Trans Woma Pleads Guilty to Restroom Voyeurism

[Carolyn Marie]

http://www.crossroadstoday.com/story/33419340/transgender-woman-pleads-guilty-to-target-voyeurism

 

I am angry and disgusted by this.  I hope she gets the maximum sentence.  I know this will be used to "prove: that we are all like her.  The sad fact is that there are bad people among us, because we are part of the human race. 

Carolyn Marie

[Guest]

And who exactly made the decision that this person was trans and not just in disguise?

[Carolyn Marie]

23 minutes ago, Fiona said:

And who exactly made the decision that this person was trans and not just in disguise?

I believe she self-identified as trans.  We tend to take people at their word when they self-identify.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest]

I'm kinda getting at that it's easy to say such things. But is it true? And if this sort of thing begins happening more often, then perhaps more will be required.  

[Ravin]

It's about context. Here at Laura's, we take someone at their word unless and until they say or do something that breaks the rules and shows them to not be who they say they are. 99.999999% of the time that is going to work for public accommodations such as restrooms and changing rooms as well.

She would have faced the same charges if she had been cisgender. Her gender identity was not actually part of the crime she committed. It is frustrating that as a minority we all get colored with someone's wrongdoing with something like this, especially coming as it does at a time when the restroom/changing room issue is so high profile.

[Ravin]

She's lucky it wasn't more serious than it was. If the teenager was a minor, in some states she could have been charged with production of child pornography.

[Carolyn Marie]

I find it interesting about the "is she or isn't she" discussion.  I noticed that the same thing happened when Chelsea Manning came out.  In the first few months, many in the community would not accept that she was trans.  I think its human nature that when someone within your self-identified community, whatever it happens to be, does something bad, you want to distance yourself from them.

I'm not certain if this person is trans or not, but it would not surprise me if she was, only because we are all flawed human beings, and we are all capable of bad behavior.  Being trans doesn't mean we are perfect.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 Here at Laura's, we take someone at their word

I am not talking about here at Laura's. I'm talking about this particular case. Anyone can claim to be trans, for that matter that could have been someone intentionally trying to get caught to make some point. If the article didn't verify any of the info, then all people see is "transwoman voyeur' which as Carolyn stated, makes us all look bad. You'll have to excuse me for being disappointed that many if not most news reporting agencies don't seem to do any real digging anymore.

[Ravin]

Once again,  99.999999% of the time that is going to work for public accommodations such as restrooms and changing rooms as well. The news reporting was all over the place with pronouns, which was frustrating, but they did enough digging to make it clear how she identifies and that she hasn't changed her legal name.

Trans people commit crimes. They don't do so because they are trans, of course, any more than people commit crimes because they are of a particular race or religion. As Carolyn said, we are all human, not perfect.

If you got in trouble with the law, would you want news reporters deciding if you are really trans? I certainly wouldn't. Even someone who commits a crime should have their gender identity respected.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Carolyn Marie said:

I find it interesting about the "is she or isn't she" discussion.  I noticed that the same thing happened when Chelsea Manning came out.  In the first few months, many in the community would not accept that she was trans.  I think its human nature that when someone within your self-identified community, whatever it happens to be, does something bad, you want to distance yourself from them.

I'm not certain if this person is trans or not, but it would not surprise me if she was, only because we are all flawed human beings, and we are all capable of bad behavior.  Being trans doesn't mean we are perfect.

Carolyn Marie

This is true, but it's also about self preservation. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Ravin said:

If you got in trouble with the law, would you want news reporters deciding if you are really trans? I certainly wouldn't. Even someone who commits a crime should have their gender identity respected.

Fair enough, I didn't mean for the reporter to make a decision. However, if the reporter found that this person only dresses under certain circumstances, never ha counseling and stuff like that, you report that. But I suspect I'm doing what Carolyn stated, looking for a way to prove that she wasn't trans. 

And by the way, I'm an engineer and do a lot of failure analysis which in other words, is digging into things to find the truth. That's kind of how I think anyway.....

[Drea]

 

On the subject is or isn't t a woman, the answer is pretty straightforward in ways that weren't set back at the time of Manning.

Specifically since Manning, the advocacy has been successful as getting laws and rules using the preferred standard (according to the trans advocates) that the only determining factor for a person's gender is their claim of being that gender.  And again under what the advocates fight for is that claim being the only standard by which access to restrooms, changing rooms and all other facilities designated for the gender they claim.

