Friday, November 9, 2012

Colleen Francis and The TG Big-Guns Support

Well some of the transgender big-guns are now supporting Mr. Francis in their typical fashion. I bet none of you realized this was a manufactured problem and that nothing bad happened.  I was shocked to find this out, but then again considering the sources nothing either one says could ever really shock me.

Suzan of Women Born Transsexual, should be changed to Transgender, wrote a blog entry titled The Manufactured Colleen Francis Kerfuffle in which those that complained about this "non-issue" were Nazis which is the basic tenet of the intellectually challenged on the far left. In this post she mentioned her now "good friend" Cristan Williams wrote a blog post making the analogy that the Colleen Francis "Kerfuffle"  was akin to the KKK and their attacks and hatred.

Neither of these self appointed defenders of the Transgendered seem to understand a woman's need to feel safe. It is outweighed by the need of the transgendered to force their fantasy onto women.

In Suzan's post she said the following.


Of course  with great predictability the HBS Sonderkommando Unit including Jennifer Usher and Ben-Girl (Elizabeth) lined up to attack Colleen Francis.  Elizabeth even mentioned Fox News as being the credible source (sic) for her information.
It is her way of referencing me to her Nazi allegations and to her pals KKK allegations and inferences. Anyone that opposes their point of view on anything is a bigot because they are always correct and everyone opposing them is wrong. I of course tried to respond because i sure do love tweaking Suzan and her partner Tina because they have zero common sense and are sure to have a snit or delete your comment if it confuses their feeble minds.

My comment which was not posted is as follows.

I am not a HBSer as you say and I stated that Fox News had carried a story about Colleen Francis in order to indicate it was very public and viral. The same report was in multiple reliable and yes liberal sources. The Police Report is undeniable and under the best of circumstances Colleen Francis was in a female Sauna displaying her male junk. Since the other reports state she was seen in the locker room naked the simple fact the University saw fit to put up a curtain barrier leads credence to that story. Even if that characterization is wrong the simple fact Colleen Francis was displaying her junk openly in a female Sauna is just plain wrong. 
Because people may disagree with you on a certain issue does not make them Nazi's or christo-Nazis or any other combinations using Nazi that you might conjure up.
Is Rosanne Barr a Nazi for being appalled over the Colleen Francis incident? She was vilified for her position.
 
It might behoove you to actually do some research on Colleen Francis and her past by simply using Google and actually going past the first page of the results list but then us presumed Christo-Nazis who are most surely NOT the source of the accusations make a convenient target. I find it hilarious you support the Corporate world philosophy of making the accuser the problem just like all men do in rape cases.  
By the way Francis tried to delete a lot of the past musings put onto blogs and fetish websites but thankfully the web is eternal and it can always be found. I wonder why Colleen Francis wanted to delete the past of Colleen Francis' own comments? 
You have no way of separating truth from fiction because you are just too lazy or unwillingly to research Colleen Francis so you resort to your Nazi and probably Klan references next. 
You do not presume Guilt??? You presume I am guilty of being a Nazi or Christo Nazi or was opposed to Prop 8 among many things.  Will I next be presumed to be a Klan follower by you and the rest of your Mao following nitwits? By the way that is not a presumption that is a simple fact.
How ironic you support a self described penis packing "lesbian" that in his own words loves using his "god given" equipment and enjoys sex with women using it. A lesbian with a penis. Now that is an interesting concept. I wonder who has experience with that scenario? 
You might be interested to know it was Colleen Francis that went to the media about being discriminated against and not the parents of the children. Now that is interesting isn't it? Silly nazi me, I wonder why Colleen Francis did that? 
Do you still believe there are no transvestites or cross-dressers under the Transgender umbrella? I was wondering if you defogged your mind on that subject. 
You are correct about one thing.  You will be mentioned for supporting Colleen Francis.

Nothing unusual about this comment.  Heck, I get worse than that by an order of magnitude daily but that is not how it works in Mao Central.

Godwin's Law holds true in this case clearly and these two dipshits are classic violators of this internet adage. It states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".  If appropriate it is not without merit, but inappropriate is most often the tactic of the intellectually challenged and a revered tactic of the far left.

In Suzan's world it is her favorite attack mode and she brings it out immediately. All of this said and our disagreement aside the facts are simple and these fools cannot see it or refuse to see it because sadly I doubt they have either "truly" considered themselves women but that is conjecture on my part.

