Both: In light of recent events. In what context is Voyeurism and Indecent Exposure acceptable? Is there a rational justification for making an exception for males who claim to be women?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (25 children)

That is an incomplete understanding of how criminal laws work both since they vary by location and that they usually have some intention element (mens rea) ranging from recklessly to intentionally

That aside, it shouldn’t matter ideally. Yes pre op trans women shouldn’t expose their genitals in those settings but also anyone leering in a locker room should be removed, trans or not.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Only female parts should be in female spaces.

That’s literally why the space is designated for females.

As much as I disagree, there’s some argument that can be made for post op TW using female spaces (not that a neovagina is at all a female “part”), there’s no justification for someone whose penis is still in its original form to be in a female space. Period.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

nice way to blame the victim! Who's leering? No one. That's an assumption or a projection on your part, and if you read the topic at the top of this thing, you'll see you are changing the subject from indecent exposure to some silly idea that people want to leer at a dude's junk or a trans person's junk in a locker room. In the video that set this all off, the woman talks about a man swinging his dick in front of little girls. No leering was mentioned, not until you tried to change the subject. In fact, 'trans' only comes up when people tried to excuse the creepy and probably criminal behavior. It would be criminal for a man to swing his dick around in a women's locker room in front of a little girl. Wondering if the person was trans is an attempt to justify the action. How the dick swinger identifies changes nothing about the action or the offense. But, no one was leering-- that's you're fictional addition to the issue.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (13 children)

What the hell are you talking about blaming the victim. If a woman Leers at another woman she should be removed whether a trans person is present on either side? Do you disagree? I brought up leering because voyerism was specifically mentioned in the question.

That’s a separate point from the one where I assert a pre op trans woman should remain covered in a women’s space. Or really anywhere. I don’t understand a trans woman who wouldn’t be ashamed of that.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You the only one talking about leering, you are trying to change the subject. Should every supposition of leering be accepted as factual even when no such supposition was made? How do you define leering? Regardless, you're talking about it, I'm not, no one here is, you are changing the subject away from a man swinging his dick in front of a little girl in a locker room, only presumed to be a trans woman to excuse the action of swinging a dick around in front of a little girl in a locker room.

Why go into a locker to remain covered? But I thought you wanted single occupancy spaces? Why are you talking about what pre op trans women (which is the vast majority) do in women's locker room, when you should be advocating for what you say you advocate for?

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

circlingmyownvoid2 is on topic. I did specifically mention Voyeurism as well, because women who are using women only locker/spa rooms are only consenting to be naked in front of other women. Men pre op or post op should not be allowed into women's only changing rooms, because women have a right to choose who views them naked and who does not. Fully or partially clothed men should not be allowed in women's changing rooms either. By using a women's single sex space they have denied every single male no matter how he personally identifies that consent. Women are not a roadshow for any male to peruse and view as he pleases. It doesn't matter if he's leering, staring or just plain ol' looking. Any man looking at naked women in a women's only locker room is violating their consent and should risk being charged with Voyeurism.

Many trans activists try to argue that good behavior should mean that women should make an exception for some males in the women's locker room, but that is not a justifiable, because their very presence in that space is a violation. The most well behaved transwoman in the world still does not belong in the women's locker room and he is still at the very least committing Voyeurism unless he closes his eyes the entire time.

So I disagree with circlingmyownvoid2, because I believe even if no 3rd space is currently available no male should be allowed in a women's only single sex space even if he has had genital surgery or made sure to cover the twig n' berries, that does not negate his maleness. Nor does it give him the right to violate women's consent, but I do appreciate circlingmyownvoid2's willingness to debate.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No one was leering at the guy swinging his dick around in the Wi Spa, the voyeurism that is worth talking about is the men going into women's locker rooms pretending to be women like it's a free strip club and getting off on it emotionally and more-- which then escalates into exhibitionism like pathetic dudes swinging their dicks around in front of little girls. It's all a bunch of sad neglected pathetic guys with no guidance in their lives acting out their cries for help that escalate until society find the annoyance unbearable. We're almost there. And you know it.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

The question literally has voyerism in it. That’s why I mentioned leering in the room. Because the question specifically included voyerism. What is with you?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Do you really think women in a locker room are being voyeurs when a guy is swinging his dick around in the women's locker room? A voyeur sneeks around staring at people, behind bushes, though holes in walls or floors, with cameras set up, or a guy hiding behind the fake facade of "I'm a woman" in the women's locker room. The women who, in shock, see a dude swinging his dick around in their locker room are not voyuers. You are flipping the definition around. They are victims, and they are seeing a train wreck except that train wreck in the Wi Spa thing was exposing itself indecently to a little girl. Team QT Team Pedophile you have no leg to stand on here.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

You are conflating my statements on voyerism with the separate comments on exhibitionism, I suspect in bad faith.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I might be conflating somethings here. But, women in their own locker rooms are not being voyuers. They are not in some space looking to be leering at someone. the Voyuer would be an AGP getting his emotional and perhaps physical rocks off being in a women's locker room looking at all the women while also engaging in exhibitionism. Women who look in shock or horror at a dick swinging around in a women's locker room are not being voyuers. The closest they could be to that would be more like rubber-necking at a train wreck. Voyuers get off on seeing what they are not supposed to be seeing because of privacy, peeping Toms.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

But, women in their own locker rooms are not being voyuers.

