear she could bend. I think that puts an entirely different outlook on the issue.
I have yet to hear the ejected woman’s side. My guess is that it’s somewhat different.
Actually no, it’s pretty much the same regarding the facts, but from a different perspective.
A picture of the person in question – though at the time she was wearing coat, t-shirt and leggings, and carrying a purse. Exercise gear.She put her coat and purse into a locker, then left for the gym. No “changing”. No exposure of genitalia, or anything else. Just taking off a coat.
—
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/planet-fitness-revokes-womans-membership-transgender-complaint/story?id=29465983
Well, she is “appalled”, anyway. Others not so much, so she has to WARN THEM!!!!. Repeatedly. Day after day. And then instead of being grateful, as they should be, they have the temerity to complain about her to the management.
She‘s the victim here. Why can no-one else at the club see that?
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/03/transgender_members_welcome_in.html
The right not to discriminate. That’s what this former member objects to, as well as not being able to continually emphasise, day after day after day after day to everyone else that she’s the victim here whether they want to hear that or not.
She feels she’s being punished. She’s right. For harassing other members. She has a right to her views – and thinks its her right to inflict them on others too. Because, you know, she’s not one of those freaks and it’s important that everyone else thinks exactly as she does too. They have no right to do otherwise, and there oughta be a law!
As I wrote, it’s their gym and their policies, and they can toss out anyone who violates them. But she has a point if indeed she was not informed of the self-assigning gender policy, jerk or not. And if everyone else wasn’t informed as well, is it unethical for her to enlighten them?
Conversely – is not the ethical thing to do to treat everyone else with a modicum of respect and toleration as you yourself said? Not just the Trans woman in question, but other patrons who weren’t buying the line the pestiferous complainant was selling?
She was given four days to cease, remember, but insisted on her rights to pester others.
Now perhaps I should cease commentary on this issue, lest I be guilty of the same offence. That’s your call, not mine. I don’t want to cross the line between informing, and harassing.
I’d say her “pestering” was minute compared to that presented by a well hung intruder in the women’s locker room!
how exactly are you aware of the penis status of the person in question?
I figured you’d say something stupid like that, Tammy. I don’t know, of course. Neither do you. I was simply making a point. How “well hung” he is is irrelevant. That he’s a he and he IS hung- and hanging around in the women’s locker room- is the obvious consideration. Silly nitpicking like that only diminishes you further. Try again.
SHE was indeed the victim. So were the other shes. HE was the invader.
The ‘showboating trans individual’ took off her coat.
Then put that in the locker, along with her purse.
She was dressed throughout in the usual exercise gear. T shirt. Leggings.
That was it,
So what exactly did this trans woman do wrong? What should she have done to minimise the discomfort of others?
Well, first of all, only go to a gym where trans people are welcome, by policy. Don’t force yourself on others.
Second, only change in a private stall, or better yet, to avoid even the slightest possibility of accidental exposure, go to the gym already in exercise gear, with just a coat over you and carrying a purse for keys, drivers ,license etc. Otherwise, without extensive prior planning and preparation (not to say personal inconvenience), such complete lack of genital exposure could be attributed to just moral luck.
Then, minimise exposure by going in to the locker room, placing coat and purse in a locker, then leaving immediately for the gym.
Finally, only do it very sporadically. Two or three times a year at most, certainly not four days running or for months on end.
That’s what she ,should have done, instead of “showboating” with “full frontal exposure“. If she had any respect and consideratipn for other people.
,Oh wait.. that’s what she did do.
But it’s not enough. Nothing would ever be enough. There will always be the same hysteria, the same deliberate scare campaign, no matter what is done or not done.
Otherwise rational, scrupulously careful people will see the hysteria, and assume the worst. “Full Frontal” exposure. “Showboating”. Because otherwise, why would any remotely sane individual go bananas like that? There has to be something, some lack of consideration for others, some lack of respect, because everyone knows that that’s what these people do.
