.
From: Family Policy Institute of WA <info@fpiw.org>
Subject: College Okays Naked Man in Girls Locker. Really.
Date: Friday, November 2, 2012, 4:21 PM
College Okays Naked Man in Girls Locker. Really.
[Excerpts from the] Executive Director
In a story that could foreshadow future developments should Washington voters approve Referendum 74, a story out of Evergreen State College reveals some of the consequences of attempting to eradicate the significance of gender differences.
According to a letter from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which can be found here, Olympia parents are concerned over the use of a woman’s locker room by an Evergreen [man] who [dresses] as a woman.
Students from Capital High School and Olympia High School, as well as children with Evergreen Swim Club and Aquatics Academy regularly use Evergreen’s pool and locker rooms. Most of these students are minors, and range from ages 6 to 18.
Indecent Exposure
“Colleen” Francis
On several occasions recently, these children saw a naked man in the woman’s locker room sauna who was displaying his male genitalia. The children saw him through the sauna’s glass door, which allowed him a plain view of the young girls while they were changing.
Student’s notified their coach, who notified authorities, who discovered that the person in question was an Evergreen student named “Colleen” Francis, 45.
Evergreen State College has indicated that Francis’ use of the women’s locker room is protected by its non-discrimination policy, which protects people on the basis of gender identity. That means that because Francis wants to be treated as a woman, the school will give him the same access to the women’s locker facility as actual women, even if it makes children, who have no idea about gender expression or identity issues, very uncomfortable.
Understanding that this situation is making children uncomfortable and parents angry, the school did attempt to create an accommodation. Did they ask Francis to understand the uniqueness of the situation and explain that the courteous thing to do is be naked somewhere else?
No.
Instead, Evergreen has made curtains available to any women who would prefer not to dress in the presence of a naked man while in the women’s locker room.
I wish was making this up.
While this appears to represents an obvious violation of Washington’s indecent exposure law, RCW 9A.88.010, Evergreen has refused to take action and local prosecutors have refused to enforce the law.
In doing so, they have unilaterally carved an exception into Washington’s indecent exposure law by stating that it is not only ok for men to expose themselves to young children while claiming to be a woman, it is discrimination to prevent it.
Can’t imagine any ways this might cause problems.
In fact, one of the more remarkable parts of this story is that Francis alleged discrimination when asked to leave the locker room.
While this does feel like an opposite world moment, we should not be entirely shocked by this development. After all, Washington is about to vote on whether to make marriage genderless. In doing so, we would be taking the formal position that men and women have no material differences between them that are worth recognizing in relationships.
Once we decide that gender is meaningless in relationships, the idea that men and women would be required to get naked in separate places becomes less obvious as well. After all, separate is not equal.
This is precisely what happened in Massachusetts after marriage was redefined there. The new legislative priority was a bill affectionately known as the “bathroom bill” which protected the rights of men dressed as women to use women’s public restrooms.
It can get worse, folks. And it looks like in Olympia, it may already have.
The Family Policy Institute of Washington is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting public policy that recognizes the significance and sanctity of the family in Washington State.
This slippery slope argument is a total sidebar fallacy. There is no reason to believe same sex marriage will lead to bathroom anarchy.
Right. By the same reasoning there is no reason to believe that spilling water leads to wet floors… or throwing gasoline on a fire might be dangerous.
There IS NO “slippery slope” argument. It is a direct descent. If you allow people to drop large rocks on to a moving freeway from an overpass, they will land on the cars and eventually people will get killed. No “slippery slope.” If you drop bombs out of an airplane on urban populations, they will explode and do damage. No “slippery slope.” We are not talking about a gradual, chain-of-reaction change, but an immediate and direct one. If you say that government cannot recognize gender differences the direct and immediate outcome is, both, gay marriage and co-ed bathrooms. No “slippery slope.”
You see, directly before you, incontrovertible results of the gay rights revolution… and persist in dissimulation. “Black is white, up is down, good is evil.”
And this is the condemnation: that light is come into the world but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.
This is merely the creeping incrementalism promoted by Alinskyites. Make everything odd seem like the new “normal” and demonize those who oppose it.
Wow one guy MIGHT be trying to pose as a transsexual to see girls change, better legislate!
Did you even read the article, Kyle? There is no “MIGHT” about it. Mr. Francis’ status is not in question. He IS a transsexual, a man pretending to be a woman. And whether or not his intention involves voyeurism is irrelevant. He IS violating the girls’ modesty and they DO have a right to protect it. He IS violating indecent exposure statutes the police have an obligation to enforce. And there is no “MIGHT” about the legal status, either. There is no new legislation suggested. His acts are already illegal.
We suggest that before you use your keyboard to mock others you engage your brain.
Seems like Evergreen is violating the nondiscriminatory rights of all the FEMALES who use the female locker room by letting this biological man use the female locker room.
It is different than the use of a bathroom. In a women’s bathroom, all uncovering of private parts takes place in a closed stall. In a men’s bathroom, one can urinate publicly or privately. Although a biologically female transsexual would not be equipped to use the urinal, and would have to have the stalls in private. But in a locker room, private parts are typically shown to everyone concerned. Granted, you can sometimes have bathrooms with no privacy at all, and locker rooms with individual facilities, but there is normally this difference.
I actually found gay rights organization websites, which said the most appropriate thing to do in this situation, is to provide private individual changing areas, and private individual showers. They were more concerned about the rights of the transsexual individual, but it would seem the rights of the general public are equally important.
So seriously, Evergreen should have some private changing and showering areas, and require transsexuals to use them in cases of gender identity confusion. But what they are doing now is WRONG.