A trans-identified male residing in Vernon, British Columbia, has been given sympathetic coverage by the press after two teenage girls reported that he had exposed his genitals in their presence while using the women’s change room of a local recreation center.
“It makes me feel like a second-class woman,” Wilson said - Nope, you're not a second-class woman at all, you are in fact a man. It is absolute narcissism to think that your rights take precedence over the rights and safety of others. Those 14 year old teens were clearly uncomfortable but let's prioritise the 6'2" male and dismiss their need for feeling safe in a space where they need to change.
The fact is this man, even after castration, is still a man. It would be honest to refer to him as a eunuch. Calling him a woman is dishonest. Biology matters.
So the shock and fear of 14 year-old girls at seeing a naked, overweight, elderly 6'2" "very male" male in their changing room should be discounted, due to uncertainty about the state of his genitals?
Intimidation of women and children by men is a power play enabled in this case by the legal fiction that this man is a "woman".
In mentioning that he'd been beaten as a child by his father, he's also making full use of an extra excuse to take revenge on children for his father's behaviour.
Flashing -- by men with intact genitals -- is now taken much more seriously as a warning of probable escalation to future sexual assault. (And this naked man's apparent lack of genitals might be shocking in itself, to an observer of any age.)
His intimidation of 14 year-old girls should be taken as a warning of future more serious assault.
As I've told my trans widow story, of discovering my husband had a secret crossdressing life when our sons were 1 and 4, then went through a harrowing and financially crushing divorce, I've often mentioned the whippings his father dealt to him. Spanking is a pseudo-sexual act, especially when the spanker takes the child's pants down. The malpractice of the entire mental health field comes clear as more of these psychiatrically ill men reveal their childhoods, along with their fetish. Thanks for bringing these repulsive but illuminating stories out, Genevieve!
A man who exposes himself is a criminal in normal times, and he would be in jail except for those warped politicians and their voters who are titillated by passing laws to allow deviant criminals to do whatever they want, like the criminal doctors and surgeons injecting and cutting up children. I believe "trans" has exposed criminally bent people who live normally in society but have now found an outlet to mess with other people by promoting "trans" and voting for politicians who will pass laws to allow criminals to run rampant in society, while they watch and enjoy the show. The deviant internet sites were not enough for the voyeurs, they wanted to see this deviance functioning in daily life.
What a sick, sick man. I cannot wait for the day that all of this wrong-headed legislation is finally repealed across the West and these men are required to get the psychiatric help they truly need.
Amusingly, the originally article was careful not to include a picture of 'A-man-da'. However, it did include cropped photos of Lia Thomas in a desperate attempt to make him look feminine. Can't wait for the day when this whole house of cards tumbles down.
Well said, thank you , but I am a absolutists, I know an unpopular stance. This one issue is the only one that there can not be blurring of the lines and that is the biology, sex matters, the impossibility of transing into anything. All other political, moral etc issues I can generally see both sides.
So, the comment about him being a "second class woman" is ridiculous. And the photos are weird, although I think maybe we need more info to really judge his intent there. But, honestly, the fact that he apparently doesn't have a penis is pretty compelling in this case. What, exactly, were these teens "exposed" to that made them so uncomfortable? Now, I'm not saying in any way that the cosmetic procedures used in transition surgery make real genitals. However, if a man's penis and testes have been removed, he has no male genitals to expose. He doesn't have female genitals, but he doesn't have male ones anymore either. And I do 100% believe that there have been some cases where people have seen a trans person in a locker room or bathroom and saw a political opportunity or perhaps just an opportunity to get attention and be the victim and they report something that didn't really happen, or didn't happen that way at all. In this political climate, we can't make the mistake of assuming that every single report of trans indecent exposure is credible. In this case, I think we need more information before deciding. The fact that he posts digitally altered photos of his face and neck, obviously fully clothed, is weird but not particularly relevant to the credibility of this accusation. Jumping on every accusation without vetting it does no favors to any cause. I'd actually really like to see the teens or the uncle respond to Wilson's claims about his anatomy, and I would like to know more about exactly what he did to make them so uncomfortable.
