Trans HS students - access to locker rooms

Great Debates
161

Part of the problem is I’m very close to this issue and I’ve explained some things, like this process, in great detail on this message board multiple times. There’s only so many times I can keep reposting the same information because some folks want to weigh in on a subject without using “Search.”

If I implied that a simple note from a doctor was all that was needed, that implication was incorrect. What I’ve done was the mistake of assuming that some prior people I debated were referring to the same thing I was thinking of. Meaning that they had done even a Wikipedia-level of research before weighing in on the SDMB. So to avoid further confusion, let me repost some details.

The actual WPATH-accepted (or recommended) process involves a significant period of counseling, which may include both individual and group sessions, sessions with parents and even friends involved. For our clinics, these sessions explore the roots of the gender identity development in the patient, mitigating factors of social environment, whether the patient has other possibly confusing or compounding psychological issues or problems, and most importantly, a search to discover if their gender identity is persistent, consistent, and insistent. Substance and alcohol abuse are considered, as is the possibility that other legal (prescribed) or illegal drugs might be altering the gender identity of the patient on a temporary basis. Parents, spouses, friends, and other may be interviewed to gain further information. They may also be tested for intersex conditions (like I was) if there is evidence of such.

Of the people who come into the office I work with, I was told that about 1 in 4 have some other compounding factor which renders a diagnosis of transgender impossible. Another 1 in 4 are diagnosed as transgender, but not to the degree where it’s recommended that they actually start a transition process (meaning, they don’t get a letter). Some unknown but small number of transgender persons receive their letter but choose not to transition at that time, due mostly to second thoughts about becoming unemployed and possibly homeless (like my friend I spoke with last night, who had her letter for 6 years before coming out).

Of those patients remaining, there is also the decision that a psychologist must make, which is “will the patient prosper at the current time with transition, or will it be a net negative? Are they strong enough to survive this, emotionally? Do they have any support network at all?”

I’m not a licensed psychologist. I’ve been through the process and I’m an unpaid adjunct for several licensed psychologists. I participate in these sessions (more patients than I can remember), with the prior approval of the patient, to assist in the assessments and to provide a sounding board for them. Outside of the office visits I mentor them, meet with and help their families and friends and peers, and work with them in social settings, and report back to the psychologists how the patient is handling certain social challenges and barriers, and how their attitude towards their gender identity and expression is being upheld. Again, this is done with the patient’s permission and knowledge.

This process can take as little as a couple of months, to years.

At the end of it all there is a letter, from the psychologist, stating the gender identity of the patient and requesting that all possible accommodation be made for them. It’s often brief, maybe 2 paragraphs plus an intro and closing. This is what I refer to as the “doctor’s note.” There will also be a letter to a physician talking about the patient and recommending hormone therapy, but that is (normally) sent directly to the physician to avoid the possibility of forgery.

If I gave the impression that one could just go to a doctor, they’d check them over, and write out a note, that impression I gave is incorrect. It was based on my summarizing a process which I’ve already posted about many times before.

162

…and when I say that the schools typically accept the “doctor’s note” (explained in the prior post), I mean that they either already understand that licensed psychologists or psychiatrists have performed due diligence, or else they phone the psychologists up and ask for more details. Generally, the psychologists will expand upon the process (similar to what I just posted), but they cannot violate the privacy of the patient. For instance, they can say “we ruled out compounding factors in the home” instead of “the fact that she’s been bullied by her brother for 15 years running was explored in detail, and found not to be the root cause of the gender identity.”

163

What is it about the case linked in the OP that makes you think it didn’t happen? Or rather, feel free to answer instead, why are you assuming it didn’t happen when the article didn’t make that clear, but did make clear that the school has obviously taken some steps to ensure this is a serious request to the point where they are offering alternative accommodations? In the state of Illinois, you need to submit 3 things to get your birth certificate amended: a gender reassignment application, along with an affidavit to amend your birth certificate after gender reassignment surgery, and a physical affidavit. Note that while a surgery is required, it specifically says gender surgery is not specifically required. I’m inclined to believe this happened to the satisfaction of school authorities so additional protests are moot

The school wants her to use a private changing area rather than the regular girl’s lockers. Forcing a woman to use facilities designed for men, or specifically singling her out, is a violation of her rights. I’m sure any junior lawyer can easily get the school on violations of the equal protection clause. You are attempting to use the discomfort of the other students to deny this girl equal treatment while claiming those facilities are just as good. I think we had a pretty famous case where the SCOTUS ruled that separate but equal was not equal. Fact is, this girl is female and deserves to use the girl’s locker room to change. The discomfort from the other girls, or their parents, is their own bigotry. The discomfort this girl feels is the school authorities singling her out for different treatment. Her feelings are relevant, the other girls are not.

