I had to kind of laugh. You say this: "the police must have received a fairly large number of complaints" without providing any supporting evidence and then immediately call me out for doing it: "you have not yet provided evidence to back up your assertion that women are more likely to report inappropriate conduct."
You undoubtedly know as well as I do that the police don't just do whatever they please. There are simply not enough of them for them to decide to station plainclothes officers inside of bathrooms for extended periods of time just because, especially in a large city like New York. They have to be able to justify that decision to others, which means being able to point to evidence that supports that decision. The primary means by which they get evidence like that is by getting complaints from people of inappropriate behavior. So my statement was a reasonable deduction based on the facts as reported in the article.
Until this post, you had not provided any evidence to support your assertion that women are more likely to report inappropriate conduct. You hadn't even shown that your conclusion is a reasonable deduction from the evidence, as I did. You just said it without providing any support for it; surely you can understand why I would want you to show that there was reason to believe it before accepting it as a generally true statement?
"Overall violence, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, and serious violent crimes were more likely to be reported to the police when the victim was female. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rcp00.pdf
It's not as profound as I suspected but there is a difference. There is no way to know what the statistics might show with regards to the differing responses between men and women when they feel they are the victim of indecent exposure because it does not appear anyone is tracking such a specific thing....unless it falls under the category of something like simple assault??
First off, thank you for providing support for what you were saying.
Second, I did some checking, and indecent exposure is generally considered a misdemeanor
. The exceptions are when the person is convicted repeatedly, or when a child is involved; it can be treated as a sexual assault if touching is involved. The report you provided tended to focus on violent and property crime and thus they wouldn't have worried about things like indecent exposure which was neither. I suspect there haven't been too many studies on indecent exposure except under certain circumstances.
I read a study that indicated women are three times more likely than men to experience anxiety and fear than men when it comes to being assualted. This would seem to make sense. I'm six feet tall and weigh 185lbs. My wife is a petite five feet tall. I stand a much better chance of being able to ward off a physical assault than my wife. Point being, women are generally aware of the increased vulnerability they have with fighting off an accoster due to physical differences....and, as a result, are more cautious about avoiding the potential for that to happen. Women are generally found to be more law abiding too which probably has something to do with the higher reporting rates.
You also shouldn't discount the effects of shame. Women aren't expected to defend themselves, whereas men are, so men feeling ashamed at being unable to might also play a part in the difference. However, as you yourself noted, it isn't all that significant of a difference - a few percent, depending on the specific circumstances.
Plus, it seems to be a rather common occurrence for a woman to visit a men's restroom yet I can't find anything that indicates men are filing police reports. Yet, you can find several reports where a male or a transgender M->F was confronted for entering a women's restroom. I think this is why you find so many male transgender imposters using disguises. I cannot locate one incident where a female disguised herself as a guy to gain access to a mens-only space and was caught doing something indecent. There may be, but I could not locate anything.
If I had to guess, that's probably because a woman is only going into the restroom to use the facilities, and makes a point of seeking privacy and leaving fairly quickly. I suspect that a man who's just there to use a toilet is going to act similarly. That sort of thing is not at all likely to be reported - it's when the person starts acting in an unusual manner that it's more likely to be reported. You may well be right that men are more likely to do that (act in an unusual manner) than women, but it's worth reiterating that this sort of thing is already happening
. it's also worth reiterating that simply claiming to be transgendered isn't likely to make others overlook such behavior. If anything, it's less likely to do that, because it'll sound like an excuse to justify intentional behavior.
I'm not claiming that such things do not already occur. There are plenty of incidents where a man has cornered a lone young girl or woman in a female restroom and assaulted her. What I have been demonstrating is how the access laws open the door to additional opportunities for predators and voyeurs to be in the presence of women and appear innocent while doing it. I would like to see some incidents prior to the access laws where men were in a women-only space and exposed themself and walked away scot-free. Again, I couldn't find anything but if it happens, it must be incredibly infrequent.
With regards to your opinion that some of the people arrested were probably not in a location where specific gender laws existed, that may very well be the case. That's why they were charged with public indeceny instead.