Also, assuming that sexual assault survivors will freak out at the sight of any naked man is ridiculous. There are thousands of survivors who work in medical fields or other areas where they see naked men up close all the time. Yes, some survivors, especially right after the assault, may find the sight of a penis to be traumatic. But the majority do not, or they are able to overcome that reaction with time. There are thousands of heterosexual survivors who are able to have active sex lives. Point being, context matters greatly here. A naked man is not traumatic for me-what is traumatic is anyone, in any state of dress, who approaches or especially who touches me in an aggressive or overpowering manner. Rape is not traumatic because of the sex itself, rape is traumatic because of the power, control and aggression used in the sexual act. So, the biggest triggers for most survivors include highly individualized reminders of the attack (certain colors, sounds, smells... Reminders of the setting or of individual traits of the attacker), and displays of aggression or threatening behavior. Please don't paint all survivors with a blanket statement that they cannot ever be exposed to male genetalia again. It's ridiculous and untrue and ignores the dynamics of an assault situation.
I don't know why anyone would take the word of a man who is clearly mentally unstable and is lying about who he is - especially when the safety of children is involved.
Not completely sure whether Jen is a troll, but she (assuming 'Jen' is a 'she') makes comments that are almost always trollish, along the lines of: 'Of course, I don't believe that, but if a person did believe that then here are 50 excellent arguments for his belief. Please waste your time reading and rebutting them.' If not a troll, she's definitely a sealion, whose lengthy and labyrinthine comments betray her insincerity. Pretty sure she is a bad actor just messin' with the terfs. Best ignored in my opinion.
Wow, so Luiz you've read two of my comment threads and assume you know everything? Brilliant. I notice you suggest everyone ignore me, yet you took the time to respond!
You seem pretty cynical, and probably won't believe this since you seem to have great difficulty believing anyone might genuinely think about an issue differently than you do. But actually, I don't think men belong in women's facilities. I just think that a sloppy, poorly-researched article or argument actually makes the entire cause less credible to everyone except those who are so ideologically blinded that they don't even care about whether the "facts" they share are actually true, so long as they prove their point.
Further, if I were trolling, I would simply attack the people involved or insult their intelligence, not provide detailed facts and explanations. I would respond more like you do-"you must not be sincere, because you don't think like me, and instead of explaining why I disagree or refuting the facts you give I'm just going to call you stupid and then ignore you."
Her contributions are thought-out and worthwhile - the best kind of constructive disagreement. She makes her arguments with care and nuance and doesn't at all engage in trollish behavior that I've seen.
There is a difference between taking the word of someone, and asking the other party to clarify their statements further based on the statements of the first. Also, it's pretty easy to verify whether someone has in fact had their genitals surgically removed-all that need be done is request to see their medical records. Which, again, is not the same as taking their word as fact.
Ask for medical records? Sorry that is just not viable. If no man were allowed in women’s spaces then voila no need to ever ask if he had his junk removed. And no it still does not make him a women. Dear lord, let’s stop finding excuses. people lie all the time and a man claiming to be a women is the biggest lie! Can you imagine 14 year olds stopping to ask this man if he indeed has had surgery. If he was a large as described and at his age his junk may well have been hidden. Never mind, a man will always be a man. Not up to us to figure it out.
Medical records are confidential. Even a parent has no right to know what operations have been performed on their offspring. Doctors are not like they were in the day when the “family” doctor knew all the members of a family. Now people are just numbers, with all their data stored who knows where in the clouds. A male being a woman is a “legal fiction” a fancy new word for a lie.
Indeed they are. However, at least in the US, a patient can grant access to anyone the patient chooses simply by signing a form that is available at every medical office. Not to mention, most patients have online access to their records and can provide them to whomever they like without going through the doctor at all.
In 2024, the only reason asking for medical records is "not viable" is if one is too lazy to do so, or thinks the records might show something that will undermine the point they're trying to make. Wilson is the one who mentioned his surgery in the press, he doesn't seem shy about speaking to reporters even about medical issues. So, if he refuses to provide his records, that's valuable information. If he chooses to do so, here are at least 4 ways that could happen without the reporter ever leaving their computer: Wilson has copies that he sends, Wilson has access-like most patients do these days-to an online portal and provides either his login or screenshots, Wilson requests paper records from his provider and forwards them, or Wilson signs a release of information with one of his providers, after which the reporter, armed with the release, gets the records from the provider.
