Jump to content
  • Welcome to the TransPulse Forums!

    We offer a safe, inclusive community for transgender and gender non-conforming folks, as well as their loved ones, to find support and information.  Join today!

Trans Woma Pleads Guilty to Restroom Voyeurism


Carolyn Marie

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

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

Link to comment
  • Admin
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

Link to comment

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. :( 

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
  • Admin

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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.....

Link to comment

 

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. 

 

 

 

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
  • Admin

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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

"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.

 

Link to comment

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.

 

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator

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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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!

Link to comment
  • Admin

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

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 90 Guests (See full list)

    • Hannah Renee
    • KathyLauren
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      80.5k
    • Total Posts
      767.2k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,944
    • Most Online
      8,356

    Melissa_J
    Newest Member
    Melissa_J
    Joined
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Amyjay
      Amyjay
      (58 years old)
    2. bettyjean
      bettyjean
    3. Breanna
      Breanna
      (52 years old)
    4. Emily Ayla
      Emily Ayla
    5. JET182
      JET182
  • Posts

    • Willow
      Good Friday Morning    I will be spending a good portion of my day at church today.  I don’t know how any of my family would have been with me.  They all passed before I figured myself out.  I often think my mother and sister may have figured it out before I did but maybe it was just my depression that they saw.  I don’t know and never will.  My grandfather Young unconditionally loved me but he passed when I was 9.   Same with my wife’s parents, both gone before.  We’ve never had the greatest relationship with my wife’s brother but we do see them occasionally.  They words and actions aren’t always in sink when it comes to me.   Sour kraut or boil cabbage were never big even with my parents so that was something we were never expected to eat.  Nor was anything with mustard.  My mother hated mustard and it turns my stomach. My wife tried to sneak it into things early in our marriage but I could always tell.  She stopped after a while.   well I wave to go get ready to go to church.  I have a committee meeting at 10 and then we have a Good Friday Service at noon.   Willow
    • Mmindy
      Good morning everyone,   @KymmieLI hope you're misreading your bosses communications. As you say keep plugging a long. Don't give them signs that you're slow quitting, just to collect unemployment.   I have a few things to do business wise, and will be driving to the St. Louis, MO area for two family gatherings.   Have a great day,   Mindy🌈🐛🏳️‍⚧️🦋
    • KymmieL
      Good morning everyone, TGIFF   It seems like I am the one keeping or shop from being the best. According to the boss. I don't know if my days are numbered or not. But anymore I am waiting for the axe to fall. Time will tell.   I keep plugging a long.   Kymmie
    • KymmieL
      In the warmer weather, Mine is hitting the road on the bike. Just me, the bike, and the road. Other is it music or working on one of my many projects.   Kymmie
    • LC
      That is wonderful. Congratulations!
    • Heather Shay
      What is relaxation to you? Nature? Movie? Reading? Cuddling with a pet? Music?
    • Heather Shay
    • Heather Shay
      Having just a normal emotional day.
    • Heather Shay
      AMUSEMENT The feeling when you encounter something silly, ironic, witty, or absurd, which makes you laugh. You have the urge to be playful and share the joke with others. Similar words: Mirth Amusement is the emotional reaction to humor. This can be something that is intended to be humorous, like when someone tells a good joke or when a friend dresses up in a ridiculous costume. But it can also be something that you find funny that was not intended to be humorous, like when you read a sign with a spelling error that turns it into an ironic pun. For millennia, philosophers and scholars have been attempting to explain what exactly it is that makes something funny. This has led to several different theories. Nowadays, the most widely accepted one is the Incongruity Theory, which states that something is amusing if it violates our standards of how things are supposed to be. For example, Charlie Chaplin-style slapstick is funny because it violates our norms of competence and proper conduct, while Monty Python-style absurdity is funny because it violates reason and logic. However, not every standard or norm violation is necessarily funny. Violations can also evoke confusion, indignation, or shock. An important condition for amusement is that there is a certain psychological distance to the violation. One of the ways to achieve this is captured by the statement ‘comedy is tragedy plus time’. A dreadful mistake today may become a funny story a year from now. But it can also be distant in other ways, for instance, because it happened to someone you do not know, or because it happens in fiction instead of in real life. Amusement also needs a safe and relaxed environment: people who are relaxed and among friends are much more likely to feel amused by something. A violation and sufficient psychological distance are the basic ingredients for amusement, but what any one person find funny will depend on their taste and sense of humor. There are dozens of ‘humor genres’, such as observational comedy, deadpan, toilet humor, and black comedy. Amusement is contagious: in groups, people are more prone to be amused and express their amusement more overtly. People are more likely to share amusement when they are with friends or like-minded people. For these reasons, amusement is often considered a social emotion. It encourages people to engage in social interactions and it promotes social bonding. Many people consider amusement to be good for the body and the soul. By the end of the 20th century, humor and laughter were considered important for mental and physical health, even by psychoneuroimmunology researchers who suggested that emotions influenced immunity. This precipitated the ‘humor and health movement’ among health care providers who believed that humor and laughter help speed recovery, including in patients suffering from cancer1). However, the evidence for health benefits of humor and laughter is less conclusive than commonly believed2. Amusement is a frequent target of regulation: we down-regulate it by shifting our attention to avoid inappropriate laughter, or up-regulate it by focusing on a humorous aspect of a negative situation. Interestingly, amusement that is purposefully up-regulated has been found to have the same beneficial physical and psychological effects as the naturally experienced emotion. Amusement has a few clear expressions that emerge depending on the intensity of the emotion. When people are mildly amused, they tend to smile or chuckle. When amusement intensifies, people laugh out loud and tilt or bob their head. The most extreme bouts of amusement may be accompanied by uncontrollable laughter, tears, and rolling on the floor. Most cultures welcome and endorse amusement. Many people even consider a ‘good sense of humor’ as one of the most desirable characteristics in a partner. At the same time, most cultures have (implicit) rules about what is the right time and place for amusement. For example, displays of amusement may be deemed inappropriate in situations that demand seriousness or solemness, such as at work or during religious rituals.
    • Heather Shay
    • Heather Shay
    • Heather Shay
    • April Marie
      Good morning, everyone!!! Two cups of coffee in the books and I am just feeling so wonderful this morning. Not sure why, but I'm happy and smiling.   Enjoy this beautiful day!!!
    • Heather Shay
      A U.S. dollar bill can be folded approximately 4,000 times in the same place before it will tear. -You cannot snore and dream at the same time. -The average person walks the equivalent of three times around the world in a lifetime. -A hippo’s wide open mouth is big enough to fit a 4-foot-tall child in. -Chewing gum while you cut an onion will help keep you from crying.
    • Susan R
      Love it! This is great news. We need more of this to combat the excessive hate-filled rhetoric and misinformation. 👍
  • Upcoming Events

Contact TransPulse

TransPulse can be contacted in the following ways:

Email: Click Here.

To report an error on this page.

Legal

Your use of this site is subject to the following rules and policies, whether you have read them or not.

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Community Rules

Hosting

Upstream hosting for TransPulse provided by QnEZ.

Sponsorship

Special consideration for TransPulse is kindly provided by The Breast Form Store.
×
×
  • Create New...