The prosecution in the case of Jack Marshall rests. I now hand the case over to the toughest judge on the bench when it comes to such behaviour, Judge Jack Marshall. With a strong recommendation for clemency to be shown, in view of his past remorse and restitution over a similar crime. I don’t think he’ll do it again, this has been a lesson to him.
Even Jove nods.
No rebuttal, just a point: What matters to the complainer is how things appeared to the complainer. The issue then is whether her perceptions were 1) reasonable or 2) understandable. Her reaction was unfair to the individual who shocked her, given that she had, as you note, done everything possible to be considerate other than hiding in a cave. But that doesn’t mean that the exiled member was unreasonable to “warn” other members who she felt would appreciate being warned, if she warned them reasonably.
According PF, she did not.
As a member for two months, it’s unlikely she had a lot of friends at the gym. At the gyms I’ve been to, most people keep to themselves, often listening to music. I’m guessing most weren’t too happy about the interruption and her level of outrage is one that I don’t think a lot of women feel.
In view of that fact, Jack, please go back and read your post in this light, and consider the ethics issues involved accordingly.
Would someone reading your post – and not the comments – get that impression from what you wrote? That the Trans woman involved had done everything possible to be considerate other than hiding in a cave as you put it?
I contend that there is an Ethics lesson there.Just not the one you wrote about,
Bear in mind that even living in a cave would be insufficient. I’d bet long odds that it wouldn’t be enough for the vast majority of those who complain at the moment. The reasonable ones tend to remain silent in order to “get along” even though they may feel discomfort. It’s called “tolerance”.
I could go on, giving quotes from various people about how they just want the problem to “go away’ without going into the messy details of how to accomplish that. To “morally mandate it out of existence’, as professor of ethics(!) Janice Raymond called for, or to “reduce the number of intersex” as Germaine Greer proposed. To “put them all in camps” as one GOP state chair called for. To “resettle them in the east” – oh wait, different mob, that was said in 1938 in Germany.
SMP’s remarks are already making the rounds – your blog is more influential than you know. Hence this reaction:
It’s up there with famous Radical Feminist Bev Jo Van Dohre’s unguarded remark about Trans women:
The count is now 9 BTW. Corresponding to an equivalent rate of 216,000 homicides for trans women of color. (1 in 3000 are trans, 1 in 4 are black/hispanic, 1 in 2 are women).
It’s not just hyperbole. That’s what we thought in the 30s too, ignoring the evidence. But while they have motive and method, I don’t see them ever getting the opportunity. The worst they can do or the moment is stop us using public facilities – and even then they have a fight on their hands,
The key sentence in the post is…”The establishments Planet Fitness wants to run, apparently, are ones where a woman can go into the ladies locker room and run into some hairy, naked guy with his dong hanging out, and she gets dinged because she objects, not knowing that he is really all girl at his creamy nougat center.”
Is there anything in their policies that do not allow that, or that would not make that situation possible? I don’t think so, and that’s their choice, but without fair notice that “no judgement” means that, then
1. Self-identifying woman is being set up to be treated as an interloper and threat.
2. Hetero female member is being set up to be surprised.
3. It is to be anticipated that once surprised, said member is likely to want to make sure that other members aren’t surprised.
Conclusion: “When the company says “no judgment,” it really means it, because this shows a ludicrous lack of judgment.”
Has that ever happened?
How do you know that they will take their policy to ludicrous lengths?
Did they do that here?
It seems to me that you came to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence before you, that the evidence was updated, that that removed the sole basis for your conclusion, and now you’re sticking with an unreasonable interpretation (in light of the facts of this case) based on…. what, exactly?
I think that a phrase like no judgment or students can’t bring guns to school should be deemed to be interpreted reasonably, unless there’s evidence (pizza chewed into the shape of a gun etc) that it’s not.
In the case of the worse than merely idiotic school administration in the pizza incident, we have that evidence. In the case of just about (with far too many exceptions – at least half a dozen) every other school administration that doesn’t permit firearms in grade school, we do not
Perhaps you know something that I don’t about Planet Fitness. Perhaps there have been incidents such as you describe. In view of the pizza-gun incident, nothing would surprise me.