And, I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm simply saying that at best this is lazy reporting, and at worst it is a very avoidable own-goal that gives TRAs yet more evidence that "see, we really are being persecuted and you can't listen to anyone who disagrees with us because look, they lie!" This article specifically said Wilson "exposed himself" to the girls in the locker room. That phrasing is generally understood to mean that a person, usually a male, displays his naked genitals in a sexual manner to someone who is not a consensual sexual partner. If Wilson no longer has any genitals to expose, that matters to the accuracy of this story. If the girls weren't able to see his genital region (not a bad thing!) then he clearly wasn't "exposed" in the manner implied. Or, he's lying, which should be easy enough for him to disprove should he chose, and if he refuses then that is rather suspicious.
For the record, I don't think men should be in women's facilities, especially when underage girls are allowed in them alone. If the article had simply said "there was a man in the women's locker room" or "this facility allows men in women's facilities" I would have no issues. But the author took it further and specifically claimed Wilson exposed himself, and Wilson has a rather compelling argument that that couldn't have been the case. Which then undermines the argument against him being there in the first place.
While I agree that site of naked body should not cause people to melt down in horror, I believe the simple issue here is that a castrated male was in female change room. He is and never will be a female, period. He a grown up man that unsettled the young girls. How in heavens name are they to know that it’s ok, cause he is a “good trans”. Remember, we have gut reactions for a reason . It is rudimentary in our evolution. It protects us from actual and or perceived danger. Not saying this dude had ill intent, but how are the girls to know this? He absolutely knows that his behaviour is having the correct response from the girls. He may even enjoy this.
Thank you for stating this clearly. I agree the gut reaction in girls is there for a reason. I remember it well when I first saw a man dressed as a woman. He came far too close for comfort, even through a hatch in a wall. If I had met him in a changing room I would have felt traumatised. Some of us are sensitive people. We need protection!
I'm sorry, I probably should have split my comment into two. The comments about sexual assault survivors not universally finding the mere sight of a penis traumatic were in response to another comment. The point that I would have liked a response from the accusers to Wilson's statement was based on the original article. I recognize that that was probably unclear and confusing.
You are absolutely right that gut reactions are important and exist for a reason. Having said that, people and especially children can be trained and influenced to find benign things frightening. So, while it's important to pay attention to a gut reaction, it's also important that we learn to discern how to respond to them. For the record, I don't think men with intact male genitals belong in a women's locker room. However, Wilson's letter to the editor that was linked from the article noted that he has heard from masculine-appearing females who have been mistaken for males in bathrooms and locker rooms and harassed. While I have no idea if he's actually heard from such people, it's also entirely plausible. I think all of us have had the experience of seeing a tall person with a muscular build and low-ish voice and wondering if they are male or female. I know I did well before trans was a household word. Since then, I've also seen numerous individuals and wondered if they were trans, or just naturally androgenous. Intersex conditions are real, and while rare, they are common enough that pretty much everyone will meet someone who has such a condition (of various kinds and varying degrees of severity) at some point in our lives. I recall reading an interview with Castor Semolina (I may have butchered the spelling of the last name), a world-class sprinter who was born female and has identified as female since birth, but who has recently been disqualified from the sport because she was found to have naturally abnormally high testosterone levels. While it hasn't been publically confirmed, presumably she has an intersex condition. She is quite tall, very athletic, and does appear quite masculine. She was talking in the interview about having been mistaken for a man in various public settings. Such things do happen, and are not so vanishingly rare that we can say the average person won't encounter such a situation. So, we need to teach our children-and ourselves-to be more vigilant when we get that gut reaction, but also not to assume danger simply because we see someone who appears masculine in a female restroom or locker room. We need to teach them what is and is not acceptable behavior in such settings, what to do if they encounter unacceptable behavior, what to do it they feel nervous or uncomfortable based on someone's appearance but not their behavior, and so on. It is not right to teach kids to ignore their gut, but it is also not right to teach them that they should expect danger based solely on someone's outward appearance. And it is insulting to women and teens to suggest that they are unable to tell the difference between someone who looks odd to them but is using the locker room in its intended manner, and someone who-regardless of their appearance-is ACTING in an unusual or inappropriate manner. I have often worried that, given how politicized and vitriolic this issue has become on both sides, an androgenous or masculine-appearing female will be mistaken for a male in a women's restroom and harassed or even assaulted. These girls went to a trusted adult with their concerns, which was exactly the right action in this situation. My questions are about whether the adult in question is accurately representing what happened, or is making assumptions unsupported by the facts or actually embellishing the facts in order to fit a narrative. I'm not assuming that's the case, but again, would have liked to see a response to Wilson's statements.