Unless they are. Like by leering at someone. Which was my point.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why are you trying to make this about a woman you are imagining leering, when the obvious problem is transwomen are the ones leering and flopping their penises around in places where they should not even have opened the door.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is the point of single sex spaces. Any male entering them is willfully disregarding women's consent and can be immediately kicked out. This strict crystal clear standard makes it relatively easy to prosecute offenders.

By stepping into that space he has violated women's consent and is committing at bare minimum Voyeurism. It doesn't matter if he is leering or not. The women there did not consent to any male viewing their naked bodies. He could be a world famous painter who just wants to paint naked women, but if they did not consent to it he is to all intents and purposes a sexual predator and his neutral artistic intent is irrelevant. There's a reason artists hire models and don't go traipsing into opposite sex changing rooms when they need to practice drawing the human form. Consent matters.

If we make exceptions for some males we can no longer hold predatory voyeuristic & exhibitionistic men accountable which was why the Wi Spa fiasco happened. What if the man who entered the women's area was one of those extra super special exceptions? What if he really felt deep down that he was actually a woman on the inside? We see exactly how that plays out in the real world. Women are told to suck it up and now they no longer have a safe place to change nor are they allowed to seek justice for Voyeurism and Indecent Exposure. The comfort & desires of 1 male has been put above every single woman who goes to that spa.

Less than 1% of rapes result in convictions

Now if the conviction rate for rapists is 1% how low do you think it is for voyeurs and exhibitionists? I bet a lot of them face 0 consequences for sexually harassing women. Sexual harassment & assault is notoriously hard to prove and convict (especially in places where for privacy reasons cameras are not allowed like you know a locker rooms/spa rooms & don't get me started on the predators who place cameras in women's restrooms/locker rooms so they can violate women even further by posting the footage online. About 80% of the victims of spy camera porn are women.).

Women's only spaces are one of the very few areas where holding sexual predators accountable is a no brainer. If he wasn't a sexual predator he wouldn't have entered the women's only area in the first place. By making exceptions for men who claim to be women we go back to square 1 with that lovely 1% conviction rate. Allowing any male in destroys the entire purpose of women's single sex spaces. At that point we may as well make all spaces unisex, which leaves women once again having to deal with sexual harassment/rape with no recourse or justice the vast majority of the time making the space safe for no one. Now that's what I call a lose lose scenario.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You can foist them blame onto victims all you like by using the term leering, but women aren’t leaning over anyone’s shoulders or sticking their heads under doors to get a better look at trans women’s penises.

The women and girls are exposed. They aren’t seeking out the exposure as you incorrectly frame the situation.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (6 children)

I’m not talking about trans woman. I’m talking about anyone leering at someone in a women’s locker room. Cis or trans. Anyone leering should be removed. That’s my response to the voyerism part of the question.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The voyeurs here are transwomen who undress in women’s spaces, thereby exposing unconsenting women to their male bodies.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

That would be exhibitionism not voyerism.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh you’re right. They are actually exhibitionists and vouyers, undressing in front of unconsenting women and watching unconsenting women undress Thankyou for the correction.

Regardless, we aren’t trying to sneak a peek or leering at the men who invade our spaces because of some lady identity bullshit.

The transwoman is not the person being leered at, the women and girls are. Nobody is leering when he bares his penis. They are being exposed to him.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What, you think that male exhibitionism & voyeurism are mutually exclusive? That a male swinging his dick & balls in a women's space where girls & women are naked can't possibly be getting aroused at the girls' & women's bodies in his view whilst he is simultaneously getting off off displaying his dick & balls in their faces?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

No. I made a blanket statement about anyone in a locker room. Women in a women’s room, men in a men’s room, anyone in either. You are making it about trans people when I stated a general rule.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I'm not making it about people who call themselves trans. I am pointing out that when a male person goes into a sex-segregated space for female people where women & girls are naked & flaunts his dick & balls in their faces (exhibitionism), he is usually looking at their naked bodies at the same time without their consent (voyeurism). Plus, he is usually getting off not just from violating their boundaries & seeing their naked bodies, he is also getting off on seeing the discomfort & distress that his naked, leering presence causes them.

I don't get how you can be so aware of, & vigilant about, the dangers you say men pose to males who "identify as" women, but so blithely dismissive of the dangers men pose to girls & women & so unconcerned about the welfare of female human beings.