<p>I’m well aware of all of that; I’ve met quite a few trans guys over the years who are considered very attractive men! (Not that there’s anything wrong with balding, bearded and muscular.) I was simply giving the most stark example of why the people who want to force trans women into men’s facilities wouldn’t be happy with the logical consequence, namely requiring trans men to use women’s facilities. Since I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of the vilification and ridicule directed at trans people (especially with respect to the bathroom/locker room issue) is directed at trans women, and that trans men aren’t even in a lot of people’s consciousness. I’m sure most people wouldn’t be happy with your being in a women’s facility, either.</p>
Me, too. I dress in the locker room at my locker. I don’t like to see older preschool-aged boys sitting there staring at me when I change, especially when their mothers could take them to a more private area. I shouldn’t have to be the one to move. </p>
<p>So I don’t. And then I go to the front desk afterwards and complain. Not only are 6-and-up supposed to go to the men’s locker room, but there is also a sign saying to be considerate of other patrons.</p>
<p>One would assume so, but I’m sure exhibitionists come in all forms. </p>
<p>It is claimed that the suspect was “naked” and “displaying” genitalia in the locker room/sauna. If this person was in fact, naked, perhaps covered with a towel around the waist, that doesn’t sound to me like someone who was being “extremely careful” to prevent something like this from happening. </p>
<p>I have never been naked in a sauna or locker room, so I know that not everyone does this.</p>
<p>Bay, it really isn’t fair to call her a “suspect.” I don’t believe she’s being investigated by the police, with respect to the commission of any crime or anything else.</p>
<p>PS: I have no personal axe to grind in any of this; I’ve never been in a sauna in my life, and haven’t been in a locker room in more than 15 years, since my son was little and my ex and I belonged to the local country club so we could use the pool. (As absurd as the idea of my ever having belonged to an echt-WASPy country club, to which women weren’t even allowed to belong other than through their husbands, seems in retrospect! The things one does for one’s children. Ironically enough, he turned out to be terrified of even the kiddie pool and refused ever to use it.) And I certainly was never naked in a locker room that I ever remember, either then or in high school. Public nudity is not, and never has been, something I’m fond of.</p>
<p>DonnaL,
I used the term “suspect” only out of laziness and nothing else. I know she is not being charged, but she is “suspected” of exposing herself, that is all.</p>
<p>I didn’t bring my boys into women’s locker rooms after they went to kindergarten - so no girl locker rooms after age 5 or 6. By age 5 they can get themselves dressed etc., they use the bathrooms at work all by themselves, etc. etc. It was funny because I’d be standing outside the men’s locker room and more than once I’d have to send some guy back in to “check” on whichever boy I was waiting for. They STILL all three take long, long showers.</p>
<p>I’ve never been in a sauna without my swim suit on. Maybe it’s time to request no nudity in the sauna and have privacy changing rooms. I did not change in front of my own children after a certain age, and certainly not in front of other people of any age in a locker room. I always used privacy stalls.