Caster Semenya is a man with undescended testicles, but his genes are XY. He's now fathered two children. He was considered a girl in childhood because his genitals were internal. His bone structure and musculature gave him a great advantage over the women who naively tried to compete with him. He still clings to the myth of his femaleness as it must make him feel comfortable about all the women runners whose careers he destroyed.
Thank you for the correction! I had not read the ruling closely enough to catch that piece which was quite well buried-mentioned only once in the ruling. In fairness, I'm not sure what I would do if, after decades of being told I was female and appearing to be female externally, I learned I had XY genes-i might have trouble suddenly considering myself a male, too. (For the record, I do think that it is right that he not race as a female).
In any case, I clearly picked a poor example, but my original point remains-i think most of us have had experiences in which we've been at least a little uncertain of someone's gender. And I'm old enough to remember having experiences like that way before trans exploded in popularity. Height, weight, shoulder spread, breast size and shape, voice, throat contour, jaw shape and so on occur on a spectrum (sorry to use that word, but in this case it applies) in people of both genders. There are inevitably going to be people who have the chromosomes of one gender but whose appearance in most of those categories hews closer to the typical appearance of the other gender-and I'm not talking about people with DSDs, just people with typical genetics and development but less typical appearance.
Particularly among women, it is also not uncommon-and was not even three to five decades ago-for women who have absolutely no issues with their gender identity to wear hairstyles and clothing that are generally considered masculine. If such a woman happens to be quite tall, with a larger frame, and she doesn't speak or has a voice that is in the mid or low ranges, people may sometimes wonder if she isn't actually a man. If I encounter such an individual in a restroom or locker room, my initial response might be to take a second look and wonder if she should be there, but unless she is EXTREMELY masculine appearing I am not going to march out to the manager's office and demand to know if she is really a woman if her actions do not cause a similar gut reaction. In other words, first impressions based solely on appearance are a tool, not a finished product. We need to evaluate people based on their behavior. (This doesn't apply to naked men with visible penises in women's facilities. For the time being, I'm going to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt that he really has had his external genitals removed, as that seems a pretty gutsy and stupid thing to lie about. I'm solely referring here to people without penises or testicles, or to people whose genitals aren't visible.)
People with penises? You mean men? They're the only people with penises. Testicles or not, Wilson is still all man: from his hair patterns, to his prostate, to his musculoskeletion , to his fast tick fibers, to his height and breadth, to his XY genes. Whether or not the girls saw his penis they knew he was a man.
To you these young girls were seeking attention. Where have we heard that before so many times? In police stations when females report sexual assault, for one.
A male in the women's changing room is wrong. The girls know this no matter what his genitalia resembled.
His mental health is suffering, but he gets a pass to spread it to vulnerable girls. Pure male entitlement. Your defense of this man is puzzling on a site so specifically dedicated to uncovering trans chicanery.
I didn't say they were seeking attention. I just said I would like more information, and that a poorly reported story, or one that is left unverified and later revealed to have big holes or major missing context (not that this has happened here, but it's possible) can be a big, and avoidable, black eye to the overall cause.
Also, there is a big difference between stating that false allegations do exist and we should investigate allegations, and accusing all victims of lying. Our court system shouldn't discount reports of sexual assault, but neither should we punish the accused based solely on the accusation without getting their side of the story. Which is why there is an investigative process and then a court process in sexual assault criminal cases-in all criminal cases.
The "poorly reported stories" tend to be when MEN have committed sex crimes are reported as being WOMEN. Stop excusing these men and victim blaming, you're making yourself look stupid now. Educate yourself. #thesearenotourcrimes
"Educate yourself." - wow, you sound exactly like the woke TRAs who constantly tell everyone to "do better", "educate yourself", "do the work" etc.. This is everything we shouldn't be, and everything that will cause us to lose. You don't have to agree with everything Jen writes to appreciate her sincerity and the thought she's put into the issue. It merits a more reasoned response than merely calling her stupid.
