Lia Thomas (again)

[Signalbox]

Reports that Lia Thomas has been exposing themselves to female team mates and that they have complained and been ignored on multiple occasions...

"While Lia covers herself with a towel sometimes, there’s a decent amount of nudity, the swimmer said. She and others have had a glimpse at her private parts."

"She stated that team members have raised their concern with the coach, trying to get Thomas ousted from the female locker room, but got nowhere."

"Multiple swimmers have raised it, multiple different times,' the UPenn swimmer said. 'But we were basically told that we could not ostracize Lia by not having her in the locker room and that there's nothing we can do about it, that we basically have to roll over and accept it, or we cannot use our own locker room."

"It's really upsetting because Lia doesn't seem to care how it makes anyone else feel,' the swimmer continued. 'The 35 of us are just supposed to accept being uncomfortable in our own space and locker room for, like, the feelings of one."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10445679/Lia-Thomas-UPenn-teammate-says-trans-swimmer-doesnt-cover-genitals-locker-room.html#comments

that turns this from an offence against them, to an obligation on their part to accept it?

Yes rather than an obligation on Lias part to prove it. Although that's impossible with a big man body and a penis hanging out. Squeezed into a swimsuit many sizes too small. Looks just like a man to me.

It’s also the other way round. Female swimmers will want to shower and change quickly. It is almost certain that in normal circumstances they would take off swimming things, shower naked and then dress. No need for modesty amongst other women who you know well and see every day in a group changing room.

They probably feel far less comfortable with Lia in there and doing the towel dance. They will feel the need to do the same. 14 hours plus training each week, travel to meets and then a heavy academic load. Those extra 5-10 minutes after each session matter.

They will wonder why their boundaries are being challenged and why they are needing to alter their behaviour. And why no one consulted them.

Well indeed. Why on earth should women be expected to undress when there's someone in there dick swinging.

Lia alongside a member of their own sex. As for the women.. nothing about their experience of the situation has changed? Does this seem right or fair, that their reality is overridden by someone else’s beliefs? Really?

Still waiting for an answer.

What if all the women swimmers claimed to identify with a No defined sex / gender group needing their own changing room.

What if they all just identify as men? Apparently women who identify as men can still compete in the women's events.

And as "men" they can keep a "woman" like Thomas out of their changing room. With the sudden excess of men, the spaces would need to be reallocated somewhat, but I'm sure some arrangement could be sorted out, particularly with the help of the real men.

And Thomas can't flip back to a "man" to join them as that would rule him out of the women's races - only real women can be in the women's race while claiming to be men.

Does that work?

Someone at Private Eye would post the Lia picture side by side with a Borat one.

I think we can all agree that if you depend on plausible deniability to get away with behaviour - whether it's insulting your in laws, taking more than your fair share of food, or accidentally flashing your teammates - you are an asshole.

Needmoresleep

Does that work?

I don't see why not. Let's face it, things couldn't be much worse.

Which why it becomes abundantly clear why, in the group photo of the team on the beach, the women standing next to Lia are curling themselves away to create space.
Spot on @Motorina.

I'm glad at least one person appears to have some integrity. There is no evidence whatsoever that she has been walking round with an erection, on the contrary the piece suggests she covers up but may have accidentally revealed herself on occassion. The assumptions on this thread that this means she is a predator, sexually motivated, or a criminal are both disgusting and deeply transphobic. incidentally if she is meeting the hormone requirement to swim on the women's team it is highly unlikely she is developing spontaneous erections in the changing rooms - it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people who claim to speak with such authority on trans issues are about the very basics of trans bodies.

If it is true that the gender critical movement is largely of the left then I would hope they would appraise this story with the same critical eye they would were it a Daily Mail story about any other minority. For years the paper has used stories based on anonymous sources to whip up hatred towards refugees, lone parents, benefit claimants and other minority groups and now they appear to be doing the same to trans people. The beauty of a story based on an anonymous source is that the journalist is no longer writing a story on what is the truth but simply reporting on what an individual says is the truth. And a good journalist with a generous cheque book can often coerce an interveiwee into saying pretty much whatever they want - one of the reasons editors would once rarely publish stories based on anonymous sources though the right wing press long abandoned such integrity.