The simple truth is no male equipped individual should expose themselves in any area where women expect safety and privacy. 99.99 percent of those transgenders in this situation would never think of doing this or I sure hope they would not. I think it is silly to put yourself in this type of situation if you were born transsexual but then the transgendered think it is their right.  It is not!

That event was not a "teaching moment" in Washington and the people that passed the law or regulations never expected this to happen because they were lied to. They made the assumption they were dealing with pre-op transsexuals and never thought this would or should happen. I wonder if they would accept a law that says they may use these spaces but may not deliberately expose themselves to any female of any age?

I read their comments and it suddenly dawned on me that these people have zero experience as women in female only spaces. They have never been in a locker room with only women or girls. They have no experience in the real world of women because they will always be men or "trans" in their mind.  They have accepted themselves as less than a complete woman.  I cannot do that to myself nor will I.

These girls on the swim team did not one thing wrong yet the TG paint their parents and anyone opposed to this insanity with the same broad brush. Roseanne Barr is a Nazi and was accused of it including the requisite transphobic and bigoted. These fools cannot see the misogynistic line that they are clearly following. Blame the victim is classic male strategy in a rape case, to through it back in Cristan Williams face. Blame the whistle blower is classic male dominated Corporate America strategy when they are caught stealing or cheating. It is a classic male tactic that has been used against women since I can remember.

In this case the swimming team is vilified and loses Title IX money but nothing bad happened because some TG got to expose himself. He may or may not of exposed himself in the locker room but the evidence of a curtain that put the girls in a small cubby hole area indicates either he did or Evergreen College knows he did or is afraid he will do it.

This moment was not a "teaching moment". It was a crude moment; it was a rude moment; it was a vile moment; it was an unnecessary moment and any other bad moment you can think about. The irony is it was a good moment for those that oppose these types of transgressions. The outrage is world-wide and very few support this kind of transgression and many comments have stated they never realized such laws could result in such transgressions.

Keep supporting this dipshit and watch and prepare for the backlash.  The only manufactured kerfuffle in this case is the manufactured  lie that Colleen Francis is either transgendered or pre-op transgender or even "trans" anything other than transgressing where he does not belong.

I would tell them to wake up but that would require them to have the intellectual capacity to understand right and wrong. This was wrong, period.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

The dirty little secret about the far left is they are not liberals in the tradition of Tomas Jefferson, they are not liberal in any sense of the say, they are leftest authoritarians. They don't believe in freedom for all, and especially the first amendment. It's their way or the reeducation camp. Cooke goes on to sight the SPLC which has plenty skeletons in it's well packed closet.

I find it sad that most of what Suzan Cook brags about from her past are things no self respecting woman would ever mention in public, and yet in almost a male way she is proud of her sordid past.
I really don't understand her, wish I had met her once that might answer a lot of questions.

The Tee-Gees don't get it, they are cutting their own throats by defending this pervert.

NYF

Nicky said...

This is not a teachable moment. This is the nail that starts the down fall of the TEE-GEE, Pomo Queer community. Colleen Francis just gave Radfems, Trans critical people and those against them all the ammunition they need to revoke what ever rights they may have gained.

Once people start seeing what the TEE-GEE, Pomo Queer community is all about, the sooner people will see how radical and fringe they are. I think the smarter ones will try and distance themselves from the dumber ones.

Nobody Important said...

Perhaps it would help you to understand that in the upside-down world of the umbrella lovers, any transsexual or person with a transsexual past who disagrees with their brand of madness is labeled an HBSer.

I think you're right though... I think Suzan went no further than hearing the buzz among the umbrellaphiles and formed her opinion from that, rather than actually looking at the facts.

I first learned of Colleen Francis from a radical feminist, who included links to Francis' blogs and such, most of which Francis later made an effort to delete. By his own words, Francis is a kinky male transvestite who has no intention of ever parting with his precious tallywacker. It was only after this incident that he made claims of being a pre-op transsexual who cannot yet afford SRS. It's all right there for anyone who cares to look, since like you said, the internet is eternal.

I think it is also quite revealing to see Francis' reaction to the incident in his blog... basically, "F**K YOU". A dude expressing male privilege if I've ever seen one.