So while legal definitions may differ in different states (including Idaho I believe), by what the advocates insist (and Target's policy), she clearly is a woman and clearly should be entitled to be in the ladies changing room.  In fact she could have presented with a beard and every way appear male and male clothing and still be entitled based on her claimed identity. 

 

 

 

[Ravin]

It is extremely frustrating that certain people will point to this and say, "See, this is why transgender people shouldn't be in our restrooms/changing rooms/locker rooms! because the offense had nothing to do with her being trans. It would have been just as illegal if she was cisgender or if a man was filming a teenage boy in the next changing room in the men's, etc. There is a lack of causation between her gender identity and the offense. 

My advice is to not let the logical fallacies of the religious right feed your reactions.

[Carolyn Marie]

The illogic in the argument is not only what you indicated, Ravin, but in how inconsistently it is applied.  Has anyone ever heard someone say that Catholic priests should be banned from men's restrooms because they are likely to prey upon boys who might be there?  I certainly have not.  Yet, there are hundreds of documented cases in which Catholic priests have been convicted of, admitted to, or been accused of molesting young boys. 

We don't hear that because most people generally respect Catholic priests, and know that you should not lump them all together in one basket.  On the other hand, many people, particularly those on the right, generally do not respect or understand trans folk, and so it is easy for them to put all of us in the same basket of "potential criminals" or certainly potential sexual deviants.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Ravin said:

It is extremely frustrating that certain people will point to this and say, "See, this is why transgender people shouldn't be in our restrooms/changing rooms/locker rooms! because the offense had nothing to do with her being trans. It would have been just as illegal if she was cisgender or if a man was filming a teenage boy in the next changing room in the men's, etc. There is a lack of causation between her gender identity and the offense. 

My advice is to not let the logical fallacies of the religious right feed your reactions.

Of course it's frustrating, and I'm simply pointing out what the haters will say. And both of you know that the haters use illogical arguments all the time. And then the dumbest among the population grab on to that and it hurts us all.

Those of us that are capable of critical thinking can easily see beyond all this, but we seem to be in the minority these days, in more ways than the reason we are on this particular forum.

[Alejandra]

"So while legal definitions may differ in different states (including Idaho I believe), by what the advocates insist (and Target's policy), she clearly is a woman and clearly should be entitled to be in the ladies changing room.  In fact she could have presented with a beard and every way appear male and male clothing and still be entitled based on her claimed identity. "  ~Drea

Herein lies the Achilles heel of the entire Tran* argument.  That one's self-identification is proof enough, entitling one to all those important privileges and protections provided to individuals based on their sex.

 

[Drea]

I see no inconsistency with Catholic priests.  Despite the left's frequent demonizing of Catholics and oft inferring a large portion of priests are pedophiles, people generally know that is the exception and not the rule.

But lets suppose for argument sake, the hundreds of cases of Catholic priests being homosexual pedophiles suggested that Catholic Priests post a major risk.  Are pedophiles going to pretend to be Catholic priests in order gain special access to young boys?  The odd alter boy perhaps?  But wait we are talking changing rooms, why would a pedophile need to pretend to be a priest to get access?  In fact, given the prejudice that exists against priests wouldn't seeing a priest go into a changing room like target sort of cause people to wonder?  Similarly pretending to be a priest wouldn't give the pedophile special access to the men's room. 

In fact, given some of the prejudecs out there I wouldn't be surprised if there are parents who wouldnt' let their young son go in a mens room if they saw a priest had gone in there.

 

When it comes to trans women, the problem I see is the advocates set a standard that has no objective measure.  One that is in fact intended to include CD and anyone, even someone presenting fully male with a beard, to claim to be a woman and be fully protected in their access of women's facilities.

This of course creates an opportunity for the critics to say, rightfully so, that such a law enables men to use the ladies room (Also women to use the men's room, but few are truly concerned about that).  Of course trans people respond saying "you are calling trans women men" ignoring the fact that it is the trans advocates own definition of what a trans women can include men.  It also ignores the fact that the objection often is about men exploiting the transgender law, not the trans women themselves.

If the advocates had only stuck to the message they used for so long to gain acceptance of trans which revolved around transitioners, there surely would be some objecting, but those objecting wouldn't get much support.  The general population didn't fully understand it but they understood that these people (trans people) were actually suffering and were changing to make their own personal comfort better and were in doing so were undergoing psychological screening, hormone therapy and even surgery.  Those objecting would not carry the day.

