Woman 80, Banned From Pool After Reporting Man In Women's Shower Gawking At Little Girls

One sided stories always tend to lean a certain way.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: M5xaz

You are not questionning my statements.

That's a hoot. Your ability to make completely false assumptions is nothing short of miraculous.

You are 100% projecting cupcake.

You choose not to believe women and then you claim you did not say that.

Everyone can read your posts above.
You are either being deceptive or you are Joe Biden, complete with dementia.


Good luck

a reply to: M5xaz

UUUU, you continue to resort to name calling. How, uh, refreshing.

I’m sorry you seem to be having difficulty communicating clearly.

I am not the subject of discussion and I’d appreciate you, and i would venture im not the only one, stop with misdirecting the conversation away from the OP.

I also don’t appreciate the rudeness you’re acting out, does it really help prove something?

Do you feel the YMCA did everything they needed to in this situation to be 100% sure they are protecting the children here?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I didn’t say this. You are attributing someone else’s words towards me. Are you ok?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Mrthunker

You call it projection? It must be nice to have learned a psychological word to use . That's big time. So here, without any projection I will spell it out for you. You said that I was not questioning your statements. Yes, isn't that what you said? Here, I will quote it for you from your post.

You are not questionning my statements.

See it? Do you remember that now? It takes absolutely NO projection to know beyond a doubt that your assumption was wrong just as I stated. Want to keep up with your nonsense?

I wonder what the status of this guys mental health is.

The behavior is the issue, really.

Was he even aware he was staring or was he in a trance?

Not condoning, but he might have been granted "special status" due to a mental health condition the facility was aware of that the woman who complained was not made known of.

Not saying I feel comfortable with someone with such a condition watching me in the ladies room, but as someone who has a mental illness herself, I know how difficult it can be when certain aspects of my condition flares up in public and someone complains about me dissociating or having a look on my face that gives them cause for concern even though I'm not acting out.

I've been removed from the premises because of certain customer complaints even though I'm just sitting there with my coffee going through some stuff internally that I don't want to bother anyone else with.

I don't think this case presented in the OP is giving enough credit to the fact that this is obviously a very mentally disturbed individual and I think the woman had ever reason in the world to report the incident.

As hard as it is for me to say this, because I know how it feels to be on the opposite end of the situation during a bad break from reality and being on the recieving end of punishment for something I cannot consciously control, I think the safety of those little girls trumps the protected mental health status of an obviously disturbed man.

These little girls would not have been able to defend themslves if he had acted out.

Where was this mans caregiver? Why is he not being supervised by someone trained for such cases?

The woman did the right thing.

I'm upset she was punished for being a member of long standing acting in good faith due to whatever new policies this facility had undertaken for the new "protected classes" of citizens.

a reply to: Mrthunker

My apologies Mr Thunker. I have indeed, somehow ended up making replies to you intended for another. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If I should do this again, please let me know.

Yours
T

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Mrthunker

My apologies Mr Thunker. I have indeed, somehow ended up making replies to you intended for another. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If I should do this again, please let me know.

Yours
T

Friendly advice, please discuss the subject not the poster and you’ll avoid these issues

Again, do you feel the Y did everything in their power to ensure 100% the children are protected here? I’d prefer something more than an assumption as to why.

"Protests Planned After 80 Year Old Woman BANNED For Demanding Trans Male Leave Women's Bathroom"


A comment from someone who claims to know the 80 year old woman.

"Surreal! Tim, you covered this! My home town. I spoke at the city council meeting in favor of Julie, and as I watched the dramatic histrionics of the trans supporters and ridiculous performative mask wearing of most of the city council members sitting more than 6 feet apart I kept thinking "I hope Dave Chappell somehow gets ahold of this footage, it would be pure comedy gold." Seriously though, the 80 year old woman of note was a domestic violence counselor for years, has 'trans' relatives and is heavily involved in local politics: giving a lot of time and effort to save a beautiful stand of poplars that the same insane city council is trying to destroy for "reasons". She is actually a wise and circumspect woman, a pillar of our community. The insults that were slung at her were astonishingly hateful and out of order (at the subsequent "protest" at the pool) but she stood her ground, all alone until I and a few others went to join her for a bit. Issues such as this are bringing together the MAGA folks and the left wingers in our tiny community because there is a lot more common ground than the divisive powers that be would have us think. Julie does understand what is going on. You should interview her on your show."

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: M5xaz

UUUU, you continue to resort to name calling. How, uh, refreshing.

No
Just factual terms describing your behaviour.
Holding up a mirror to your face you do not like the figure you see staring back

a reply to: Mrthunker

Here is a link to the city council meeting in which this woman makes her concerns known to the city leaders. mynorthwest.com...