A large part of the story is pure speculation - that she threw the race. and note how they drag in the trans male swimmer and basically accuse him of being part of a conspiracy to cheat with to evidence whatsoever. We have no real idea at all what other team mates think because it is merely hearsay - and they use the other common Daily Mail technique of salting the earth in advance - no-one dare say anything in case they are accused of ... racism/sexism/transphobia (delete as appropriate). This is used to undermine anyone who might turn up claiming the story is untrue.

And finally, and most concerningly this story does not meet the very basic ethical journalistic standards. Where's the right of reply, from both Lia and UPenn? That this hasn't been sought by the journalist undermines everything that comes before - almost as if they didn't want anyone to have the chance to challenge or correct the narrative. It is a very poor story from a journalistic perspective which has all the hallmarks of a Daily Mail stitch up and as such I will reserve judgement just as I have on the claims of broken glass behind stickers because when a story is too good to be true, doesn't offer a right of reply, speculates wildly and makes no attempt to seek sources who might go on record, or contradict the narrative then it is not journalism, it is propaganda and should be treated as such.

You know integrity went out the window the second a bunch of women were asked to turn a blind eye to cocks in the changing room and saying you are a different sex in order to thrash a bunch of women and get all the glory for being 'brave' instead of a cowardly cheat don't you?

The mail might be speculating about other things but they focusing on the inheritant ballcocks of it, and thats what enables any embellishments to be taken as gospel.

Unfortunately the best lies are built on the observed injustices of people which fail to be addressed by authority because its inconvenient or uncomfortable to confront it directly.

This leaves a vacuum of indifference that is ripe for the exploitation of those who are at the extremes.

Most normal people just end up thoroughly fed up of the shit because they instinctively know whats unfair / bullshit / utter gaslighting by over privileged and out of touch types.

Honestly this boils down to 'dicks in changing rooms with women who feel too afraid or compromised to speak out themselves'.

This article likens the effect of hormones to doping in sport. It was an interesting read.

www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/without-ncaa-action-the-effects-of-lia-thomas-situation-are-akin-to-doping/

If sport isn't a level playing field, what's the point of competing?

they focusing on the inheritant ballcocks of it

You nailed it there!

dicks in changing rooms with women who feel too afraid or compromised to speak out themselves

Nailed it there too!

Oh, Thomas.

Oooh! Squee! A video gif! On MN.

Are we welcoming in a new era, Arabella!!!

Nothing will ever be the same again.

I've been re-reading this thread and I have some issues.

Firstly, it has been put forth that LT is "legally entitled" to change with the women under local law. I'm sure there is some kind of official classification for such an attempt to dodge the debate, but I cannot remember it now. Regardless, yes, I am aware it is legal and I say that it shouldn't be, and that this legislation acts to women's detriment. As many statutes have done.

Secondly, I see the quibbling over whether Thomas wants to cause distress to female teammates as immaterial.

The more interesting questions are
i) could a reasonable person foresee that Thomas's actions had the potential to cause distress?
ii) is Thomas as an individual incapable of foreseeing the potential for distress?
iii) is Thomas incapable of noticing the press coverage of anonymous teammates explaining they are unhappy with the situation?

You may be confused by the formulation of these questions, but fear not, I shall explain. At length.

The majority of criminal offences (but not all) in England and Wales have two components: actus reus and mens rea, and the magistrate or jury must be convinced both are present. I shall explain using an example.

Imagine that you are being prosecuted for stamping on my foot. The court must be convinced that there was
i) actus reus - legal speak for the offence actually happened (my foot was stamped on) and that it was you. Perhaps it was someone who merely looked like you. Perhaps I have a grudge against you and it never happened.
ii) mens rea - legal speak for determining whether you meant to stamp on my foot. It seems a bit harsh to condemn you if you stepped on my foot by accident.

For most situations, these two tests suffice. But what if you do not actively wish to injure me for the sake of it, but you commit to a course of action aware that it is a likely outcome? If a man deliberately sets fire to his office building during working hours, with the intention of claiming the insurance money, are those who die in the fire any the less dead because he says he hoped all the employees would all escape the building in time? (Yes, based on real cases.) Enter the legal concept of recklessness, which handles whether people are culpable for the obvious consequences of their acts, or whether they should be exonerated because they didn't want to kill anyone in the fire.