But this incident is not one of them, and so I submit that on the evidence we have to hand that your conclusion is not just unsubstantiated, but unwarranted.
I’ve been hanging around with lawyers too much, haven’t I?
I’ve been out of the loop for a couple of days. Zoe: How in hell can you compare a fully “armed” man, dressed as a woman, invading a female locker room with a kid and a gun-chewed slice of pizza? That’s so bizarre as to be mindboggling!
There is no safe amount of time to hang around with lawyers.
Just to clarify….
Exactly how many times do we have evidence of some hairy, naked guy with his dong hanging out, at Planet Fitness?
And if it’s zero – exactly what evidence do we have that PF’s no judgment policy allows “hanging dongs” like that, instead of a more reasonable interpretation? Because without such evidence, what possible reason do you have for saying that? What gives the “appearance” that this is the case? Because Trans and Intersex women are not immediately ejected on sight? Is that it?
As we know, Trans women – or at least one Trans woman that we know of – does use PF. So if such an interpretation , dongs etc, was valid, that is where we’d look for evidence. Instead, what do we find?
She changes before going to the gym. She puts her coat and purse in the locker, then leaves immediately.
My point is, again, is there anything in the PF policy that prevents or prohibits “hainging dongs” or full frontal? And if there isn’t fine: I’ve been in a lot of dressing rooms, and 90% of those who use them are modest, but those who aren’t are not breaking any rules. Assuming equal treatment (good), no bias (good), and “no judgement” (which means to me, don’t be considerate of the particular sensitivities of anyone else, be cause we’ll discipline anyone who dares to “judge” it harshly, an anti-ethical and stupid rule), I’m saying that it is just moral luck that the individual in question was considerate and modest, and the presence of a biological male in the women’s room, not matter how she acted, still raised the rebuttable presumption that the next such individual would not be so considerate.
Do most gyms have such prohibitions explicitly stated and on the entry forms – or is it just understood?
The problem with the “no penis” principle is pretty graphically illustrated there. I don’t know about you, but I feel that most women would not be too happy at being forced to share restrooms with this guy.
Which the :no penis” principle would cause to happen.
It’s not “moral luck” that he uses the men’s room. It’s a decision by trans and intersex people not to rock the boat. But if we’re compelled to by policy or law… then we’ll ignore policy or law, as to do otherwise would cause panic, and we’d be the ones blamed. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
1. Your explanation about proclivities of transitioning males leads me to withdraw the moral luck verdict, but that wasn’t my use of it: I said that it was just moral luck that she didn’t walk into a full frontal.
2. Do most gyms have such prohibitions explicitly stated and on the entry forms – or is it just understood?
Most don’t, but this a new issue, and like everyone else, gyms are slooooow to adjust.
3. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6. I am certain I have heard this in an old Western, but I can’t find it. I refuse to believe that Mark Walberg was the first one to say it on screen.
Found it!
http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/its_better_to_be_judged_by_twelve_than_to_be_carried_by_six_police_saying/
Well played, Jack. Thanks for that.1973 eh?
I’m shocked—you would think it was much earlier.
” apparently, are ones where a woman can go into the ladies locker room and run into some hairy, naked guy with his dong hanging out,”
Nothing in that sentence in any way resembles what happened or what might potentially happen in light of their stated policy.
On that phrase alone your post fails as any sort of argument which might be supposed to advocate for ethics since it is unethical in the first place to misrepresent the situation which you wish to discuss.
Wrong. Locker rooms and restrooms are sexually segregated for a reason. If functional males are allowed to run around in female areas- and are inclined to do so on the convenient fiction that they think of themselves as male- you’re setting up a scenario of danger and atrocity.
Gee. Am I now a national icon?! I’m just now catching up with all this.
You have a chance to follow in the hallowed footsteps of Phyllis Shlafely!
I guess I’d better join Eagle Forum!