In this video it would seem that she is a reasonable sort with good intentions. However in this video it is clear that she does not mention her asking the person at the pool, '' do you have a penis''. That was reported early in this story. I"ts a rather rude if not belligerent way of approaching someone in that, that person might just have been a natural female with a husky voice. I don't know, you don't know and neither did she. She assumed.

However, this rudeness, which I can assume was present in her approach to achieving her goals,good or bad, spilled over onto the employee at the pool, because that is why she was banned from the pool, for rudeness to the employee.
Now, we do not know her history at that pool, that has not been reported. What I do know, as I stated somewhere earlier in this thread is that at least my Y pool, and again here I can assume that this exists in other Y pools is a system of warnings before a suspension or privileges is invoked. This suggests to me that there is this possibility that this was not a first time occurrence for behavior such as this involving this woman at that pool. I cannot offer anything more than assumption.

But none of that above answers your request about my take on the protection of children here, so now I will attempt to explain my take. I will offer you two answers, the short and the long. The short is just that, short. The long is the why of that answer. The short answer is no. If that's all you want from me then you might as well stop reading now.

The long answer is the YMCA is a non-profit organization which for the most part runs on a very limited budget. In the case of that pool, it is run under the auspice of the city of Port Townsend. That town is a small town of only about 10,000 people which suggests that it too runs on a limited budget. Put those two limited budgets together and there is a strong likelihood that the employees of the pool that day were low paid people. We don't know how many people were working there that day but there was mention of two at least. But even if there were more is it possible that anyone could ensure the safety of the children 100%

And protected from what exactly. Was there any overt actions taken by this person in that locker room? We don't know. It might be that this woman' intervention kept that person from grabbing a child or two and raping them right on the spot. Is it possible that her intervention keep this person from pulling out a penis and waving it in the faces of those children saying ''here little girls, ever seen one of these before?'' Sure that's possible as well. But other than speculation, or assumption of guilt, all we have to go on is this woman's testimony.

She said she heard a voice yet there was no mention of context to that hearing. Was there a conversation going on between this person and another or was this person just talking to themselves. We don't know. Is it possible this person was talking to the kids, sure, but we don't know.

She also stated that she saw this person watching the kids pull down their suits to use the facilities. Do we know whether or not this was a prolonged ''ogle'' or whether it just might have been a glance with no more to it than that. We don't know because all we have to go on is this woman's testimony. Taking that testimony at face value is what many want to do but if we want to dig a little deeper and question that also then this is what I am doing. She has already shown to have been rude if not belligerent by walking up to a stranger with the question ''do you have a penis'' and being rude to an employee which was the cause of her banishment. She has also proven herself to be an unreliable witness for not having mentioned in her complaint to the city council in that video that she had, as earlier reported, asked that person if they had a penis.

We don't even know if there WAS an incident. All we have thus far is her account and only then because she was banned from the pool. This has become a national news bit, so let's look at it a bit farther. Those kids. Did they find anything inappropriate? Did the parents of those kids, upon hearing about this story ask their kids who had been at the pool that day about the commotion? It's a small town. We can assume since this is now a national news item that it has made it's way into the local info-stream there as well can't we? Have any of those parents spoken up with their concerns? Have any of them even asked their kids did were you involved in this by being watched? And how old were those kids anyway. Were they there with their mothers or fathers or were they there alone? We don't know ANY of this because none of it is being reported.

One might think that if those parents had raised their voices it would be reported seeing as this whole issue is being reportef by mostly conservative news outlets. That city video I gave you was reported by a conservative radio station as is proclaimed by their logo. It was part of a program called ''Jason Rantz''. Is that Jason's real name? Rantz? I have never heard that name before. But given the nature of the station, being a conservative station there is a strong possibility is that his real name is not Rantz but rather a public name for his show playing on the word rants. And what do radio programs that proclaim themselves to be ranters do? They find things to rant about. So, where is the reporting here. Where is the investigative reporting to dig up the parents of the kids that day and get their outrage made public as well. I'll tell you, there isn't. There is nada at least as far as I could find.

So that leaves me with an impression that a lot of this is ''much to do about nothing''. It's conservative hyperbole. But that I'm afraid is only one assumption that I am not going to follow further.

Finally, though I find this event questionable and not proof of some grander left wing scheme to insult women, I will say this. I do not support penis's in women's locker rooms. I do not support equal female privacy rights for a person with a penis. I do not support transgender people being accepted into women's sport competitions. Transgender is new. People of this nature should not be claiming to be a woman or a man, they are not, those are two very very old classifications. They should claim to be what they are, something new and stop pretending to be something old.