I would not have a problem with a transgendered person in the same locker room as me. I would not want to subject someone to humiliation in the men’s room, but I think, if nothing else, it would be a bit of a surprise if she was exposed and I don’t think that would be comfortable for the transgendered person either. I don’t want to see anyone’s “parts”- of either gender, in a locker room. Times have changed, so maybe it’s time for more private changing areas.</p>
<p>Curtains? What’s the matter with a good old door? I noticed in Europe that bathroom doors come down low with no cracks and actually provide some real privacy. If REAL privacy was provided this wouldn’t be an issue.</p>
<p>I guess that’s some comfort when you’re in a European bathroom that has toilets without seats, or just holes in the floor without even toilets.</p>
<p>More seriously, there seem to be many more bathroom doors like that in the U.S. (I’ve seen them in public bathrooms in nice hotels, for example), and I think it’s great.</p>
<p>Donnat–I laughed but the low BR doors in Europe weren’t only provided in toilets with holes or no seats. They were in airports (I thought YEA! a civilized airport) , hotels, restaurants and just all over. In the US the only place I’ve seen them is in expensive restaurants and higher class hotels. In the US, it seems a decent lock without a 2 inch crack in the door frame is the highest goal.</p>
<p>If it’s kosher for someone with male hardware to have free access to ladies facilities, who is to decide if the guy isn’t there to just exhibit his wares and check out the scenery? And if it’s reasonable to accommodate his needs to not be with men, why is it unreasonable to deny women not to be around him? And if this person decided not to have a male roommate, should a female be forced to room with him? I know it’s another expense for the universities but it’s time to invest in fewer community facilities and go with more private ones - rest rooms, dorm rooms, etc. </p>
<p>Odd that only a couple of years ago, Harvard had gone the other way, having women-only gym hours because the Muslim students didn’t care to share the gym with men. Wonder if this person would have been permitted to join them.</p>
<p>Dad<em>of</em>3, the pronoun is actually she and her in this case. Your refusal to acknowledge that makes it pretty hard to think that you’re being sensitive to anyone in anything else you say.</p>
<p>Dad of 3, your entire comment is based on the false premise that this woman was a “guy” with respect to whom it’s OK to use male pronouns. Tell me, do you inspect the genitals of every woman you meet before you deign to use the correct pronouns for her? Do you make sure that every man you see in a men’s room has what you consider the “correct hardware”? All of that is, or should be, entirely irrelevant to anyone but a person’s doctor and their romantic partner, if any. It’s nobody else’s business.</p>
<p>It’s getting to be like old times here; it reminds me of some of the threads I participated in back in 2009.</p>
<p>That’s because this supposed “man” is actually a woman, regardless of what she has between her legs. If she is legally recognized as a woman, then it may be illegal for her to use the men’s room, in some states (as well as unsafe). As to your “checking out the scenery” comment, we don’t know what this woman’s sexual orientation is. Perhaps she’s straight and therefore there really wouldn’t be any “checking out the scenery”. And if “checking out the scenery” is a worry, then there’s all those bisexual and lesbian women, some of whom may “check out the scenery”. Back to the legalities, if she is recognized as a woman in the region where this took place, it could be argued that legally, she has every right to parade around as naked as she pleases. Legally, speaking, of course. Modesty/common courtesy is a different story.</p>
<p>It seems counter-intuitive for transgendered individuals to expose “wrong” parts, but I’ve witnessed a case where the guy said, “screw it! I’m a man!” Tore off his shirt, and proceeded to ignore everyone who said there was a naked woman sunbathing. Sometimes, it’s a matter of embracing one’s gender privileges, I suppose. Also, as a man, I have resigned myself to never having any hope of understanding the female brain or ladies’ motives, so I don’t understand this woman’s motives for parading around in her birthday suit, given that she’s pre-op.</p>
<p>Finally, I realize that not everyone is this comfortable, but honestly, they’re just body parts. We all have those parts, and/or variations of them. While I recognize that this is extremely socially liberal: they’re just bodies, so what’s the big deal?</p>
<p>Maybe a good compromise would be to forbid the display of male genitalia (hey, first time I ever wrote that word in my life) in female public facilities by persons of any gender. Preventing nudity in general in public changing rooms seems to be overkill.</p>
<p>We’ve all probably had an unfortunate towel slip when going through the awkward maneuver of getting out of a swimsuit and into clothes, its not something that can be legislated against.</p>
<p>I haven’t. Living in CA, it is usually warm enough for me to go home in my wet suit with a cover up. If I do need to change in a locker room, I go into the bathroom stalls if there are no enclosed private changing areas.</p>
<p>Sounds good to me. I would be appalled if I saw a glimpse of private male parts inside the whirlpool, sauna or steam room in the female locker room. A person can put on a bathrobe or a knee-length shirt while changing clothes to prevent accidental exposure. If you dont know how I can teach you. You can also change in enclosed toilet stalls inside the locker room.</p>
I know she is not being charged, but she is “suspected” of exposing herself, that is all.</p>