164

And I would be correct in that argument. E.g., there are plenty of people who self-identify as white, with cultural and family heritage commonly considered racially white, who have darker skin color than many people who self-identify as black and have cultural and family heritage commonly considered racially black. Skin color is indeed not a guaranteed indicator of racial identity.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
I would counter by arguing many people don’t think self-declared gender identity is the sole basis for deciding who is male or female, or more clearly, who should be able to use which locker room.

[/quote]

Logically, that’s not really a counterargument to the previous point; it’s more of a tangent. But you are correct that there are indeed many people who think that gender self-identification should not be the sole basis for deciding who should use which locker room.

Which is not much of an argument. After all, as I pointed out above, there have also been many people who think that the basis for deciding who should use which locker room (and how many separate locker rooms there should be) should include race as well as gender. Those people’s opinions on this subject are no longer generally considered valid as far as the rights of locker-room users are concerned.

So the fact that many people nowadays think that genital anatomy as well as gender self-identification should be included in the basis for deciding who should use which locker room doesn’t automatically mean that their opinions should be considered valid as far as the rights of locker-room users are concerned.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]

That doesn’t mean self-declared gender identity isn’t real or isn’t valid; it just means it isn’t the ONLY concern in every circumstance.

[/quote]

But the position I’m arguing for here is that self-declared gender identity is the only legitimate concern in the particular circumstance of deciding who’s entitled to use what restroom or locker room.

(Of course, I’m aware that there are many other circumstances in which anatomy or biological sex does have to be taken into account, e.g., when a transgender woman needs to decide whether to consult a gynecologist or a urologist.)

[QUOTE=brickbacon]

So please answer the question. Why should a Black person whose skin turns white not be considered White?

[/quote]

Because merely having white skin doesn’t automatically mean that he’s racially white. Just as having a penis doesn’t automatically mean that somebody has a male gender identity or should be automatically considered male.

165

Because I try not to assume things not in evidence. Regardless, I have not even commented on whether I think this particular girl should use the girls’ locker room. In your haste to assume anyone who doesn’t accept your arguments must disagree with your conclusion, you have missed valid critiques.

Why? Why are you so sure all of that happened? Your argument is basically that the school would have raised the objection had it not, but that is speculative, and highly presumptive given the school is not necessarily the antagonist here.

No, it’s actually not AFAICT, but feel free to cite the law you think coves this and some cases where such a thing has been ruled on. Is only having one wheelchair bathroom stall a violation since people in wheelchairs can’t use the normal sized stalls?

Great, so since these issues can be corrected by even a junior lawyer, why are we having these issues if it’s supposedly settled law?

Why is a private room not as good? How is that less utile?

Are you under the mis-impression that that theory applies equally to all matter and groups? Because it seems evident it does not given we have gender segregated bathrooms to this day.

Do you think locker rooms are segregated for both gender and sex reasons? Why or why not?

166

I agree, but be careful complimenting Bricker; he may take it personally.

167

You’re getting a little mixed up and forgetting what you were talking about previously. The question you asked me was “So can bigender people use either facility? Do we create separate facilities for genderless, trigender, and pangender people? Why or why not?” Your phrasing clearly indicated that you were asking what we should do about that hypothetical situation, not what we presently do.

And I responded to that question by saying “We let students decide for themselves what gender they identify as for restroom-preference purposes, based on the restroom gender options available in our current infrastructure.” Meaning that that’s what we should do if such a situation comes up.

And you’re also a little mixed up between “using whatever bathroom they want” and “deciding what gender they identify as for restroom-preference purposes”. We’re talking about students who consistently and continuously identify and present as a particular gender having the right to use the same restroom as other students of their gender. Not about students being entitled to use whatever restroom they want completely irrespective of gender. (That would take us back to the related but different topic of whether restrooms should be gender-segregated at all.)