Oh, and if anyone cares to go to Francis' wordpress blog (http://colleenbrenna.wordpress.com), you also might look for his post about how he got to participate in a local production of the Vagina Monologues, and in doing do, finding himself in "a community of C*nts". Nice, huh?

Black Swan said...

Cristen said this, "...you won’t see the need to ask RadFems and fundies [an oblique reference to H-BSers here too] to explain exactly how gender equality laws nullify existing laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance." This is the gravamen of her reasoning. So far I don't see a valid responce from you.

I posed a question to Cathy Brennan, an attorney, regarding her post: http://bugbrennan.com/2012/11/03/watching-a-car-accident-in-slow-motion/

She didn't care to even post this....

I'll ask you this same question: Is it prudent for public policy makers to suspent the civil liberties of a specfic group for the criminal behaviour of one member of that group?

B.S.

Elizabeth said...

@B.S.

First off it is neither a civil liberty nor a human right for any person with male genitalia to expose himself in female spaces. It may be a right specified by a misguided law but there was never any belief on the part of the lawmakers that anyone would be foolish enough nor rather sick enough to do this.

These laws were passed primarily because John Q Public was misinformed and assumed the T%G were talking about pre-op transsexuals. In all cases when questioned the transgender denied anything such as this could happen. Now that bit has they claim it was a teaching moment.

I raised a daughter in California and I took her to ballet, swimming, volleyball, softball, and other activities where girls were with other girls. Being who I am if there was such a law I would have been in every meeting area.

Women deserve the right to be safe and safety implies no men in female dressing areas. Obviously you disagree and fortunately less than 1% of the population agrees with you.

What about the human rights and civil liberties of these girls and women. Do they not have the right to have female only dressing areas for safety. One case is one too many but then you are too damn stupid to realize that.

This is not a GLB rights issue. This is not civil rights issue. There is no discrimination here. The only discrimination was against the women and the girls who lost Title IX money which many of us fought for so young girls can have the same chance to play sports as boys do.

All this is is men taking away the rights of women. Thankfully it will soon come to an end because opponents have a poster boy against transgender rights that infringe on the rights of women.

Cristan Williams is an idiot just like and the rest of your crowd. Gender equality laws are a smokescreen because these so-called gender equality laws make women and females unequal in their own dressing areas and deny women the right to privacy.

Now crawl back under the rock you came out from under right next to June Hingle you pathetic loser. I have not forgotten the vile things you said to me so just go away asshole.

Anonymous said...

I think this person is a total shithead. I discussed this in group therapy with other trans and they were all revolted by what amounts to be an exhibitionist claiming to be trans. No trans in the world that I know would exposed their genitals that way. I can barely stand to look at my own, so I'm certainly not going to expose them to the world. I've been in woman's dressing room and have always stayed discrete; that person obviously got off from the whole situation and now we'll all pay!

Black Swan said...

Elizabeth WAKE UP!!

You didn't address the question at all, "...explain exactly how gender equality laws nullify existing laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance [?]"

As previously stated in this question via supposition your questions are already answered

What about the human rights and civil liberties of these girls and women.

We're going in circles. Laws already exist on the books. I'll answer your question with this question: What laws nullify existing laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance?

Do they not have the right to have female only dressing areas for safety.

Every human being has a right to feel safe from other persons. Your attempting to assume that gender identity protection/laws nullify existing laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance. You have not answered the first question yet.

One case is one too many but then you are too damn stupid to realize that.

This is a preposterous argument and based solely on hysteria. You have to accept the inconvient fact you don't like TG folk and will do what you can to foment enmity where none should exists publically against transgender people. I recomment you visit the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) you will see it arguable from the amount of women born women who victimize other women-girls (real violent sexual crimes and murder) juxappposed to a transgender women who victimizes another women-girls 100,000:1, so remote to render your argument ridiculous.

I'll answer it for you since you can't deal with the obvious: Is it prudent for public policy makers to suspent the civil liberties of a specific group for the criminal behaviour of one member of that group? No. You don't punish an entire group for the actions of one person.

B.S.

Elizabeth said...

@Black Swan

I did not answer your so called question because it is simply ridiculous. You have not answered any questions BS. You always go back to the same TG handbook but lets give it a try for your feeble brain.

