Let's start at the beginning, always a good place to start, and in this case, Mr. Williams pull out a whopper....
It’s happened. The H-BSers, the RadPhlems and the people who DEFENDED Prop 8 have untied as one to proclaim that pre/non-op transwomen as a group are 1.) icky because 2.) they’re actually men, and therefore 3.) a danger to cisgender women.Ah, so many lies... and no real arguments (hence the childish name calling and insults). First off, no one has "untied" nor have we even "united." Second, where does Mr. Williams get stuff like suggesting that I, or anyone else who supports the HBS paradigm has ever remotely suggested that "pre-op transsexuals" are men (I would never refer to someone as a pre-op transwoman since I find the word "transwomen" to be offensive)? That is classic straw, a lie imposed on an opponent since it is easier to refute than the truth. Yes, I consider non-ops to be men. They are men, born with penises, who want to keep their penises. How you get "woman" in any sense out of that is, well, beyond me. Nor have I ever said that all, or even most, men are a threat to women, cisgender or otherwise. Seriously, what we have here is a classic straw argument. Not surprising, since this is Mr. Williams typical style.
So, what is the real issue? That's simple. Privacy. Women, real women, whether or not they have a history of transsexualism, have a right to feel secure in women's spaces. They should not have obvious men forcing themselves into that space, and they certainly should not have to contend with men (i.e. an avowed non-op, or someone who claims to be a pre-op but who lacks the simple ability to empathize with those he claims to be like) forcing their penises on them.
Let's be clear here...there is no real question that "Colleen" Francis was taking steps to ensure that his penis was in full view. It was not accidental. He was engaging in exhibitionism, a very male behavior under the circumstances.
Now, I would honestly hope that Mr. Francis is an exception. I have no reason to believe that all, or most, or even a significant subset of transgender people are perverts who would, at the first opportunity, flash their penises at young girls. Of course, Mr. Williams has to suggest that I would, because he knows that the truth is not going to be kind to him. Mr. Williams takes a very extremist view of so-called "rights" for those who identify as transgender. In Mr. Williams view, Mr. Francis' fantasies trump reality.
Let me spell this out. Mr. Francis, who is attending a college in Washington State, masquerading as a woman (no, I really don't buy his claims), and because some people are so "open-minded" that their brains fell out, got kicked under and cabinet, and have turned to dust, he has been allowed to have more rights than real women. If he wants to invade the women's locker room, wave his penis around, and upset everyone else, then the college says that is just fine. Any woman who objects has to use a lesser facility (now, why, if they are actually going to be insane enough to actually pander to this pervert, they can't tell him to use the smaller facility as I strongly suspect he will have it to himself). This just tickles Mr. Williams pink. He could care less if women get dumped on, as long as one of his fellow transgender kooks gets special rights. And yes, in this case, there is no avoiding that this is special rights.
Now, Mr. Williams tries to argue that a "ciswoman's," i.e. a woman's (Mr. Williams lives in a fantasy world where claiming one is a woman automagically makes one a full fledged woman) right to be comfortable in women's space does not trump the right of a man who has some fantasy about dressing up and pretending to be a woman to invade that women's space. Oh, he words it a bit differently, but that is really what he is arguing. And this supposed superior right of the transgender man is based on what?
Let me recap here... When I was early in my transition, and the time came to face the bathroom issue, I approached it cautiously. First, I did not even attempt to enter a women's bathroom until I was reasonably sure that my appearance had sufficiently feminized that I would not cause a scene. Then, I would try to find an out of the way restroom where it was, hopefully, unlikely that I would encounter anyone. As time went on, and it became more and more obvious that I was not seen as a man, I became more comfortable and did not feel the need to "get in, get out as quickly as possible." Still, I was always careful to make sure there was not a chance of someone seeing something they should not (not really hard to do) and I would have never have dreamed of entering any area where nudity would be an issue.
But, the more extreme of the transgender kooks want to be able to walk into women's space no matter who much distress it will cause, and without regard to the feelings of the women using that space. As I have pointed out before, such attitudes and behavior shows, beyond any doubt, that such a person is not and never will be a woman.