Which also takes care of Shodan’s rather silly hypothetical about a non-transgender boy dishonestly claiming a non-male gender identity merely in order to be able to use girls’ facilities to ogle girls. If a boy consistently identifies and presents as a boy, and expects and prefers to be considered a boy by his family and friends and other people he interacts with, then it would be silly for school authorities to believe that he’s not a boy just because he invents a gender category like “penis-haver who uses girls’ restroom” specifically and solely for restroom use.
Respecting the rights of transgender people doesn’t mean we somehow become unable to identify or reject malicious bullshit when we encounter it.

168

Why do you think that logic applies to race but not whether you are a man? More importantly, why is racial identity neither entirely self-selective or based on phenotypic traits in your opinion? What do you have to do to be considered Black in your humble opinion?

You are missing the point. Why can I self identify as any gender I want, but not any race I want?

Says you. You are begging the question once again. Why is self declared gender identity the only legitimate concern when the basis for the segregation has ALWAYS been understood (until recently) to be based on far more than that? Please outline your reasoning beyond just shouting that things change and “bigots” must be silenced.

I’ll give you an example. Let’s say an open minded guy goes on a dating site and meet a person who identifies as a women without any qualifications. They meet and she casually mentions that she is a pre-op transgender person. Is that someone that worthies mentioning before? Why or why not? Should the person make zero differentiation between a transgender woman and a non-transgender woman in any and every sense?

Why not? What does racially White mean? How do most people determine who is and isn’t White?

True, but you are arguing it has NO bearing on anything whatsoever, and that is nonsensical.

169

Racial identity is entirely a matter of self-identification in certain circumstances. For example, when you’re filling out a typical form that asks you to state your race, the only criterion is what race you personally identify as.

In other circumstances, such as getting a checkup for various health conditions that are more prevalent among particular racial groups, you should take into account your ethnic heritage as well as your personal racial self-identification.

Likewise, as I already said, there are indeed some circumstances where transgender people need to take into account their biological sex/anatomy as well as their personal gender self-identification. But when it comes to everyday social interactions including restroom use, personal gender self-identification is all we need to consider.

You keep on scrambling to come up with some kind of “gotcha” refuting this analogy, but you’re not succeeding because the circumstances are, in fact, analogous.

You can do both, as I’ve been saying all along.

I think what may be confusing you is the distinction between “self-identification” and “arbitrary assertion”. You seem to imagine that respecting self-identification implies that all assertions about identity automatically become equally valid. So if, say, Kanye West suddenly claims that he racially self-identifies as Asian, then we’re obligated to start calling him Asian, and so on.

But actual self-identification is nowhere near as simple as that. We have every right to ask whether Kanye West sincerely does regard himself as racially Asian, and in fact everything we know about him strongly indicates that he does not. Similarly, transgender people (especially children) are very closely counseled and scrutinized to determine whether their claims to have a gender different from their biological sex constitute a genuine gender identity on a fundamental psychological level, or perhaps just stem from confusion, or are simply bullshit.

No need to get so emotional; nobody’s calling for the “silencing” of anybody, nor am I “shouting” about anything, nor did I actually use your word “bigots”.

But whether you like it or not, this issue is fundamentally based on the fact that “things change”. Specifically, nowadays we understand more about the science of gender identity, its biological basis in brain structure as well as genital anatomy, and its social construction, than we did back when the two-gender model of human society was originally developed. (And it’s worth pointing out that the two-gender model has not been universal even in all pre-modern societies: consider, e.g., the acknowledgement of “third sex” people in traditional South Asian cultures.)

Just because it’s admittedly difficult for a lot of people to wrap their heads around this new fuller understanding of gender identity doesn’t mean that we should throw away the things we’ve learned to avoid offending or shocking their traditional two-gender preconceptions.

I don’t understand what “is that someone that worthies mentioning before?” means. I’m going to assume you meant “is that something that was worth mentioning before?”*

And my answer is, “sure, if she wanted to mention it”. But it’s not something she was in any way obligated to mention if she didn’t want to. I do think that if she’s explicitly asked about it, she’s ethically obligated either to tell the truth or just refuse to answer the question, but it’s not her responsibility to “warn” potential dates about it in advance.

The medico-social fact is that there are some women who have penises and some men who have vaginas (and there are some people, women or men or nonbinary, who have some genital configuration not quite corresponding to either category). That’s just one of the things about men and women that people who go on dating sites should be aware of.

Of course not. For instance, when it comes to their own personal feelings of sexual or romantic attraction, there might be a hell of a differentiation between a transgender woman and a non-transgender woman. Some men who want to date women will not want to date a transgender woman, or a fat woman, or an Asian woman, or a blonde woman, or a woman who’s taller than they are. And those men (and everybody else) are absolutely within their rights to differentiate among potential dating partners according to those personal preferences.

But that doesn’t mean that a woman on a dating site is in any way obligated to advertise that she’s tall, or blonde, or Asian, or fat, or transgender, if she doesn’t want to. On a dating site (or anywhere else), you can only identify potential partners who superficially seem like someone you’d be interested in, and then you take your chances in finding out more about what they’re really like.

As I explained above, the criteria used for racial identification depend on the circumstances. Which, after all, is kind of what you’d expect from socially constructed categories.

No, “arguing it has no bearing on anything whatsoever” is exactly what I’m not doing, and haven’t ever been doing.

Once again, what I’m saying is this: Gender classification criteria, like racial classification criteria, are dependent on the circumstances in which the classification is happening. And for the particular circumstance of deciding who gets to use what restroom, we don’t need, and shouldn’t impose, any criteria other than individual gender self-identification.

  • It’s kind of remarkable how all debates about transgender rights somehow seem to eventually end up at this question of “but what if a man dates a woman who turns out to be transgender?”, especially when the questioner is getting a little agitated in the course of the discussion. Is that anxiety really what this whole fraught issue is fundamentally about?
170

While I tend to agree with that statement in a vacuum, here we have a school who has actively tried to accommodate the girl in question. Its not a leap to assume that they accept that her transition is valid. I do assume, and rather confidently in fact, that she didn’t just walk up to the principal one day and say she identifies as a girl now. I assume that because what has been reported supports that something in the way of verification went on.

This case is more like a building manager refusing to build a wheelchair bathroom, and instead told the guy to shit in an outhouse outside. That case would probably be won by the guy in the wheelchair if he contends they violated the ADA, just as equal protection would protect the girl in this school for them failing to accommodate her use of the girls’ locker room

The reason is that it hasn’t gone to court. It is not an outrageous statement to say that a possible case is clearly one sided. I’m confident she’d win if she sued. Are you confident she won’t be accommodated?

Its not equal to the girls’ locker

I think it applies to this case

I think that such long standing traditions didn’t bother to consider both gender and sex, that so far we’ve assumed that gender and sex are one and the same thing and/or they always match. Given that we know now they don’t, lockers are behind in their segregation policies. I think that we’re moving to a gendered segregation of locker rooms, and that’s a good thing, so if a biological male identifies as a female, she’ll be allowed to use the female locker room provided she passes a certain threshold. Do you support that?

171

In my view, this is a good example of the kind of easily refutable absolute statements that I spoke of earlier. While it is sometimes true that forcing a woman to use facilities that single her out is a violation of her rights, it’s by no means always true. The law regards sex-based and gender-based classification as subject to only intermediate scrutiny. Further, the law is not yet at the point that pre-operative trans women are unambiguously regarded as women for the purposes of civil rights analysis. The law differs between jurisdictions; within a single state a large city may have ordinances that provide robust protection but leave similarly situated rural women’s rights unclear.

When you argue like this, you invite your opponents to focus on your easily refuted absolute statements. In my opinion, you are better served focusing on the desired social policy than on declarations of fact that aren’t always accurate.

172

My apologies.

But the above is not always strictly true. Especially when we add in people who are apparently bigender.

It’s not silly. I assure you it will happen just as people have pretended to be disabled to win competitions. It will happen even sooner if the only prerequisite is having a doctor’s note as Una suggested.

Who gets to decide what is and isn’t “malicious bullshit”?

Why do you believe that to be the case, and why isn’t gender the same?

That’s certainly not true in any absolute sense.

Ethnic heritage is not race and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Why is a locker room not one of those cases? Again, do you think the impetus for segregating women is to separate them primarily from people with male brains or people with penises (eg. typical male anatomy) or both?

Not struggling. Doing quite fine actually which is why your side doesn’t even bother answering questions posed of you.

Actually, you didn’t. Under what circumstances can Jerry Seinfeld, for example, plausibly claim he is Black?

