I think some posters have gotten to the crux, and downright dangerous part of the concern about "homosexuals" in school locker rooms.
Since being "gay" is a claimed identity, there's no way of telling who is homosexual or not.
If one bans homosexuals from locker rooms, then one could ban teachers simply on a suspicion of homosexuality.
In fact, any teacher the learners don't like could be banned on an accusation.
There's nothing that states that only openly known homosexual gym teachers should be banned from locker rooms.
Homosexuality is not confined to openly gay people.
For that reason I think rules of propriety should apply to all teachers in locker rooms, and the shower area should be apart from the teacher, unless
he needs to enter it in an emergency or disorder.
From that point it is easy to cover with a towel, if the learners feel uncomfortable.
The shower space should be walled off for the learners, and it should never be acceptable for an older person to shower with the learners, or stare at
To that one might add that gay men are men, and not women.
They may share some attractions with women, but their bodies are judged in comparison to other men, and with other men.
I'd also rather trust an openly gay man than some guy in a marriage with a wife and kids, because the closet cases are the biggest pervs, and almost
all these busted toilet-sex cases are closeted or bisexual "straight" men.
In HIV-speak straight men who have gay sex are called MSM (men who have sex with men).
In some cultures only feminine and passive men are considered "gay".
I've seen a somewhat feminine straight music teacher hounded out on a suspicion that he was gay, when he was actually totally straight.
On the other hand, I can understand the anxiety and seeming double-standards.
But, can one really call a gay male "privileged" for being in a locker room with all other men?
I'd say that's a very effective equalizer, rather than a special privilege.
Although narratives exist to show that gay and straight men lived at close quarters through several wars without problems, the current radical gay
identity is an off-shoot of the sexual revolution.
Thus, being openly gay, I wouldn't become a gym teacher.
I wouldn't get a job that would make others feel uncomfortable.
However, in adult spaces like art or music festivals or so, I will claim my right to shower.
I've never had a problem.
I think this is more of a theoretical issue than a practical one.
There is an etiquette and male socialization to the issue.
I'd say I feel more vulnerable and shy being gay in those unavoidable situations than most straight men.
Reality is never a fantasy.
First they had this "problem" with the army, and now with schools.
Straight questions about homosexual nurses in hospitals and clinics?
Although it's a concern, I bet the hysteria comes from straight men who follow religious books that tell them gays don't really exist; they are just
bad straight people who chose their attraction.
So maybe they think that apart from mental terror they can isolate and punish us?
Maybe they think we'll turn when deprived of visual temptation?
Then we'll become ex-gays, and we can all shower together again?
Practically I don't think communal showers are really enjoyed in a sexual sense.
In that sense a practical reality is often confused with a fantasy, and a kind of knee-jerk straight fantasy of showering with nubile girls is
projected onto gay men: that is the idea that showering with men is the same as showering for straight men would be with sexy females.
Of course practically it's far from the same.
Apart from the self-consciousness and fear of exposure or humiliation, it's a matter of do or die.
Maybe gays should be privileged for all the years of bullying and discrimination.
Fine, then give us our own baths and showers.
Yes, with bubbles, champagne, massages and manicures.
Then we'll have special privileges!
We're tired of cheap deodorant and smelly socks.
We want air-con too!
Oh, but then the homophobes will scream blue murder.
They'll shout about how the queers have been given their own locker room, and now it's prettier than theirs!
edit on 25-1-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)