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 →

[–]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.

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

The question brought up voyerism. It isn’t a complicated leap to discussing voyerism