Actually, no, you've not yet demonstrated that a person will be able to take advantage of transgender access laws to do inappropriate things, claim innocence due to being transgendered, and get off scot-free. What makes you think that someone will be able to get away with something like indecent exposure simply by claiming to be transgendered? I'm quite serious here. This is another of those underlying assumptions that you've made but not supported. Again, I hope you can understand why I'm not willing to just assume you're correct.
I hope you're right about this but, personally, I think you're being naive. I think you are in danger of underestimating the nature and creative cleverness of some predators.
Naivete has absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm well aware that people who want to do things that break the law can be extremely inventive in coming up with ways they think will let them get away with it. But that doesn't justify your assumption that other people will let them. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one of these sexual predators you keep talking about does some inappropriate things, like exposing themselves to a little girl, while talking about how being transgendered means it isn't anything to worry about. I can tell you quite plainly that if I heard of something like that, I would not
go, "oh, they're transgendered, so that makes it okay".
My response would be more akin to "he's lying about being transgendered". I sincerely doubt most people would let a claim like that get in the way of reporting inappropriate behavior to the police, either. Which is the point I keep trying to make. It wouldn't be about the bathroom they were in or whether they were transgendered, it would be about the things they did while in the bathroom. Take that story you posted a few days ago about the guy who claimed to be transgendered in order to get into women's shelters to commit sexual assaults - and who was jailed indefinitely as a result of those acts (and his history of committing sexual crimes). You posted it to underscore your concerns...when this case actually shows that claiming to be transgendered isn't going to excuse people who try to use it as cover to commit crimes.
There are two things that seriously bother me about the attitude that because some people will abuse laws like those, they therefore shouldn't be laws and there should instead be laws forbidding it at all as a precautionary measure. First, it's essentially profiling transgendered people as being more likely to commit sexual crimes; instead of presuming innocence, you presume guilt. Second, it presents a false dilemma; either you have to forbid transgender access to a restroom, or else you're allowing sexual predators access and giving them a ready-made excuse to use to avoid the consequences.
As the situation I just posted shows, the latter is certainly false - the man in question certainly did not avoid the consequences for his actions. And while the former is not false, I would argue that the danger for having laws which forbid access is greater, because many openly transgendered people will not appear (clothing, mannerisms, appearance) to be their birth sex. As one of Jag's examples showed, laws like this will be applied subjectively, if at all, and some people who have every right to be in a particular bathroom will end up being removed, forcibly if necessary, while people who can pass as that gender will be ignored.
The point is that this is a trade-off; either way, you're going to end up with people getting harmed. All policies have drawbacks and can cause unintended harm. So the question needs to be which causes less
harm. And to be blunt, that isn't a question that can be answered yet.
I maintain my position here. I am not claiming that the access laws will override other laws that are still in place. I've never said such a thing. The other laws will still be available as a deterrent. What I am suggesting is that it will be more difficult to make a charge of public indecency.
Which you have yet to provide evidence for. The example you cited where a man walked into the women's locker room at a Seattle pool doesn't count, because apparently he walked in wearing board shorts (a type of swimwear) and a shirt, and the only thing he actually took off is his shirt. In short, he doesn't appear to have committed indecent exposure, and furthermore didn't actually identify himself as transgender, simply claiming that the law now allowed him to do that, even though it didn't.http://www.kgw.com/news/local/washington/seattle-man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45248512
- I checked several other news stories, and none of them contradicted this one.
It would have been more accurate for you to say "some creepy men you're so worried about" rather than suggesting all creepy men behave the same way. The fact that many men have used disguises is indicative of the fact that different men will use different means.
Please don't nitpick. It's not helpful especially when you use it to imply things about me that aren't actually true.
It would be more helpful to validate your point if you could simply describe the means for determining if someone is a transgender imposter or not in a womens-only space. If he is an imposter and is there for viewing pleasure only, he is invading the privacy of the women present and violating the law. How are you going to determine that?