Women raping women is not the case here and therefore not relevant. The percentages of women raping women is so minuscule compared to male rape and this is an attempt to divert from the real question.

Where did you find your ridiculous 100,000:1 statistic?

Women are far more at risk from men and that is indisputable. I have zero issue with those born transsexual but I do have a big issue with those that are transvestites which is the largest percentage of individuals under the so-called transgender banner.

It does increase the chance for some form of lewd conduct allowing men into women's spaces. Do you deny that? Are women even if it is low more at risk if someone like Colleen Francis enters an area where females are?

It is not prudent for public policy members to suspend the civil liberties of anyone but if they pass a law that removes civil liberties from females it is wrong.

Do not women have the right to dress and shower without someone with a penis if they wish? There are few places that have passed a law such as you describe because they find it offensive. Any increase in danger for women is unacceptable but obviously that is not an issue for you.

The problem here is you are trying to bestow on an individual the same simple civil and human rights all women should have but you want to except them from having the same sex identity and sex characteristics because they are playing a game of gender chairs. In other words you transgender want special rules because you have a penis. Physically you say you do not have one but mentally you certainly have one.

You and your transgender pals have little to no support for any laws or regulations like this ever being passed again. The public is overwhelmingly against it as are most in your so-called community that find this appalling.

Om order to make the rather circular analogy claiming that because women rape women or commit violence against women, primarily in prison, is the same as what men do is preposterous.

The simple truth is male bodied individuals do not need the right to enter female dressing rooms, showers, or lockers uninvited because they do not belong there. Adding the insult that they might change in front of women and girls for a "teaching moment" is simply stupid.

You are not punishing an entire group because simply put without SRS they have no right in there so your argument fails miserably. If they so want to be women why keep the male junk? Why impose their male junk on women in their safe spaces or even contemplate the possibility of accidentally showing their male junk. It is just another attempt by men to impose their will on women.

Guess what, you lose. Having the same rights as women means being a woman not a woman with a dick pretending it is a 7 inch neoclit.

If you are not physically female please stay out of these areas. How hard is that to understand or respect? Obviously it is difficult for you.

Anonymous said...

@BS. What dou you call a male flashing his junk at young women and girls? I call that, "stalking, and/or public indecency/disturbance".

Anonymous said...

Black Swan
Get your head out of your ass,
A man exposing his genitals to a bunch of women teenage or otherwise is indecent exposure you dumb shit.

Jesus Christ how stupid are you?


NYF

Black Swan said...

@Elizabeth,

The sourse is the BJS:1, that one ("1") n represents a trangendered identifed person, and that's being conservative. You can do the search on the BJS website juxapposed to the number of transgender women who commit similar violent crimes are miniscule in comparison. Your attempting to conflate men with transgender women; doesn't work for your argument. The Law is on the side of the transgender women, under this law a transgender women = women. Now what the prosecution has to prove is did Collen Francis do something illegal.

Tuff Shit, your opinion is irrelevant about whether Colleen Fancis is female or not, Washington law trumps your bigoted opinion. I personally feel what she did was inappropriate and disrespectful, but did Colleen do something illegal?

Tuff Shit Liz, got to live with that now.

B.S.

Anonymous said...

One of the challenges you'll have Liz is separating the actual crime statistics from the bias and fan sites Hottest Female Sex Offenders

Sex crimes comitted by women are grossly under reported

B.S.

Nicky said...

When I brought this issue up with my Queer group on campus, I was lashed out, verbally attacked & even called a Bigot because I was not defending the pervert "Colleen Francis". I was even thrown out of my Queer group because I would not defend even perverts like "Colleen Francis" their right. It just shows how intrenched the TEE-GEE is with the Queer community. I think that any of the people within the Queer and TEE-GEE community who defend perverts like "Colleen Francis" will soon find out that "Colleen Francis" will be their down fall and those who defend "Colleen Francis" will not last any longer.

Van Buren said...

If my understanding is correct B.S, you are post SRS yourself (?)

When was the last time you marched yourself into any locker room or restroom full of random average males (who were unknown to you), and stripped naked? Would you be able to do that with your life and body being what it is now?

Would you feel safe to do that, could you trust that nothing bad might happen?