After many test cases, this is the current guidance from the House of Lords.

extract
R v G & R[2003] 3 WLRHouse of Lords

The two appellants, aged 11 and 12, went camping for a night without their parents’ permission. The boys found some old newspapers outside the Co-op which they lit with a lighter and then threw them under a wheelie bin. They then left without putting them out assuming they would naturally burn out. In fact the burning newspapers set light to the wheelie bin and the fire spread to the Co-op shop and caused over £1m of damage.

Held:

The defendants' convictions were quashed. The House of Lords overruledMPC v Caldwell[1982] AC 341.

The appropriate test of recklessness for criminal damage is:

"A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to -

(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;

(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;

and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."

From: e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-G--and--R.php

We cannot see inside Thomas' head to see whether LT intends to cause the female teammates distress, but surely it is an obvious risk of LT's choice to use the women's changing room? LT is not a gormless 12 year old, but a university student, and surely capable of reading the newspapers?

Well, I asked barleybadminton to come and justify a male’s penis being visible in a female space and barleybadminton rose the challenge.

Thank you barley. As ever, the sunlight you shine on this is incredibly enlightening for all to see.

As an aside, it’s also worth noting that this was exactly the same reason Hannah Mouncey gave for giving up women’s handball - that Mouncey’s teammates were uncomfortable with the presence of naked Mouncey in their changing rooms. Funny how there’s a whole queue of women saying the same thing .

It’s interesting that even if Thomas’s penis wasn’t erect or even flashed in a flagrant manner, how some women would still find it incredibly uncomfortable.

As a woman if I woke up with a penis I’d understand and in the interest of that understanding make sure not to upset the other females.

But this very small fact, the fact that we feel uncomfortable and even afraid at the glimpse of the male form (intended or not) when we are in such a state of vulnerability is lost or ignored.. speaks volumes. It is all male entitlement.

There are zero excuses for male entitlement. Even having the obviously male physical body nearby can be very troubling to some.

Frankly I’d question every science degree out of this school. It seems that even the most fundamental of truths is ignored. I’d question every single science major to really get a good feel for how this school is handling the curriculum…..

I don’t think this falls all on these female athletes… a wider net should be cast to really see how far this University has gone off the deep end.

What would their biology majors say? I’d not hire them where is work if they actually denied science! This involves the WHOLE university.

I think it’s time to actually believe in what we are saying. If they believe a male can be female through the magic of thought , then all of their science degrees must also follow that. If not THEY should speak up. Otherwise hire at your own risk… you got tainted goods on your hands not trained in even the fundamentals

Not trained in the fundamentals I mean.

We ought to see what the rest of this university is selling. Hold them accountable for everything.

Tell us the science. The non feels kind. Otherwise boycott their graduates. Shine a light at least.

This is not just a female athletes problem.

As an aside, it’s also worth noting that this was exactly the same reason Hannah Mouncey gave for giving up women’s handball - that Mouncey’s teammates were uncomfortable with the presence of naked Mouncey in their changing rooms. Funny how there’s a whole queue of women saying the same thing

And these are young women too so the idea that younger women are more comfortable in mixed sex spaces does not appear to be true in these cases.

I sometimes think the word "uncomfortable" isn't quite right in many of these cases. It implies we can adjust (fluff the pillow to make it more comfy, change the position of our chair,chat kind of thing). We don't need to fucking adjust. We don't need to get used to males in our changing rooms, our toilets, our wards, our prison, our spas, our refuges, our sports.
I don't feel uncomfortable. I feel afraid. Vulnerable. Alone. Betrayed. Abandoned. Unheard. Uncared for. Ignored. Abused. Gaslit. My view of the world has been completely poisoned.
Uncomfortable doesn't even come close.

Signalbox

Oh come on! We are told most assuredly by some posters that all young people support full inclusion and anyone who doesn’t is going to die soon.

How many times do we see this ?

I sometimes think the word "uncomfortable" isn't quite right in many of these cases.

Well, clearly it doesn't compare with how "uncomfortable" Thomas would be at having to compete with males.

That sort of male discomfort is serious.