It isn't that hard to figure out. A person who is there for a legitimate purpose will tend to focus on completing the business they went in there for. For example, someone who needs to use the restroom will do so, (usually) wash and dry their hands, and then leave; they might engage other people in casual conversation, but they won't, for example, attempt to peer at other people inside or expose themselves to others. Someone who isn't in there for a legitimate purpose will act oddly by comparison. For example, trying to peek through gaps surrounding a toilet stall, or using a camera for the same reason. So that's one way to identify someone who's there for a good reason versus a bad one. I trust that's sufficient?
While not directly related to the issue of criminal sexual misconduct, why is that the NCAA, for example, require that transgender students provide evidence that they are undergoing hormone therapy before they are allowed to participate in the athletic programs provided for the gender they identify with? Why is that? One of the primary reasons is to prevent M->F imposters from participating in female sports programs and dominating. It's also done to keep imposters from taking roster spots from women who would have otherwise had the opportunity....the very athletic opportunities women have been fighting for. The nice thing about this is that is also prohibits an imposter from gaining access to the locker room and other facilities or spaces designated for women....although I do not believe that is stated as a reason. The point in me bringing this up to illustrate that even the NCAA recognized how an imposter could blur the lines of separation.
And, more to the point, it also illustrates how the NCAA dealt with it in an effective way rather than simply saying, "nope, we have to ban it entirely". I could see their solution working for places with locker rooms, for example.
As an aside, I find it rather perplexing that the college and professional sports prohibits the use of human growth hormone but allows hormone therapy for transgenders.
Because the former is used to gain an advantage over other competitors, while the latter is not. It's a matter of fair play, in other words.
Here is another example. It is my understanding that in Californian, prior to AB 1266, both San Francisco and Los Angeles schools required that a transgender's identity be consistently and exclusively asserted at school. Why would they have such rules in place? Because they too recognized the risk of imposters who may wish to gain access to spaces that were designated as female-only or male-only spaces. School policy alsoo required that students have access to single stall gender nuetral restrooms if privacy was a concern. So here again, you have two very large school districts who, for awhile at least, recognized that an imposter could blur the lines of separation and abuse the priveleges being afforded to authentic transgender students.
I'm not sure why you keep posting examples which undercut your own points. First the NCAA thing, and now this. Both of them serve as ways in which you can tell if someone's gender identity doesn't match their biological sex. So I honestly have to ask why you asked me to provide an example by which you could tell someone who was transgendered apart from someone who just wants thrills, when you already knew of two.
I'll point to one last story to illustrate my point. You may be familair with this one. An ABC newsman named Don Ennis showed up to work one day wearing a balck dress and a wig. He informed everyone that he was transgender and changed his name to Dawn. He then began using spaces designated for females. Sometime later, I don't recall how long it was, he announced that his transgender bout was the result of some sort of amnesia that made him believe it was 1999 and that he was a woman. He is back to being a man....after, of course, he gained access to womens facilties. You see how convenient this whole escapade could be for someone who claims one day he is transgender and get into a space reserved for women and then the next day he is back to being a guy. "oops, not sure what happened there. I woke up last week feeling like a woman but today I don't."
I'd never heard of it, actually. But if he claimed to have amnesia, then that could have been medically verified by a doctor. If it wasn't, it suggests he was lying, in which case he could be fired and/or arrested. Furthermore, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to ask him to show that he'd been seeing a doctor regarding being transgendered (since in order to undergo HRT, you have to have a doctor's authorization due to hormones being controlled substances); if he hadn't, that would also suggest he was lying. To the best of my knowledge, someone can't just claim out of the blue that they're transgendered; they have to see a doctor for some time (I think two years) before they can start undergoing HRT, for example. And more to the point, they can't just go, "oops, I don't feel that way anymore" and expect to get away with it, simply because the process of changing your sex is not something to be taken lightly.
You're right. They don't care if they abide by societal norms or not. They only care about getting caught which is central to the point I have been making all along. No disguise needed any longer for a guy who wants to gain access to a women-only space to indulge his pervy pleasure of watching women in various stages of undress. I believe it's called voyeurism and most women are not real excited about being the subject.