“It makes me feel like a second-class woman,” Wilson said - Nope, you're not a second-class woman at all, you are in fact a man. It is absolute narcissism to think that your rights take precedence over the rights and safety of others. Those 14 year old teens were clearly uncomfortable but let's prioritise the 6'2" male and dismiss their need for feeling safe in a space where they need to change.
The fact is this man, even after castration, is still a man. It would be honest to refer to him as a eunuch. Calling him a woman is dishonest. Biology matters.
So the shock and fear of 14 year-old girls at seeing a naked, overweight, elderly 6'2" "very male" male in their changing room should be discounted, due to uncertainty about the state of his genitals?
Intimidation of women and children by men is a power play enabled in this case by the legal fiction that this man is a "woman".
In mentioning that he'd been beaten as a child by his father, he's also making full use of an extra excuse to take revenge on children for his father's behaviour.
Flashing -- by men with intact genitals -- is now taken much more seriously as a warning of probable escalation to future sexual assault. (And this naked man's apparent lack of genitals might be shocking in itself, to an observer of any age.)
His intimidation of 14 year-old girls should be taken as a warning of future more serious assault.
As I've told my trans widow story, of discovering my husband had a secret crossdressing life when our sons were 1 and 4, then went through a harrowing and financially crushing divorce, I've often mentioned the whippings his father dealt to him. Spanking is a pseudo-sexual act, especially when the spanker takes the child's pants down. The malpractice of the entire mental health field comes clear as more of these psychiatrically ill men reveal their childhoods, along with their fetish. Thanks for bringing these repulsive but illuminating stories out, Genevieve!
Absolutely. Something that is fetish behavior for adults should not be normalize as "discipline" for children of any age.
A man who exposes himself is a criminal in normal times, and he would be in jail except for those warped politicians and their voters who are titillated by passing laws to allow deviant criminals to do whatever they want, like the criminal doctors and surgeons injecting and cutting up children. I believe "trans" has exposed criminally bent people who live normally in society but have now found an outlet to mess with other people by promoting "trans" and voting for politicians who will pass laws to allow criminals to run rampant in society, while they watch and enjoy the show. The deviant internet sites were not enough for the voyeurs, they wanted to see this deviance functioning in daily life.
What a sick, sick man. I cannot wait for the day that all of this wrong-headed legislation is finally repealed across the West and these men are required to get the psychiatric help they truly need.
Our daughters deserve so much better than this.
"God made a mistake, stupid God"
It's a cult
Amusingly, the originally article was careful not to include a picture of 'A-man-da'. However, it did include cropped photos of Lia Thomas in a desperate attempt to make him look feminine. Can't wait for the day when this whole house of cards tumbles down.
https://bnnbreaking.com/society/a-bridge-between-misunderstanding-and-acceptance-amanda-wilsons-story
Well said, thank you , but I am a absolutists, I know an unpopular stance. This one issue is the only one that there can not be blurring of the lines and that is the biology, sex matters, the impossibility of transing into anything. All other political, moral etc issues I can generally see both sides.
So, the comment about him being a "second class woman" is ridiculous. And the photos are weird, although I think maybe we need more info to really judge his intent there. But, honestly, the fact that he apparently doesn't have a penis is pretty compelling in this case. What, exactly, were these teens "exposed" to that made them so uncomfortable? Now, I'm not saying in any way that the cosmetic procedures used in transition surgery make real genitals. However, if a man's penis and testes have been removed, he has no male genitals to expose. He doesn't have female genitals, but he doesn't have male ones anymore either. And I do 100% believe that there have been some cases where people have seen a trans person in a locker room or bathroom and saw a political opportunity or perhaps just an opportunity to get attention and be the victim and they report something that didn't really happen, or didn't happen that way at all. In this political climate, we can't make the mistake of assuming that every single report of trans indecent exposure is credible. In this case, I think we need more information before deciding. The fact that he posts digitally altered photos of his face and neck, obviously fully clothed, is weird but not particularly relevant to the credibility of this accusation. Jumping on every accusation without vetting it does no favors to any cause. I'd actually really like to see the teens or the uncle respond to Wilson's claims about his anatomy, and I would like to know more about exactly what he did to make them so uncomfortable.
Also, assuming that sexual assault survivors will freak out at the sight of any naked man is ridiculous. There are thousands of survivors who work in medical fields or other areas where they see naked men up close all the time. Yes, some survivors, especially right after the assault, may find the sight of a penis to be traumatic. But the majority do not, or they are able to overcome that reaction with time. There are thousands of heterosexual survivors who are able to have active sex lives. Point being, context matters greatly here. A naked man is not traumatic for me-what is traumatic is anyone, in any state of dress, who approaches or especially who touches me in an aggressive or overpowering manner. Rape is not traumatic because of the sex itself, rape is traumatic because of the power, control and aggression used in the sexual act. So, the biggest triggers for most survivors include highly individualized reminders of the attack (certain colors, sounds, smells... Reminders of the setting or of individual traits of the attacker), and displays of aggression or threatening behavior. Please don't paint all survivors with a blanket statement that they cannot ever be exposed to male genetalia again. It's ridiculous and untrue and ignores the dynamics of an assault situation.
I don't know why anyone would take the word of a man who is clearly mentally unstable and is lying about who he is - especially when the safety of children is involved.
Not completely sure whether Jen is a troll, but she (assuming 'Jen' is a 'she') makes comments that are almost always trollish, along the lines of: 'Of course, I don't believe that, but if a person did believe that then here are 50 excellent arguments for his belief. Please waste your time reading and rebutting them.' If not a troll, she's definitely a sealion, whose lengthy and labyrinthine comments betray her insincerity. Pretty sure she is a bad actor just messin' with the terfs. Best ignored in my opinion.
Wow, so Luiz you've read two of my comment threads and assume you know everything? Brilliant. I notice you suggest everyone ignore me, yet you took the time to respond!
You seem pretty cynical, and probably won't believe this since you seem to have great difficulty believing anyone might genuinely think about an issue differently than you do. But actually, I don't think men belong in women's facilities. I just think that a sloppy, poorly-researched article or argument actually makes the entire cause less credible to everyone except those who are so ideologically blinded that they don't even care about whether the "facts" they share are actually true, so long as they prove their point.
Further, if I were trolling, I would simply attack the people involved or insult their intelligence, not provide detailed facts and explanations. I would respond more like you do-"you must not be sincere, because you don't think like me, and instead of explaining why I disagree or refuting the facts you give I'm just going to call you stupid and then ignore you."
Her contributions are thought-out and worthwhile - the best kind of constructive disagreement. She makes her arguments with care and nuance and doesn't at all engage in trollish behavior that I've seen.
There is a difference between taking the word of someone, and asking the other party to clarify their statements further based on the statements of the first. Also, it's pretty easy to verify whether someone has in fact had their genitals surgically removed-all that need be done is request to see their medical records. Which, again, is not the same as taking their word as fact.
Ask for medical records? Sorry that is just not viable. If no man were allowed in women’s spaces then voila no need to ever ask if he had his junk removed. And no it still does not make him a women. Dear lord, let’s stop finding excuses. people lie all the time and a man claiming to be a women is the biggest lie! Can you imagine 14 year olds stopping to ask this man if he indeed has had surgery. If he was a large as described and at his age his junk may well have been hidden. Never mind, a man will always be a man. Not up to us to figure it out.
Medical records are confidential. Even a parent has no right to know what operations have been performed on their offspring. Doctors are not like they were in the day when the “family” doctor knew all the members of a family. Now people are just numbers, with all their data stored who knows where in the clouds. A male being a woman is a “legal fiction” a fancy new word for a lie.
Indeed they are. However, at least in the US, a patient can grant access to anyone the patient chooses simply by signing a form that is available at every medical office. Not to mention, most patients have online access to their records and can provide them to whomever they like without going through the doctor at all.
Accessing medical information bypassing doctors who wrote it is dangerous.
In 2024, the only reason asking for medical records is "not viable" is if one is too lazy to do so, or thinks the records might show something that will undermine the point they're trying to make. Wilson is the one who mentioned his surgery in the press, he doesn't seem shy about speaking to reporters even about medical issues. So, if he refuses to provide his records, that's valuable information. If he chooses to do so, here are at least 4 ways that could happen without the reporter ever leaving their computer: Wilson has copies that he sends, Wilson has access-like most patients do these days-to an online portal and provides either his login or screenshots, Wilson requests paper records from his provider and forwards them, or Wilson signs a release of information with one of his providers, after which the reporter, armed with the release, gets the records from the provider.
And, I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm simply saying that at best this is lazy reporting, and at worst it is a very avoidable own-goal that gives TRAs yet more evidence that "see, we really are being persecuted and you can't listen to anyone who disagrees with us because look, they lie!" This article specifically said Wilson "exposed himself" to the girls in the locker room. That phrasing is generally understood to mean that a person, usually a male, displays his naked genitals in a sexual manner to someone who is not a consensual sexual partner. If Wilson no longer has any genitals to expose, that matters to the accuracy of this story. If the girls weren't able to see his genital region (not a bad thing!) then he clearly wasn't "exposed" in the manner implied. Or, he's lying, which should be easy enough for him to disprove should he chose, and if he refuses then that is rather suspicious.
For the record, I don't think men should be in women's facilities, especially when underage girls are allowed in them alone. If the article had simply said "there was a man in the women's locker room" or "this facility allows men in women's facilities" I would have no issues. But the author took it further and specifically claimed Wilson exposed himself, and Wilson has a rather compelling argument that that couldn't have been the case. Which then undermines the argument against him being there in the first place.
While I agree that site of naked body should not cause people to melt down in horror, I believe the simple issue here is that a castrated male was in female change room. He is and never will be a female, period. He a grown up man that unsettled the young girls. How in heavens name are they to know that it’s ok, cause he is a “good trans”. Remember, we have gut reactions for a reason . It is rudimentary in our evolution. It protects us from actual and or perceived danger. Not saying this dude had ill intent, but how are the girls to know this? He absolutely knows that his behaviour is having the correct response from the girls. He may even enjoy this.
Thank you for stating this clearly. I agree the gut reaction in girls is there for a reason. I remember it well when I first saw a man dressed as a woman. He came far too close for comfort, even through a hatch in a wall. If I had met him in a changing room I would have felt traumatised. Some of us are sensitive people. We need protection!
I'm sorry, I probably should have split my comment into two. The comments about sexual assault survivors not universally finding the mere sight of a penis traumatic were in response to another comment. The point that I would have liked a response from the accusers to Wilson's statement was based on the original article. I recognize that that was probably unclear and confusing.
You are absolutely right that gut reactions are important and exist for a reason. Having said that, people and especially children can be trained and influenced to find benign things frightening. So, while it's important to pay attention to a gut reaction, it's also important that we learn to discern how to respond to them. For the record, I don't think men with intact male genitals belong in a women's locker room. However, Wilson's letter to the editor that was linked from the article noted that he has heard from masculine-appearing females who have been mistaken for males in bathrooms and locker rooms and harassed. While I have no idea if he's actually heard from such people, it's also entirely plausible. I think all of us have had the experience of seeing a tall person with a muscular build and low-ish voice and wondering if they are male or female. I know I did well before trans was a household word. Since then, I've also seen numerous individuals and wondered if they were trans, or just naturally androgenous. Intersex conditions are real, and while rare, they are common enough that pretty much everyone will meet someone who has such a condition (of various kinds and varying degrees of severity) at some point in our lives. I recall reading an interview with Castor Semolina (I may have butchered the spelling of the last name), a world-class sprinter who was born female and has identified as female since birth, but who has recently been disqualified from the sport because she was found to have naturally abnormally high testosterone levels. While it hasn't been publically confirmed, presumably she has an intersex condition. She is quite tall, very athletic, and does appear quite masculine. She was talking in the interview about having been mistaken for a man in various public settings. Such things do happen, and are not so vanishingly rare that we can say the average person won't encounter such a situation. So, we need to teach our children-and ourselves-to be more vigilant when we get that gut reaction, but also not to assume danger simply because we see someone who appears masculine in a female restroom or locker room. We need to teach them what is and is not acceptable behavior in such settings, what to do if they encounter unacceptable behavior, what to do it they feel nervous or uncomfortable based on someone's appearance but not their behavior, and so on. It is not right to teach kids to ignore their gut, but it is also not right to teach them that they should expect danger based solely on someone's outward appearance. And it is insulting to women and teens to suggest that they are unable to tell the difference between someone who looks odd to them but is using the locker room in its intended manner, and someone who-regardless of their appearance-is ACTING in an unusual or inappropriate manner. I have often worried that, given how politicized and vitriolic this issue has become on both sides, an androgenous or masculine-appearing female will be mistaken for a male in a women's restroom and harassed or even assaulted. These girls went to a trusted adult with their concerns, which was exactly the right action in this situation. My questions are about whether the adult in question is accurately representing what happened, or is making assumptions unsupported by the facts or actually embellishing the facts in order to fit a narrative. I'm not assuming that's the case, but again, would have liked to see a response to Wilson's statements.