And finally finally, yes. Women rights are being betrayed by this government intrusion into their lives by promoting unfinished transgenderism into the sacred halls of women's locker rooms and the hallowed fields of sports competitions.

I"ve covered your requests as best I can Trucker, but one thing. I do try to stick to the topic but when I am attacked with slanderous name calling, not you mind you, but others I feel it a duty to myself at least to call out that person for their own lack of communicative skills.

Dont let it ruin yer day Wilma.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

a reply to: Lysergic

Sorry but I do not understand the term ''Wilma'' as you use it here. I know that name as a semi-popular name of women from previous generations but the usage here is ambiguous. That last person I knew by that name was an elderly woman who lived next door to us when I was a child in the 1950s. She was kind and would often offer me more money for small odd jobs I would do for her than my parents thought she should have. My parents claimed she was pampering me.

But your usage here means nothing to me if not being used in a derogatory sense to denote my posting as being merely the ramble of an old doddering woman. That would be slanderous if you ask me, but of course you didn't so, ala another old doddering woman, Emily Litella, ''never mind''.

a reply to: kyosuke

This is a fine report on the woman who made the complaint. It is well written and suggests a person of honest intent has written it though that is merely my reaction to reading it.

However a few contingencies still exist one being the original report of her having asked the person in the locker room if they had a penis. That was right up front in the original reporting of this event. However in the subsequent video of the town hall meeting where she took her observations, that was omitted in her testimony merely saying that she had demanded that person leave. No big deal I guess but still sets the stage for another change in the story line.

As much as I appreciate the added testimony of a person claiming to know this woman, there is with that link you provided a pod cast or a radio talk show person speaking on the issue. If you recall the original report stated that the woman saw this person watching the little girls pulling down their bathing suits to use the toilet. My questions here are was it only one girl or more than one. Were they all pulling down their suits at the same time in a number of toilets or were they using them one at a time. I know that for the most part, women's and mens facilities have enclosed booths to use for privacy so it that is the case here, did those booths not have closed doors? And was this person merely glancing or instead ''ogling''. There is no distinction made so it might be one or the other.

However let's look at one more small deviance from the original story. Though that original report mentioned only watching them go to the loo, in that video of the radio show guy talking about it he offered a different rendition of the event. He reported that this person was helping the little girls undress. That is also the headline of the article you provided.

So, what was originally only that this person was watching them, which might only have been glancing in their direction has turned into '' helping them undress''. Not only that but that headlines reads,'' MEN helping little girls undress''.

So as this was not originally reported nor was it reported by the woman who made the complaint to the city council meeting, how is it that this new spin has been added to the account of the event? I ask that rhetorically as I'm sure you were not there to report on it factually more than I was. I am simply making the point that what might have only been a simple glance is not, among altering versions of the story, morphing into a full blown physical encounter between this person and those little girls.

And as I have asked before, where are the parents of these little girls who have reportedly been helped to undress in that locker room by MEN. So far, invisible from what I have found but of course that may change as this story progresses just as the story itself has changed.

originally posted by: sean
I am confused...Is there not stalls with doors on them?

In a smaller town, there won't always be. It will also explain lack of parents. Things are different in small towns, usually safer.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It'll be okay Wilma.

So the Y has done nothing to make sure these children were actually safe and will continue to be safe, and you’re OK with this because you don’t like conservatives- OK.

Why are you name calling at me because another poster you feel did the same? I’ve had enough of your rudeness and lumping all those who aren’t agreeing with you together. Good day sir.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Mrthunker

Here is a link to the city council meeting in which this woman makes her concerns known to the city leaders. mynorthwest.com...

In this video it would seem that she is a reasonable sort with good intentions. However in this video it is clear that she does not mention her asking the person at the pool, '' do you have a penis''. That was reported early in this story. I"ts a rather rude if not belligerent way of approaching someone in that, that person might just have been a natural female with a husky voice. I don't know, you don't know and neither did she. She assumed.

However, this rudeness, which I can assume was present in her approach to achieving her goals,good or bad, spilled over onto the employee at the pool, because that is why she was banned from the pool, for rudeness to the employee.
Now, we do not know her history at that pool, that has not been reported. What I do know, as I stated somewhere earlier in this thread is that at least my Y pool, and again here I can assume that this exists in other Y pools is a system of warnings before a suspension or privileges is invoked. This suggests to me that there is this possibility that this was not a first time occurrence for behavior such as this involving this woman at that pool. I cannot offer anything more than assumption.

But none of that above answers your request about my take on the protection of children here, so now I will attempt to explain my take. I will offer you two answers, the short and the long. The short is just that, short. The long is the why of that answer. The short answer is no. If that's all you want from me then you might as well stop reading now.