Leaving aside the fact that transgendered people want to dress, look, and act the part of the sex they're trying to present, do you seriously think women are just going to blithely change clothes in front of someone who looks male? Because that's what would be required for your scenario above to happen. It isn't a reasonable conclusion, in other words, despite what you may think.
Part of any legitimate planning process is to create potential scenarios to minimize glitches and other defects that would have otherwise not been considered. That's what I am doing here.....considering possible ways for predators and voyeurs to exploit the law. The Christopher Holmbrook story I linked to earlier in the thread is a very good example of what I am talking about.
Not to sound rude, but a legitimate planning process doesn't just consider negative scenarios, they come up with ways to deal with them as well. So far, you've done the former, but have basically ignored the necessity of doing the latter. Even you've admitted that the one 'solution' you've come up with so far isn't feasible. You have to come up with actual workable solutions rather than just pointing out problems before you can effectively plan.
This should have already been done by our wonderful political representatives on both sides of the debate. Not AFTER the law went into effect.
Ideally, you'd analyze all the positive and negative factors in advance, then craft a law that strikes the best balance between them, but that's not always possible. Furthermore, due to the nature of human heuristic biases, it's not always possible to properly foresee problems; supporters of something will often downplay problems, while detractors will play them up. We're seeing that to some degree here in this topic. There's no such thing as a perfect no-risk policy, either; no matter what you do, there will be unforeseen problems and risks that pop up. Sometimes, you just have to let things play out and see how they work in practice, preferably on a small scale, before instituting them on a large scale. That's kind of what's happening with these laws - some places are instituting more permissive access laws, while others are instituting more restrictive ones. As a result, we can see whether we should lean more towards permissiveness or restrictiveness.
The fact that you aren't even disputing what would have happened five years ago (as I laid out) is indicative of the fact that you are still failing to fully comprehend my point. Furthermore, while your assertion that a true transgender person may be much more careful and respectful towards those around him/her might be true, that is not likely to be the case in all situations...and it certainly isn't going to help law enforcement weed out the fakes. It's really an irrelevant point you are making.
Ahem, no. I do in fact understand the point you're making; it's just that I don't agree with it. So please stop trying to tell me that I'm not comprehending your point simply because I still disagree with it.
And in point of fact, I really didn't think much of your laid-out example. I've just found that being really blunt about my opinions regarding your posts tends to sidetrack the discussion, which I'm trying to minimize so as to keep things more or less on subject. For example, you talked about a guy waggling his genitals in front of a woman's face would have gotten him in trouble (either by being slapped or in legal trouble), but what do you think would happen to a guy waggling his genitals in front of another guy's face? Basically, the same thing would have happened - he would have gotten hit, or else been called out on indecent exposure.
Besides from which, you're still not acknowledging the point I keep trying to make. What makes you think that someone will be able to get away with things like that just by claiming to be transgendered? You've given no reason to believe that; all of the examples you've given have either been people getting in legal trouble, or getting called out for doing something. Please either give examples - actual examples that exist in reality, not hypotheticals, because you're not the only one who knows how to work with hypotheticals, and we'll get nowhere if we focus on those - to support your argument that people will be able to get away with things like indecent exposure by claiming to be transgendered.
It would have been helpful if you would have answered some of the questions I asked.
I'll be honest here, I thought I was answering your questions. This is the first time you've so much as mentioned that you thought I wasn't. Please direct me to the questions you're referring to.
This isn't making sense. What does the alibi part have to do with having an understanding about what it means to be transgendered? Could you please elaborate a bit on this so maybe I have a better idea what you are getting at.
Having a better understanding of what it means to be transgendered means that you'll be able to understand that these alibis you've been referring to are ones that simply would not be used by transgendered people. I suppose it's marginally possible that a few would, but based on what I've learned I'd find it exceedingly unlikely that any given transgendered person would. For example, there's no reason at all to believe that a transgendered person is ever going to show off their genitals and talk about how they have a right to be in the bathroom anyway, simply because transgendered people are so uncomfortable with the fact that their biological sex doesn't match their gender identity.