If you don’t wish your words to be publicised – then please backtrack, and they won’t be.
I’m under considerable pressure to “wave the bloody shirt” here. However, even if you don’t backtrack, and are ashamed of what you wrote in the heat of the moment, I won’t. No matter how useful your words are.
It’s an ethical thing.
Your call. If you’re proud of, and stand by, your words I can guarantee a very large audience. Many of whom would applaud your sentiments, at last no-one indulging in Political Correctness but “telling it like it is”.
If you’d prefer the whole thing to die out though, then regretfully I’d comply.
I see your sense of humor has also failed you. And no, I don’t wish to “backtrack” anything. I’ve said what I’ve said with the conviction of truth. I don’t hide my identity and I stand by my words. Political correctness is, to my mind, as bad a mental illness as perversity.
I have to ask – are you really sure?
Applied to Trans and Intersex people, of any age? Gays etc as well of course.
You stand by those words? They were not just written in the heat of the moment, not just hyperbole which in retrospect you regret?
You speak for people who have taken their human heritage and thrown it in a gutter. I understand that you’re trying to portray yourself here as some poor, misunderstood, bullied but harmless little transperson who’s just looking for a little love and tolerance, et. cet., ad nauseum. I’m not buying it, Zoe. That’s like “moderate Moslems” claiming much the same… while tolerating within their midst the sorriest collection of radical lunatics in the world. That “putting a kind face on (name your poison)” is an old one to me. No dice.
Court of Public Opinion in this case.
Your have the right to consult Jack by PM on this as a friend.
I really suggest that you do first.
Any links you have with political or other parties will be publicised too.
Are you threatening me with arrest, Zoe?! Or just harrassment? Good Lord, I lost count as to how many times I read Miranda to guys! You can’t intimidate me with that, I’m afraid.
If Ive got to stop this car……!
Ho Kay.
Just checking that you’re the Steve Pilling who is the GOP Precinct 328 Committee Chair.
In Harris County, Texas. Yep. That’s me. Anything else you’d like to know?
Just three questions: Two you’ve answered, so
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
African or European?! (You HAD to know I’d answer you that way, being a baby boomer!)
Actually, that should be Precinct 328 Republican chairman. I’m not presently serving on any committees.
Thanks for the correction. So “Harris County Texas Republican Chairman (Precinct 328) Steven Mark Pilling” is accurate and not misleading?
Yes. That’s me.
Then, Zoe, he/she/it could have done all this in a stall in the MEN’S locker room. Even Jove (the randy old SOB!) could have seen the logic in that.
If she had, Jack, it would be understandable. She would have likely understood that she was wading in politically incorrect waters and wanted to know if there were others who were also outraged by having a man in their private place. Somebody has to be the first to speak up.
Wow. This post generated an awful lot of comments. The back and forth between Zoebrain and SMP was . . . erm . . . interesting, to say the least.
I took a look at Planet Fitness’ website. Perhaps I am missing something, but nowhere on the site is ‘no judgement’ defined, though the scrolling pictures from its facility(ies) lead me to conclude that it is about body image. There is something on the site that reads as follows:
“Planet Fitness Mission Statement
We at Planet Fitness are here to provide a unique environment in which anyone – and we mean anyone – can be comfortable. A diverse, Judgement Free Zone® where a lasting, active lifestyle can be built. Our product is a tool, a means to an end; not a brand name or a mold-maker, but a tool that can be used by anyone. In the end, it’s all about you. As we evolve and educate ourselves, we will seek to perfect this safe, energetic environment, where everyone feels accepted and respected. We are not here to kiss your butt, only to kick it if that’s what you need.”
– See more at: http://www.planetfitness.com/mission-statement#sthash.Bl3KWo5I.dpuf
and
“The Judgement Free Zone®
Planet Fitness is known for a lot of things – our low prices (and all the stuff you get for those low prices), our Lunk™ Alarm, and of course, our Judgement Free Zone®. We’re fiercely protective of our Planet and the rights of our members to feel like they belong. So we create an environment where you can relax, go at your own pace and just do your own thing without ever having to worry about being judged. This is your Planet. You belong.”