The long answer is the YMCA is a non-profit organization which for the most part runs on a very limited budget. In the case of that pool, it is run under the auspice of the city of Port Townsend. That town is a small town of only about 10,000 people which suggests that it too runs on a limited budget. Put those two limited budgets together and there is a strong likelihood that the employees of the pool that day were low paid people. We don't know how many people were working there that day but there was mention of two at least. But even if there were more is it possible that anyone could ensure the safety of the children 100%

And protected from what exactly. Was there any overt actions taken by this person in that locker room? We don't know. It might be that this woman' intervention kept that person from grabbing a child or two and raping them right on the spot. Is it possible that her intervention keep this person from pulling out a penis and waving it in the faces of those children saying ''here little girls, ever seen one of these before?'' Sure that's possible as well. But other than speculation, or assumption of guilt, all we have to go on is this woman's testimony.

She said she heard a voice yet there was no mention of context to that hearing. Was there a conversation going on between this person and another or was this person just talking to themselves. We don't know. Is it possible this person was talking to the kids, sure, but we don't know.

She also stated that she saw this person watching the kids pull down their suits to use the facilities. Do we know whether or not this was a prolonged ''ogle'' or whether it just might have been a glance with no more to it than that. We don't know because all we have to go on is this woman's testimony. Taking that testimony at face value is what many want to do but if we want to dig a little deeper and question that also then this is what I am doing. She has already shown to have been rude if not belligerent by walking up to a stranger with the question ''do you have a penis'' and being rude to an employee which was the cause of her banishment. She has also proven herself to be an unreliable witness for not having mentioned in her complaint to the city council in that video that she had, as earlier reported, asked that person if they had a penis.

We don't even know if there WAS an incident. All we have thus far is her account and only then because she was banned from the pool. This has become a national news bit, so let's look at it a bit farther. Those kids. Did they find anything inappropriate? Did the parents of those kids, upon hearing about this story ask their kids who had been at the pool that day about the commotion? It's a small town. We can assume since this is now a national news item that it has made it's way into the local info-stream there as well can't we? Have any of those parents spoken up with their concerns? Have any of them even asked their kids did were you involved in this by being watched? And how old were those kids anyway. Were they there with their mothers or fathers or were they there alone? We don't know ANY of this because none of it is being reported.

One might think that if those parents had raised their voices it would be reported seeing as this whole issue is being reportef by mostly conservative news outlets. That city video I gave you was reported by a conservative radio station as is proclaimed by their logo. It was part of a program called ''Jason Rantz''. Is that Jason's real name? Rantz? I have never heard that name before. But given the nature of the station, being a conservative station there is a strong possibility is that his real name is not Rantz but rather a public name for his show playing on the word rants. And what do radio programs that proclaim themselves to be ranters do? They find things to rant about. So, where is the reporting here. Where is the investigative reporting to dig up the parents of the kids that day and get their outrage made public as well. I'll tell you, there isn't. There is nada at least as far as I could find.

So that leaves me with an impression that a lot of this is ''much to do about nothing''. It's conservative hyperbole. But that I'm afraid is only one assumption that I am not going to follow further.

Finally, though I find this event questionable and not proof of some grander left wing scheme to insult women, I will say this. I do not support penis's in women's locker rooms. I do not support equal female privacy rights for a person with a penis. I do not support transgender people being accepted into women's sport competitions. Transgender is new. People of this nature should not be claiming to be a woman or a man, they are not, those are two very very old classifications. They should claim to be what they are, something new and stop pretending to be something old.

I"ve covered your requests as best I can Trucker, but one thing. I do try to stick to the topic but when I am attacked with slanderous name calling, not you mind you, but others I feel it a duty to myself at least to call out that person for their own lack of communicative skills.

a reply to: Lysergic

Thanks Doris, that IS you ain't it Doris?

a reply to: Mrthunker

Now I don't understand you. You asked me questions yet did not address my answers. I told you in short that I did not think the Y was doing everything they could for the children's safety, did I not? I will repeat that answer from that reply.

The short answer is no

Did you miss that or just ignore it. I also said catagorically that

I do not support penis's in women's locker rooms. I do not support equal female privacy rights for a person with a penis. I do not support transgender people being accepted into women's sport competitions.

That sound pretty clear to me Trucker, how about you, is that clear or not?

And if you don't mind I have one more question for you. Where did I call you a name and what was it I called you. I already admitted my error of incorrectly making a reply to you that was intended for another poster. I also apologized for that error. So please tell me what it is that you want.

My name is not trucker.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire