Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Even if it does apply, it doesn't make a difference. Lewd would be very easy to prove. It means "sexual in an offensive or rude way".

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,

I have never seen a street urinal in my life.

Because everyone is either a woman or transgender and needs to sit down? Zing!

I believe the street urinal thing is big in the UK, primarily. People in the US get confused on Europe vs. all the countries inside of Europe.

Can we calm down a bit?

Take a breather...

 Alex C wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,

I have never seen a street urinal in my life.

There's plenty of them in London at about 1am.

I have been inside a red phone booth in London. That is a street urinal.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Speaking as a woman, I have had transwomen in the same locker room as me before, and it has never caused any issues. They are typically rather discreet.

If someone were to start staring a lot, it would be a cause of concern, but I doubt it is something I will ever see happen. Those peeping bogeymen seem to permanently reside under my bed together with the rest of the monsters.

I would have thought that would be the last place you would want them.

My CSM army resides under my bed. There's enough spikes in there to bleed an army.

My sister took a picture of one in England when she visited there.

Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,

I have never seen a street urinal in my life.

Because everyone is either a woman or transgender and needs to sit down? Zing!

I believe the street urinal thing is big in the UK, primarily. People in the US get confused on Europe vs. all the countries inside of Europe.

I was just generalizing - I am sure not every European country does this.

Besides, come on guys. You won't become a scarred wreck by catching a glimpse of a weenus.

Unless that too is an US thing.

 agnosto wrote:

Are you willfully ignoring the "or" in there? Lewd doesn't have to occur for an arrest or conviction to take place.

No, I'm not. I do know how to read a damn statute though.

the sentence:

Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby.

If you just look after the or (well, the third or), you have a clause that reads "in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby."

Which isn't, you know, a sentence. You need the preamble, the "Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals" which precedes the first "in." You can't take all that, and not have "lewdly."

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

No, we're worried about the can of worms that letting anyone claiming to be trans into whichever room they want. And general unwanted exposure to opposite sex genitalia.

And hey, its not like you couldn't have a trans person born as a man, who identifies as a women, who is attracted to women.

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even if it does apply, it doesn't make a difference. Lewd would be very easy to prove. It means "sexual in an offensive or rude way".

Changing clothes is not sexual, and certainly not in an offensive or rude way.

 Polonius wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Are you willfully ignoring the "or" in there? Lewd doesn't have to occur for an arrest or conviction to take place.

No, I'm not. I do know how to read a damn statute though.

the sentence:

Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby.

If you just look after the or (well, the third or), you have a clause that reads "in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby."

Which isn't, you know, a sentence. You need the preamble, the "Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals" which precedes the first "in." You can't take all that, and not have "lewdly."

You need to look up the definition of Lewd. It means "sexual in an offensive or rude way". You simply being naked could easily fit the definition if I am offended by it or consider it rude.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

No, we're worried about the can of worms that letting anyone claiming to be trans into whichever room they want.

And hey, its not like you couldn't have a trans person born as a man, who identifies as a women, who is attracted to women.

I honestly completely forgot about that. A lot of transgender, identify as the opposite sex but are still attracted to them. Though that doesn't really change much since homosexuals are allowed in their gender specific bathroom.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.

Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?

I also think you're undervaluing the psychological harm it does to be further singled out. As I've said multiple times, I think the private room was a reasonable compromise in the situation.

And thats my point. As long as this person is not hindered from activities represented by that gender, there is a set aside so this person is not harassed or attacked, then there should be leeway to protect the rights of the women as well.

For example. The wife's exercise class. There is an attorney, who depending on what day is more or less trans. He's affectionately known as "funGlen" by the wife. The only time anyone cared was when they had "bad dress day" or something and he won. No one cares. But if he had gone back into the shower room, they'd kick his ass.

 Polonius wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Give up. We're all bigots for not wanting our daughters around a bare or nearly bare penis without our foreknowledge, consent or comment. I'm the slimiest bigot in the world for wanting parental say-so in when my daughter is exposed to male anatomy at school.

I hope you don't feel too attacked. I don't think you're being a bigot. You and Frazz have both spoken respectfully about the woman in question, and I don't think you're concern is coming from a bad place.

I think you are overvaluing the need to protect high school age girls from seeing a penis, but I'm not a father, so I can understand your concern.