The simple bottom line is this...unless someone is a transsexual, and is in the process of the RLT (or at least preparing for it) they really should not enter women's spaces, including the restroom. If you are a crossdresser, engaged in your hobby, which includes so-called "non-ops" then you really have no moral claim to use of the women's room. Yes, you can possibly get away with it, and under such circumstances, you have little to actually worry about, but that does not, and will never make it right.
Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention yet another straw man argument that Mr. WIlliams makes. And this one is another whopper:
There is a real difference between a transwomen going into a private area to change, pee, etc. and some sick f***-up of any flavor (cis or trans) walking into a room to parade their genitalia around. If a cisgender woman goes into the locker room and exposes herself, then there’s laws to deal with her behavior. Claiming that those laws somehow magically evaporate if the person is trans instead of cis is a bigoted lie and those who propagate that lie should be called out at every turn.Now, aside from the fact that this comment actually makes little actual sense since using a locker room for a woman (Mr. William goes out of his way to try to avoid this issue...to him a man with a penis who calls himself a woman is just as much of a woman someone born female) would very possible involve acceptance of nudity, especially one like Mr. Francis invaded that features a sauna and hot tubs, which is hardly "exposing oneself" when an actual woman does it. Now, maybe he means if a woman enters a men's locker to "expose" herself. Seriously, I don't think I have ever heard of a woman "exposing" herself to another woman in this manner. I did have the experience once of having a neighbor pull down her pants to show me a skin rash and ask my opinion. She did it rather suddenly, and without asking if I minded. Of course, she did not know I was pre-op or anything other than just another woman, And when I worked at a department store selling lingerie, I had a few women who asked my opinion of how something it, but again, I guess we have to keep in mind, Mr. WIlliams has no way of understanding actual women's behavior, including being relatively comfortable with seeing other women nude. Women don't have the homophobic hang-ups that men do, nor are they generally turned on by the sight of other women's nudity. Men are very visually oriented in their sexuality, women are not. But as I say, Mr, Williams would have no experience of this.
Now, all that said, let's examine the real falsehood in his statement. Mr. Francis invaded women's space, demanding the right to use a women's locker room, and to be their nude, in spite of the fact that women would be present, and would be forced to see his penis....which he has made clear he plans to keep. It has been shown, by testimony as to his behavior, recorded in a campus police report, that he positioned himself in such a manner as to make his penis very obvious. When complaints were made, Mr. Williams suggested that the teenage girls needed to be educated about "trans women," and the women were told, by the college that Mr. Francis' rights were superior to theirs and that they could use a smaller facility. To repeat, the pervert deliberately exposes himself, women rightfully complain, and are told they have no right to do so. So, what Mr. Williams claims is provably false, across the board. The laws have evaporated, which is actually what Mr. Williams actually demands. After all, in Mr. William's mind Mr. Francis is a full-fledged woman, penis and all. I fear Mr. Williams is the one propagating a lie. But again, this is not unusual for Mr. Williams, who has a long history of making up facts that only he seems privy to.
It should also be pointed out that a classic tactic in some circles is to someone, falsely, of being a bigot, in the hopes that it will intimidate their into silence. This is not unlike what is referenced by Godwin's Law, which specifically relates to the use of the term "Nazi." But, as I pointed out, by accusing those who disagree with him of being "Klan," Mr. Williams has, effectively, violated Godwin's Law, and has lost the argument on that basis. Not, I might add, that he has any real arguments to begin with. The whole thing is quite ludicrous.
Of course, kooks like Mr. Williams don't believe in "morals" and such. They have no concern other than their own pleasure and such. They don't care who is upset, or even harmed. It is really all about them, and those they consider to be superior to women. And when they don't get their way, including blind acceptance, they resort to silliness like claiming those who disagree with them are aligned with the Klan. Of course, ultimately, their "argument" simply shows the fact that they really have no argument. Just a big old pile of straw men that they engage in ripping to shreds, while crowing like a rooster and claiming victory.