Caster Semenya is a man with undescended testicles, but his genes are XY. He's now fathered two children. He was considered a girl in childhood because his genitals were internal. His bone structure and musculature gave him a great advantage over the women who naively tried to compete with him. He still clings to the myth of his femaleness as it must make him feel comfortable about all the women runners whose careers he destroyed.
Thank you for the correction! I had not read the ruling closely enough to catch that piece which was quite well buried-mentioned only once in the ruling. In fairness, I'm not sure what I would do if, after decades of being told I was female and appearing to be female externally, I learned I had XY genes-i might have trouble suddenly considering myself a male, too. (For the record, I do think that it is right that he not race as a female).
In any case, I clearly picked a poor example, but my original point remains-i think most of us have had experiences in which we've been at least a little uncertain of someone's gender. And I'm old enough to remember having experiences like that way before trans exploded in popularity. Height, weight, shoulder spread, breast size and shape, voice, throat contour, jaw shape and so on occur on a spectrum (sorry to use that word, but in this case it applies) in people of both genders. There are inevitably going to be people who have the chromosomes of one gender but whose appearance in most of those categories hews closer to the typical appearance of the other gender-and I'm not talking about people with DSDs, just people with typical genetics and development but less typical appearance.
Particularly among women, it is also not uncommon-and was not even three to five decades ago-for women who have absolutely no issues with their gender identity to wear hairstyles and clothing that are generally considered masculine. If such a woman happens to be quite tall, with a larger frame, and she doesn't speak or has a voice that is in the mid or low ranges, people may sometimes wonder if she isn't actually a man. If I encounter such an individual in a restroom or locker room, my initial response might be to take a second look and wonder if she should be there, but unless she is EXTREMELY masculine appearing I am not going to march out to the manager's office and demand to know if she is really a woman if her actions do not cause a similar gut reaction. In other words, first impressions based solely on appearance are a tool, not a finished product. We need to evaluate people based on their behavior. (This doesn't apply to naked men with visible penises in women's facilities. For the time being, I'm going to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt that he really has had his external genitals removed, as that seems a pretty gutsy and stupid thing to lie about. I'm solely referring here to people without penises or testicles, or to people whose genitals aren't visible.)
People with penises? You mean men? They're the only people with penises. Testicles or not, Wilson is still all man: from his hair patterns, to his prostate, to his musculoskeletion , to his fast tick fibers, to his height and breadth, to his XY genes. Whether or not the girls saw his penis they knew he was a man.
Actually, no, I mean men-who are, last I checked, people-worth penises. Not all men have them.
To you these young girls were seeking attention. Where have we heard that before so many times? In police stations when females report sexual assault, for one.
A male in the women's changing room is wrong. The girls know this no matter what his genitalia resembled.
His mental health is suffering, but he gets a pass to spread it to vulnerable girls. Pure male entitlement. Your defense of this man is puzzling on a site so specifically dedicated to uncovering trans chicanery.
I didn't say they were seeking attention. I just said I would like more information, and that a poorly reported story, or one that is left unverified and later revealed to have big holes or major missing context (not that this has happened here, but it's possible) can be a big, and avoidable, black eye to the overall cause.
Also, there is a big difference between stating that false allegations do exist and we should investigate allegations, and accusing all victims of lying. Our court system shouldn't discount reports of sexual assault, but neither should we punish the accused based solely on the accusation without getting their side of the story. Which is why there is an investigative process and then a court process in sexual assault criminal cases-in all criminal cases.
The "poorly reported stories" tend to be when MEN have committed sex crimes are reported as being WOMEN. Stop excusing these men and victim blaming, you're making yourself look stupid now. Educate yourself. #thesearenotourcrimes
"Educate yourself." - wow, you sound exactly like the woke TRAs who constantly tell everyone to "do better", "educate yourself", "do the work" etc.. This is everything we shouldn't be, and everything that will cause us to lose. You don't have to agree with everything Jen writes to appreciate her sincerity and the thought she's put into the issue. It merits a more reasoned response than merely calling her stupid.
🤮🤮🤮