I also think you're undervaluing the psychological harm it does to be further singled out. As I've said multiple times, I think the private room was a reasonable compromise in the situation.

Personally, I don't see the problem with having a person with a penis, that's not sexually interested in the women around him, changing with women. I think that there's a good point to be made that the women in question should have at least some say, which is a point I find more persuasive than parental rights.

Not too much. I agree that this young lady deserves as much respect and support as any child; however, as a parent, I believe I have the right to know when my daughter might be faced with male organs at school.

Again, bathrooms are fine as long as there are stall doors but locker rooms are a bit much for me as as parent. It's not a good situation for her or the other girls in the school but to be fair, she's sort of forced the issue and the school dropped the ball with a communication opportunity. As a parent, I would like to at least have the information in advance so that my wife and I may sit down with our daughter and discuss the situation to determine if I even need to be concerned.

People tend to overreact when you just throw something at them instead of giving the matter the weight it deserves. The school should have provided parents with information on transgender issues and facts about gender identity and given families the summer to work things out for themselves. I think in that circumstance there wouldn't have been nearly the outcry that occurred.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.

Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?

I know there are probably a lot of people in the world who would consider them offensive.

I remember seeing a lot of kids around when I visited the Louvre. Their sanity appeared intact.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.

Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?

No I don't find them offensive, because they aren't trying to enter my daughters changing room/bath room and get naked in front of them. but thats a great useless argument to make.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I remember seeing a lot of kids around when I visited the Louvre. Their sanity appeared intact.

Was there also a live, nude model next to them to compare reactions?

The context of the nakedness would be a big thing in deciding if it were "wrong".

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.

Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?

No - but typically you wont find them in schools - except maybe in latin/history class. Then we can just call it art. Being transgender is not art - it is an idenity crisis.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.

Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?

I know there are probably a lot of people in the world who would consider them offensive.

You know it, or probably?

I don't know--there's something a bit more visceral about a real penis vs. a Greek statue penis. I am relieved to see that most of the Greek statues don't seem to emulate John Holmes. It makes me feel better about myself.

 agnosto wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I remember seeing a lot of kids around when I visited the Louvre. Their sanity appeared intact.

Was there also a live, nude model next to them to compare reactions?

No, but transwomen changing clothes tend to be a lot more discreet and careful than your average Greek statue.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I remember seeing a lot of kids around when I visited the Louvre. Their sanity appeared intact.

Indeed. But we're not worried about the people who won't get offended.

There are plenty of people who are indeed offended by nudity in any form, sexual or not. Its why most places don't let people walk around naked, even if they are doing nothing specifically sexual or wrong. The mere act of being naked in public is offensive to a lot of people. You have to respect this view.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I remember seeing a lot of kids around when I visited the Louvre. Their sanity appeared intact.

Was there also a live, nude model next to them to compare reactions?

No, but transwomen changing clothes tend to be a lot more discreet and careful than your average Greek statue.

What about the ones that are faking being transgender? It's also a great strategy - appear to be discreet - but inside - enjoying the view legally.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?

Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.

I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.

Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?

I know there are probably a lot of people in the world who would consider them offensive.

You know it, or probably?

I don't know--there's something a bit more visceral about a real penis vs. a Greek statue penis. I am relieved to see that most of the Greek statues don't seem to emulate John Holmes. It makes me feel better about myself.

Well, just to use an example, I would say the overwhelming majority of Muslims, even the more progressive ones, would be offended by a nude statue.

@ Xeno They are probably together with the lightning-destroyed aircraft and the other massively blown-out-of-proportion issues.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You need to look up the definition of Lewd. It means "sexual in an offensive or rude way". You simply being naked could easily fit the definition if I am offended by it or consider it rude.

it really couldn't. Nudity is not inherently sexual. (Fun tangent: this is one reason child pornography is a separate exception under free speech, as not all child porn is obscenity under the law).

Lewd does not mean simply naked, or even sexual:

http://thelawdictionary.org/lewd/

What is LEWD?


a term that also means indecent, pornographic, obscene and lascivious


Law Dictionary: What is LEWD? definition of LEWD (Black's Law Dictionary)

I think you'd really struggle to show before any court that changing clothes is lewd. Taking a shower is usually done while naked, but isn't normally sexual.