You're asking every female bodied person in the world to do pretty much that same thing (in concept), so could you?

you could couldn't you!, you'd feel completely safe right?, because it wouldn't matter to you if you got raped or assaulted you'd be OK with that huh?

Heck! you probably even WANT that don't you, you'd probably love every minute of it.

I recommend you visit the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) you will see it arguable from the amount of women born women who victimize other women-girls (real violent sexual crimes and murder) juxtaposed to a transgender women who victimizes another women-girls 100,000:1, so remote to render your argument ridiculous.~BS

I wonder how many "transgender" women were simply listed as male? (and therefore totally overlooked)

And I wonder how many people who were legally and physically female (when commiting these crimes) were asked if they were BORN female.

No. You don't punish an entire group for the actions of one person.~BS

Apparently it's ok with you though; that they punish ALL females (as a "group") in spite of the actions of this person

You’re a f**kin' hypocrite!

Elizabeth said...

@Black Swan

Trying to equate women on women crime with male rape and male violence against women is a total red herring and you know it. It has not one damn thing to do with this issue and yes Washington Law currently allows Mr Francis into these areas but I wonder for how long.

In have never said she did anything illegal. You actually might want to read what I have written.

Are you a transgender woman? 97% of the transgender movement is other than transsexuals even if you include every transsexual whether they want to be include or not. The transgender women you speak of are primarily transvestites with no intent for SRS. They like to be called non-op but what they are is she-male or part male and part female. They are not completely female.

The reaction of the general public in Washington has been far from favorable so it could be repealed. In trying to be politically correct they have themselves in a bind.

The simple truth is if you have had SRS whether transgender identified or identifying as being born transsexual you are my sister, even you. If you are pre-op either transsexual or transgender intending SRS then you are a sister in waiting. If you have no intention of SRS then you are not my sister and you are not my brother either. They are men playing girl.

Hopefully no other law like this will ever be passed in the United States again. Mr. Francis made sure of it.

What is so wrong with just accepting the same rights females and women have? Well I guess when you really do NOT want to be a woman then you need protection from us mean and vicious women that do not believe you belong in our spaces with your junk. Isn't it funny how it always seems to be men taking from women?

BS I do not have to live with any of this you idiot. I live in the Southeastern United States and thankfully that will never happen down here.

How does it feel to be a transgender woman and self identify as something other than a woman? How does it feel to say that and realize many people think you are another transvestite?

Nicky said...

@Black Swan
The reality here is that Colleen Francis will become the poster child for why Trans won't be getting any rights. Colleen Francis will be their down fall and will be the reason why trans will be set back a decade or two. The TEE-GEES only have themselves and Colleen Francis to blame. What Colleen Francis did, just handed every Rad fem, Trans critical person and every right wing group all the ammunition they need to rescind every rights trans has gained.

You keep harping on supporting perverts like Colleen Francis and thinking it's ok. When in Reality, it is not ok and it is so wrong on so many levels. If Colleen Francis were to tried that stunt outside of Washington State in any other state. He would be in prison by now, facing indecent exposure charges, sexual assault charges with the likelihood of being placed on the Sex offender registry for the rest of his LIFE.

What's happening here is that the TEE-GEE kool-aid crowd thinks what Colleen Francis did is ok, when in reality it isn't. The fact is that Colleen Francis is a MAN, who is using the trans card in order to gain access to women's only spaces and Women. He is a Pervert and quite frankly a Sex offender in the Making. It amazes me that the TEE-GEE crowd will defend perverts like Colleen Francis and not be concerned about the SAFETY of Bio born women and Young girls. It just shows that the TEE-GEE crowd doesn't care about Bio women and Young girls safety and all they care about is some perverts Rights & FEELINGS over Bio women and Young girls.

Anonymous said...

"...explain exactly how gender equality laws nullify existing laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance [?]"