No, that is EXACTLY what you are doing re gender. Oh the irony. You expect every claim to be treated as worthy of full scale accommodation and respect. Your side expects people to address Caitlyn Jenner as Caitlyn when she herself feels perfectly fine applying to country clubs as Bruce. That’s even ignoring the funny fact that all of this new thinking is supposed to erase gender stereotypes, yet transgender people still feel the need to take gender stereotypical names when they transition. Why can’t we call female Bruce Jenner Bruce Jenner?

Your side is claiming that a school taking the half measure of a private locker room is an egregious violation because this person you know almost nothing about MUST be sincere worthy of whatever she says she is. Please explain why?

But what if he sincerely did believe that. Am I wrong if I don’t call him Asian? Would the leader of a club for Asian people be wrong for not admitting him on account of not being Asian?

Please cite some evidence that the above is true in any universal sense?

Please cite the biological evidence for multiple genders and the evidence that disrupts the two-gender model?

Why? You keep saying this as if it’s some self-evident truth when it’s not. Given the ample evidence that locker room gender segregation is based on both sex and gender, why should only gender matter, and why should gender in that case be based on self-identification?

Well, it usually goes that route because one side insists that there are no meaningful differences between a transgender women and a non-transgender women. Hence your side haranguing people with questions asking if a given person is really a women.

You are assuming a lot more than that.

Wrong. An outhouse is not at all equal to an indoor bathroom. Further the law makes PLENTY of exceptions to the ADA regarding accommodations so the idea that a building manager HAS to build a wheelchair bathroom is false. In many cases, it just comes down to money. I would think other people’s comfort and perceived safety would be regarded with at least as much regard.

Why do you think that? Cases have gone to court already. Here is one where your side lost. To quote the judge:

Wrong. See above.

It is in every meaningful way.

Why?

Perhaps, but I think it’s clear women would feel more uncomfortable around male anatomies that male brains. Do you disagree? If you agree that is the crux of the matter, then why are you arguing gender is the issue?

Depends on the circumstances. Generally I have no issue with it if the people involved don’t.

173

Thank you for this analysis. I had hoped for more of this type of discussion. I would imagine, as well, that there is an additional wrinkle with respect to age. For example, a minor female - trans or not - is not a “woman” under the law in terms of being able to consent to sex.

I think it facile to suggest that “woman” has only one definition, shared by all people and entities in all circumstances. I also find it curious that it is often offered as a criticism when non GLBT people express gender as binary - yet people here seem to force a decision of a particular transgender individual fits in one of those two categories.

It is troublesome to be charged a bigot for considering this a complex issue and for asking questions.

Yes, I know one should not say they are going away if they do not intend to stay away…

174

Again, you seem to imagine that establishing a personal and social transgender identity consists of nothing more than suddenly announcing “Hey, I’m transgender!” and everybody else immediately has to go along with it. That’s not how this works.

It’s not like, say, the Spanish Paralympics basketball coach recruiting non-disabled players who were never even tested for any disability. People who claim to have a different gender than they were assigned at birth generally go through an awful lot of scrutiny. They need to have a significant history of serious discomfort with their assigned gender, and strong indicators of identifying as a different gender, to be taken seriously about being transgender.

It just doesn’t make sense to worry that we’re going to see significant numbers of non-transgender boys spending years of their lives demanding to wear skirts and constantly faking severe gender dysphoria, including during multiple counseling sessions and evaluations with psychologists, just in the hopes of eventually being falsely assessed as transgender so they can get into girls’ restrooms to ogle undressed girls. As others have pointed out, there are way easier methods of ogling undressed girls nowadays.

Wait, are you saying that you don’t consider Caitlyn Jenner’s self-identification as a transgender woman to be genuine? Years of counseling, the whole public transition process, painful cosmetic surgery, family trauma, all the vituperation and hate mail, you think she went through all that just for shits and giggles? You feel she hasn’t done enough in terms of identifying as a woman to entitle her gender identification to “full scale accommodation and respect”?

Pretty strict, that.

In any case, the name-change issue is a complete red herring. Of course you should call somebody Caitlyn if they change their name to Caitlyn. If a happily cisgender man named Bruce decided to change his name to Caitlyn just because he liked the name Caitlyn and didn’t see anything wrong with a man using a traditionally feminine name, you should call him Caitlyn too.

That’s not “political correctness” or any kind of ideological coercion, that’s just elementary good manners. Frankly, I’m rather surprised that you think that aspect of the situation is even up for debate.