Instead though, the advocates pulled a bit of bait and switch.  After convincing the general population of this need of the transitioners, using that to justify protections (exploiting transitioners), then they drop the other shoe and rather than use any number of easily measureable benchmarks that a transitioner would go thru, they come up with this broad definition. 

A definition by which, unlike the priest comparison, there is a benefit for the predators, the voyeurs to claim to be a trans women so as to give them cover in their actions.  When the trans advocates argue against any language for a more objective standard, it appears as if trans people are aligning themselves with the predators.

Then worst of all, because of the definition the advocates have set forth, instead of a voyeur like this being labeled a man disguising himself as a girl, the person is unequivocally transgender.

 

[Drea]

53 minutes ago, Alejandra said:

"So while legal definitions may differ in different states (including Idaho I believe), by what the advocates insist (and Target's policy), she clearly is a woman and clearly should be entitled to be in the ladies changing room.  In fact she could have presented with a beard and every way appear male and male clothing and still be entitled based on her claimed identity. "  ~Drea

Herein lies the Achilles heel of the entire Tran* argument.  That one's self-identification is proof enough, entitling one to all those important privileges and protections provided to individuals based on their sex.

 

That is exactly the point I been harping on.  A more objective definition would be much less controversial or at least can get discussed where the line should be drawn.  At one time that line was at SRS.  Nowadays the line could easily be drawn at someone being in transition or transitioned and while there will be the few objectors the general public would go with it. 

I would argue that this is an issue that is far more relevant and important to transitioners, the person making a full time gender role change, than it is to the person who likes to CD two Saturday nights a month.  Yet rather than securing protections for the transitioners, after using transitioners to justify their position the advocates leapt right over that and tried to grab protections for that two nights out a month CD even if the result was the leave the transitioners hanging in the wind.

 

[Alejandra]

1 hour ago, Drea said:

....rather than securing protections for the transitioners, after using transitioners to justify their position the advocates leapt right over that and tried to grab protections for that two nights out a month CD even if the result was the leave the transitioners hanging in the wind.

This is precisely what burns my butt!  According to the trans* activists these husbands and fathers who live, work, and have sex with their wives or g/f's day in and day out except for those one or two nights out per month, must  be addressed as if they actually were women, and afforded those same privileges and protections normally reserved for actual women.

I agree. the discussion should be about where to draw the line and come up with some workable definition of who is what, that is acceptable not just to the trans* community, (however that  might be defined), and to the rest of the world.

[Ravin]

There are enough gatekeepers dictating who is trans enough without putting them at the door of every restroom and changing room.

[JJ]

Never have understood the need for people to neatly define and label everyone . People just don't fit in boxes that neatly and society has suffered far more from trying to make labels fit than it ever has for accepting people as they are and letting them decide how they want to be seen.

Labels and definitions were never made to include people. Just to exclude them.

I refuse to limit myself or others by imposing my labels or judgments on them. What you do comes back to you. I'd rather just respect and accept.

Accepting people does not always mean accepting actions. And there will be people whose actions I can neither accept nor condone - no label will change that either way.

Johnny

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Ravin said:

There are enough gatekeepers dictating who is trans enough without putting them at the door of every restroom and changing room.

I must agree with this. On facebook I've blocked so many people who were trying to tell people they weren't actually trans, or trans enough and such.

[Jennifer T]

14 hours ago, Ravin said:

There are enough gatekeepers dictating who is trans enough without putting them at the door of every restroom and changing room.

Amen!

[Carolyn Marie]

The whole "umbrella" concept is anathema to many within our community, as is the idea of this even being a community.  For those folks, cross dressers, gender queer and folks like them will never belong, and will never be accepted.  It is, admittedly, a difficult subject fraught with a lot of strong feelings.

Carolyn Marie

[Alejandra]

21 hours ago, JJ said:

Labels and definitions were never made to include people. Just to exclude them.

So if I say I am a doctor, I can operate on you, or if I say I am a pilot, I can fly an airliner?  How is that any different from my husband claiming to be a woman?

 

6 minutes ago, Carolyn Marie said:

For those folks, cross dressers, gender queer and folks like them will never belong, and will never be accepted

Sounds like you just labeled and excluded a whole bunch of people.  So just who  is trans*?  The way things stand now, anybody who claims to be is.  So any pervert, voyeur, pedophile, CR'er,  fetishist, etc. can claim trans* status and by jelly beans...he/she/zir/they are!

And who says CD'ers are not accepted?  Who?