Seriously? The answer is simple: It nullifies existing rape laws by promising to turn a blind eye, condoning, and even encouraging male behaviors by those very types of males (i.e. fetishists, stalkers, flashers, and other sexual predators) that are prone to these types of behaviors in the first place. Exisiting laws be damned; it's an ongoing open invitation into the ladies room for every pervert out there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. What these and all the rest of the transvetrsite apologists can't seem to wrap their perpetually transgendered heads around is contained in Elizabeth's very simple and straight forward statement:

"...it is neither a civil liberty nor a human right for any person with male genitalia to expose himself in female spaces"

What is it about "keep your dicks out of our spaces" that is so difficult for some to comprehend? I find it very sad yet very telling that these people never, not once, seem to worry about women's rights, especially our right to have safe places where we are protected from these types of opportunistic predators. Where are our rights? Trampled underfoot by the likes of Francis and his ilk in their eagerness to flash their cocks in front of real women, and then dare us to protest about it.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know whether Colleen, when living as a heterosexual father, flaunted his penis to women and children who were strangers to him. No? So what is the difference now??? Colleen is clearly a fetishistic cross-dresser and a should be considered a bane to the TG crowd!

Anonymous said...

Wait... did someone just say "real women"? There is only one kind of women, so saying "real women" is redundant. Penis people like Colleen Francis, are called men.

Clothes may make the man, but they do not make a man a woman.

Anonymous said...

The tee-gees and their supporters will NEVER grasp the problem here because in order to understand WHY women are pissed off about this, one must first BE a woman. They won't and never will be...and because they cannot get beyond their male viewpoints, what matters to women will never matter to the tee-gees.

For them to claim women simply need to be 'educated' on these issues is the height of male arrogance...if they truly believe that it is about educating people, then they can go do so with their male cohorts.

Black Swan said...

Part 1 of 2

My surgical status is irrelevant to this argument. However, I'm post-op.

I don't see the questions being answered yet, its not my question, it was brought up by Cristen Williams in her article as referenced by Elizabeth. "...explain exactly how gender equality laws nullify existing laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance." Elizabeth claims its my question but it comes from her original post by reference.

I've spoken to three attorney's and one elected judge, and please forgive and keep in mind I'm taking a real legal (Defendant and Plaintiff) approach, so you'll have to raise the bar on what is acceptable and what isn't an argument.

According to Washington State RCW 49.60.040 Francis identifies as a female - is in accordance with state law that prohibits state agencies from discriminating based on gender expression or identity. You, don't get to decide that for Francis. That's the law in Washington State. Being transgender-transsexual, surgical status irrelevant, does not equal a disturbance nor indecency, by derivation nudity itself is not per se indecent. Surgical status is irrelevant and subordinate to diagnosis in these instances in terms of equal access to facilities.

She has a right to be in this room. Obviously she was careless in how she presented herself, but Francis was in the sauna where nudity happens sometimes. I know I've been to some swanking ladies spa/sauna's in this world and gals are running around nude all the time. We're in Washington State so lets focus.

My elected judge friend keeps gripping at me to finish law school because we always manage to talk about some case or other. He tells me none of you have adequately put forth a valid reason explaining exactly how gender equality laws nullify existing laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance. He understands the concerns--he truly does. But he says thank heavens for civil rights and equal protection that affords to non-whites to tell white people, “tuff shit” to segregation laws. I thought so.

My plaintiff attorney colleague would do everything he could in litigating that Francis is a sexual predator and has used the transgender diagnosis to engage in ACTS (key word) acts prohibited by state law. He would be challenged if the diagnosis GID was legitimate.

Black Swan said...


Part 2 of 2

My defense attorney friend laughed at this notion and said what prohibited acts did Francis engage in? None based on the police report and Washington State law. Historically wearing women's clothes if your were born male was once a prohibited act deemed indecent--referencing the legal status of transsexuals. Thank goodness that has changed. Notwithstanding, UW would have a much larger issue to deal with if Francis were required to use the men’s facility and was assaulted or murdered by the men.

My appellate attorney took a more neutral approach, suggesting to me the outcome of this case may ask a key question what defines male and female: Biology or Identity? He also questioned me to what creates a more clear and present danger and foundation for protection under the given state statutes: A transgender woman’s fear of being in men’s facility or the fear or women to have a transgender women in their facilities? Do we need sex segregated facilities? In either case the law frowns upon exculpatory reasoning (what all of your are engaging in) and can only go on Intermediate Level of Scrutiny (ILS) or Rational Basis Scrutiny (RBS). Brennan suggests a good argument and unfortunately a rabbit hole that both ILS and RBS cannot be argued at the same time, but Trans-advocates do this often in error. Brennan argues that both Sex and Gender are mutually exclusive of one another. This is setting the trap for Trans-Advocates that one cannot argue gender identity protection and sex a based violation at the same time.