I’m not a spokesperson for any “side” here, nor am I responsible for what anybody else may be “claiming”. If you object to something another poster said, take it up with them.

I don’t understand what you mean by “multiple genders”. There is indeed plenty of biological evidence that the conventional social two-gender model, in which every individual is either male or female determined solely in accordance with whether they were born with a penis or a vagina, isn’t adequate to the reality of human gender diversity.

A sample of evidence about gender identity’s dependence on developmentally determined brain structure, rather than solely on chromosomal sex and genital anatomy:
A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity

Intersexuality and gender identity differentiation

There are huge amounts of similar evidence in published research, but I presume this argument isn’t about the science. (If it is, of course, please say so, and I’ll do my best as a layperson to explain the science to you.)

I don’t understand what you mean by “universal sense”. There is certainly lots of evidence that people, especially children, claiming to be transgender are routinely subjected to a lot of psychological scrutiny before their claims are acknowledged as valid. One of many examples: Psychological Evaluation and Medical Treatment of Transgender Youth in an Interdisciplinary “Gender Management Service” (GeMS) in a Major Pediatric Center

Of course it’s relevant. Genetic (ethnic) heritage is the biological component of socially constructed racial categories, just as genitalia and sex chromosomes are the biological component of socially constructed gender categories.

Because nowadays we know that gender is not determined solely by anatomical sex, and that sometimes people’s gender is different from their anatomical sex.

Anatomical sex is determined by body parts such as penises and vaginas, which don’t know or care which restroom they use. Gender, on the other hand, is determined by people. It makes far more sense (as well as being more respectful and humane) to determine restroom use according to which gender an individual person identifies with than to insist that all the penises have to be in one restroom and all the vaginas in the other.

175

An outstanding post, I couldn’t agree more.
We had a case a few days ago in my school, where an individual who identifies her gender as a female, tried to use a female bathroom and got assaulted by other females (who yelled hateful crap, such as “go to your own bathroom, Michael!”)
I was appalled, simply appalled, but then, thankfully, Michael was able to force her way to female bathroom, and emerged a few minutes later not worse for the wear, before engaging in a spirited 15-minute conversation with individuals, who identify themselves as males, while waving her cellphone around and demonstrating some newly-taken pictures, and getting approving comments, such as “wow, that’s a nice pic, Michael!”.
My heart melted, when I saw it, I gotta admit…

176

Yes, we get it, transgender girls are just sneaky boys trying to finagle some dirty pictures, ha ha, most amusing.

Interestingly, this is the other standard trope (besides the abovementioned “what if a man dates a woman who turns out to be transgender”) that many cisgender men seem to gravitate to when discussing transgender rights. AFAIK nobody’s ever cited any actual case of a boy formally adopting a transgender identity just to ogle girls, but so many guys from Mike Huckabee on down appear to take it for granted that that’s exactly what would happen if transgender girls are allowed to use girls’ restrooms. Sort of the updated gender-identity version of those-colored-boys-will-rape-your-daughters-if-classrooms-are-integrated, I guess.

Both of these standard tropes are apparently rooted in the conviction that trans women aren’t “really” women, but on some level are just men pretending to be women for purposes of fraudulent sexual predation. The only difference between them is whether the “pretending” men are imagined to be gay or straight, and the corresponding reaction evoked:

Gay (fear). “Gay men are dressing as women and acting like women in order to trick straight men into having gay sex with them! What if I dated one of those pretend-women and wanted to have sex with her and then found out she had a penis? WOULD THAT MEAN I WAS GAY? Wicked, tricksy trannieses, we hates them, we hates them!”

Straight (envy). “Ooh, those dudes figured out how to game their way into the girls’ locker rooms where they can look at all the pussy and tits! High five, bro!”
Guys, that isn’t how gender identity works. Actual cisgender men, whether gay or straight, are not willing to live their lives as women and be identified as women and be treated as women by everybody around them, just in order to trick anybody, male or female, into unwanted intimacy with them. You all can quit worrying/fantasizing about this shit.

177

Who are “we”, if you don’t mind me asking?

178

Those of us that read your vile little post.

179

I think it’s pretty obvious that the question was addressed to Kimstu, not to Czarcasm? :confused:

PS. Please stop trying to hijack this topic.
Thank you.

180

Those of us that read your vile little post.