The Truth Begins to Slip Out, and It is NOT Pretty

Well, the invasion of the women's room by the boys in dresses continues.  And the more it drags on, the clearer it becomes just how disturbing the transgender kooks real agenda is.  The official party line remains, "We just want to go in, do our business, and get out..." while the truth is, "We just want to force ourselves on women..."  Yes, there, I said it, and I stand by it.  A couple of items that have come out prove this.

Two men in dresses...

First off, there is the leader of the attempt to undermine our national defense by forcing the military to deal with transgender fellows wanting to be "female" soldiers (and presumably be assigned to women's units and be allowed to crossdress like Mr. Sandeen loves to), "Allyson" Robinson (seen here with Mr. Sandeen, himself...imagine having this pair in the ladies room with you. Mr. Robinson, who is one of those straight male crossdressers who had a long career as a man, before deciding he wants to pretend to be a girl full time (and who certainly looks like a guy in a dress) decided to "count coup" in the women's room in the Phoenix airport. He left this note, to make sure that the women knew that their privacy had been violated. So much, for "we just want to pee in private. No, they want to invade the women's room, make sure that the women know that men are in there, and in case anyone missed it, rub their noses in it.

But it get's worse. In Arizona, State Rep. John Kavanagh, the author of the so-called "Papers to Pee" bill, spoke up in defense of his actions. He explained, not unreasonably, that he was not so much concerned with men in women's bathrooms, but was instead concerned with locations like locker rooms and showers, where there is a greater expectation of privacy, and as the law here in San Francisco puts it, there is a possibility of "inevitable nudity."  In another words, here in San Francisco, you cannot force women to take showers with pre-op transsexuals (something which any pre-op transsexual would have a problem with anyway), or more to the point "non-op transgender people."  In another words, no penises in the women's shower.  If a place does not have private shower stalls, then transgender people have to be given a specific time they can use the shower, or an alternative location.  The same goes for areas like dressing rooms without individual stalls, or spas and such.  A quite reasonable approach, and one set up with the input of "transgender people."

But this is increasingly unacceptable to the transgender extremist kooks.  For example, there is this bit of drivel from ThinkProgress:

Consider the lived experience of the transgender woman, who identifies, presents, and lives as a woman in every aspect of her life. She may have undergone hormone therapy, electrolysis/laser hair removal, and other procedures to bring her body and gender into alignment, but she may have elected not to undergo surgery on her genitals — a costly, invasive procedure that would likely permanently sterilize her, depriving her of her reproductive rights. If she were to enter a men’s restroom or locker room, she would look entirely out of place, and as Signorile pointed out, would face a heightened risk for violence and harassment. The women’s room is the correct room for her to use. According to Kavanagh, however, the mere fact that she might still happen to have a penis that another girl in the locker room might just happen to see is such a safety risk to the girl that discrimination against all trans people is thus justified. It’s absurd, belittling, and just plain bigoted.

Now, clearly the person described here does not live as a "woman" in every aspect of his life.  She still has a penis.  Women don't willingly have penises.  If he elects to forego having it removed, he is indicating, without question, that he is a man.  Now, this person has NO business in any area that is for women only, especially if nudity is likely.  He has no business being there to see women, or to be seen by women.  As I have pointed out, if I encountered such a person in such an area, I would take action involving pepper spray...in the face, and then in the crotch.  I think he would get the message.

And if there is any question that they think it is perfectly acceptable for a man, who claims to be a female, but who has, and wants to keep his penis (a true transsexual would avoid such a situation at all costs) then this quote from the same article makes it clear how they view the matter:

It’s absurd to conclude that all girls would experience psychological harm by simply seeing another person’s body, and such an assertion suggests that trans people’s bodies are somehow dangerous to others.

So, there you have it.  If you are a woman, who does not want to see a man's penis in the locker room or shower...or a parent who does not want your daughter exposed to such a sight, then you are a bigot.  Still don't get that?  They make that completely clear:

Kavanagh tried to obfuscate responsibility for his position by referring to a case at Evergreen College where a trans woman’s use of the locker room raised concern with a young girl’s family. He neglected to mention that it’s the very anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom that is responsible for raising the controversy in the first place.

Whether one agrees with the Alliance Defending Freedom, or not, does not change the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was exposing himself to young girls at the college.  But hey, its okay because a group that is "anti-LGBT" objected.