Now it makes total sense why you don’t want special protections under law for gender identity and prefer privacy protections and legal identity changes, hoping no one ever finds out about your trans status.. Is this the case historically?

Y’all see where I’m going with this yet. I know Cathy Brennan can’t wait for such a case. Probably salivates for the day she can see the end of the T in the LGB. That includes you and our future kids. You remember the post don’t you: “Did you not see this coming?” Cathy Brennan makes Janise Raymond look like Captain Kangaroo.

B.S.

Elizabeth said...

@BlackSwan

Why do you continually try and through this onto me. You are trying to make me the problem which is a very male attitude. I am not the problem, you are and I am very tired of you repeating the same bullshit and spouting the same transgender mantra like it is the gospel. It is not!!

Those laws preventing rape, assault, stalking etc are for outside secure women's spaces and those secure women's spaces are meant to be safe from men but you are such a bozo you cannot see that.

What is an individual that has male genitalia and has as their sexual preference women whom they want to have sex with said male genitalia? It is a man. What is a transgender woman that prefers their male genitalia and is attracted to women and wants to have sex with them using their penis. A man not a lesbian.

Very few places have gender laws like Washington and no knew ones will be passed thanks to Mt. Francis. You pathetic circular arguments placing the blame on those of us the are worried about male genitalia present in our spaces will not work on the public nor any of us.

We are not the problem. The problem is you and your ilk. You claim you oppose what Francis did yet you defend him every way you can. Your so-called defense attorney friend and so forth. Guess what he will get away with it and those girls lost their Title IX money for their swimming team so you can be proud of your fellow transgender friends.

You are a pathetic politically correct yahoo that does not have the slightest clue what it means to be female. You may have changed sex but you did not change yourself.

There is no question you are far from the brightest light in the string but you also have zero common sense.

Go away and leave us alone. Go comment on WBT or Cristan Williams site and hug your other pathetic loser fellow transgender dipshits.

Just Jennifer said...

It is really simple. No matter what Francis calls himself, it for not change two things...that he has a penis, and that he ses to enjoy forcing it on women. He is not a female, and he has no right to force his nudity on women. You point out that we cannot surmise the state of his true gender identity. This is true, and in this case we should expect him to wait until he has done more to confi it, by giving up his penis, before letting him make women very uncomfortable. To be honest, it is not something men, like "Cristan" Williams can grasp.


Francis has stated that he wishes to keep his penis. He has no real claim to being a women. He should not have his fantasy pandered to.

Anonymous said...

As usual BS is trying to pass off BS on the rest of us.

NYF

Van Buren said...

The issue it seems is being overlooked here and that B.S (in her own mind) "cleverly" trying to use mid direction to take divert the focus of the discussion away from, is the the only possible way "Colleen" could be recognized legally as female and therefore "within" colleen's "rights" to begin with is if "Colleen" had comitted fraudulent acts to begin with in order to attain that legal "status" (IE the "Sandeen" maneuver").

A right gained fraudulently is; in essence NOT technically (in the minds of ethical people) a right to begin with.

There's NOTHING worse or more detested by most people than a hypocrite B.S, I'm not typically an nasty or spiteful person, but people like you bring out the worst in (me and MOST people for that matter). I hope it's you that becomes the victim of the people and cause you support, and I hope that not a single female bears "witness" to it or renders assistance.

Anonymous said...

The bs that BS is building his "case" upon is the bs that TGs are women. That is the bs fallacy that was sold to the people of WA.

TG's are not women in any way shape or form. All that this flasher pervert has done is provide a test case to have ths bs law declared to be what is is...BS.

Nicky said...

You may want to see this, about the Colleen Francis issue

Helena Montana adds “Colleen Francis” clause to Non-Discrimination Statute
http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/helena-montana-adds-colleen-francis-clause-to-non-discrimination-statute/

Proponents, opponents of anti-discrimination ordinance pack meeting
http://helenair.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/proponents-opponents-of-anti-discrimination-ordinance-pack-meeting/article_c10f975c-3de2-11e2-b3d4-0019bb2963f4.html

Non-discrimination ordinance clears hurdle in Helena
http://www.kxlh.com/news/non-discrimination-ordinance-clears-hurdle-in-helena/