– See more at: http://www.planetfitness.com/About-Planet-Fitness-Gym#sthash.qJ9xJ9HQ.dpuf
A ‘lunk alarm’ is defined as their “way of keeping the right atmosphere in the gym, by preventing things like dropping weights, and loud grunting. We want our members to feel comfortable in our non-intimidating judgement free zone.”
See more at: http://www.planetfitness.com/member-services-support#sthash.7jvUFr1W.dpuf
I am not sure why they chose ‘judgement’ over ‘judgment’ but their mission statement and company policies don’t address this type of situation. Did the complainant go too far? probably; did the management overreact by revoking the complainant’s membership? I think so because the company’s policies and mission statement do not talk about gender identification as an issue in the locker rooms.
From an ethics perspective, where there is not a specific statement or rule, then I would default to the general rule, the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule describes a mutual, or reciprocal, relationship between oneself and others. I think all three parties to this mess failed miserably.
The complainant should have put herself in the position of the transgendered person, asking herself, “Would I want to be publicly shamed or humiliated?” In my never-to-be-humble opinion, she should have made her objection privately and left it at that. The transgendered person should have asked, “Is my conduct appropriate under these circumstances?” Again, from my never-to-be-humble opinion, the transgendered individual should have considered the perspective of others and acted accordingly. The company should have asked itself, “Is the complainant within her rights to express her opinion about this situation, and if so, what do our policies say?” Where the company’s policy and mission statement do not address gender expression, then it should have taken corrective action to fix its corporate documents as well as action to remedy the situation. The company’s policies and mission statement live or die by their own content. Therefore, the company’s revocation of the complainant’s membership was more unethical because its default response, that of ‘diverse, judgement free zone’ is vague and ambiguous; it should apply to both the complainant (to be free of this sort of confrontation in the locker room) and the transgendered person (to be free of humiliation from other patrons).
jvb
Not only a lot of comments, but an incredible number between midnight and 7am EST. I woke up to find commenters wielding broken bottles and broken furniture everywhere.
Great comment, a COTD. It may not get up until tomorrow.
I didn’t get up until late either, Jack. Had a lot of sleep to catch up on… plus (likely) a little emotional exhaustion!
They’re assholes who cater to people who are so insecure, they don’t want to see anyone there who can benchpress more than half their bodyweight. That is what their “no lunks” policy is about, in essence. They’re anything but non-judgmental.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2011/05/gym_rat_control.html
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/884/planet-fitness-no-judgment-day/
Without comment, but apposite.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/watch-new-york-mom-has-the-perfect-response-to-parents-concerned-about-her-trans-daughter-at-school/
Medically, I believe there are EIGHT gender distinctions. Like diagnosis codes that can be used to describe the combination of biological markers like genetics and physical manifestations. The physical manifestations children are BORN with- displaying in ways that don’t fit with what’s ‘expected.’ It’s late, and my Google-fu is compromised because in my view, the ‘actual’ number is less important than the fact that psychological aspects have no bearing on these particular medical things. Any number like EIGHT is more than just 2. SMP, and anyone leaning in his direction, needs to remember that trans is a recent ‘label’ for something that exists, and has existed. These biological differences aren’t new. Perversion has nothing whatsoever to do with biological aspects. And being trans has NOTHING, in general, to do with perversion. The fact that there have been medical decisions made at BIRTH for children in the past has caused part of the hysteria that exists now. I just couldn’t not put that type of information here, considering how zoe was calmly putting out information and SMP was just attacking and trolling her. Sheesh.
No, Becky. There are just TWO “gender distinctions”. If you are uncertain about yourself, a quick self-check below the pantie line should resolve your doubts.
Redefining something doesn’t change the reality, Becky. There are two sexes, not eight. That’s because only two are needed for the vital act of reproduction and the survival of the species. You don;t have six extra sexes. You only have six different categories of lunacy.