College allows transgender man to expose himself to young girls

Todd Starnes reports on it for Fox News.


A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a women’s locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.

“Little girls should not be exposed to naked men, period,” said David Hacker, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom. A group of concerned parents contacted the legal firm for help.

Hacker said a 45-year-old male student, who dresses as a woman and goes by the name Colleen Francis, undressed and exposed his genitals on several occasions inside the woman’s locker room at Evergreen State College.

Students from nearby Olympia High School as well as children at a local swimming club share locker rooms with the college.

According to a police report, the mother of a 17-year-old girl complained after her daughter saw the transgender individual walking naked in the locker room. A female swim coach confronted the man sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself. She ordered him to leave and called police.

The coach later apologized when she discovered the man was transgendered but explained there were girls using the facility as young as six years old who weren’t used to seeing male genitals.

And listen to what he says about it:

Francis told KIRO-TV that he was born a man but chose to live as a woman in 2009. Francis said he felt discriminated against after he was told told leave.

“This is not 1959 Alabama,” Francis told the television station. “We don’t call police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.”

This is not 1959 Alabama. He means that if you judge him, then you are a racist. Understand? And legions of college students have been taught to agree with his view, thanks to their highly-educated humanities professors.

The story was also reported on ABC News.

Where did these non-discrimination policies come from?

Well, I remember a secular woman I worked with a while back explaining to me why she favored moral relativism. She said that she felt bad about being judged when she did something selfish, and she thought that if she refused to make any judgments of other people, then no one would ever judge her. What she really meant is that if she shamed people who made moral judgments of anyone then there would be no one left with the courage to judge her actions. So moral relativism is really about stopping anyone from judging anyone, in order to not be judged yourself.

This is the mindset behind the people who want us to do away with moral judgments and objective moral standards. This transgender story reminds me of the two gay dads story. Two gay men adopted a newborn boy from Russia for the purpose of child molestation and sex-trafficking. The abuse started almost immediately after the child’s birth. But this was all perfectly OK with the tolerance/compassion crowd, because as they like to say “who are we to judge?” Whenever you hear that coming from someone, remember what happens when we don’t respectfully express disagreements on moral issues, and vote for sensible moral boundaries in the law. We can make moral judgments without being disrespectful or coercive about it. My own view is that we should be promoting the idea that children should grow up with their biological mothers and fathers. We should be celebrating that, and promoting that.


7 thoughts on “College allows transgender man to expose himself to young girls”

  1. The truly sad thing is that no one recognizes the fundamental truth that “not judging” someone is not some neutral third position between approving and condemning.

    There is no such moral position as “not judging” someone. You either judge their behavior and disapprove it, or you judge their behavior and approve it. Silence is approval.

    These cowards are afraid to say they disapprove of something, and they’re ALSO afraid to say they approve of it. Of course, we know this. The question is how shall we combat it. The answer is that we MUST make it clear to people that they are not “Not Judging.” They are approving. They’re approving – in this case – childhood sexualization that WILL and DOES lead to child sexual abuse.

    In as plain and non-threatening way as possible, we need to be able to explain to people that remaining silent in the face of moral outrage is the approval of same.


  2. The most frightening part of this article is this: “The coach later apologized when she discovered the man was transgendered but explained there were girls using the facility as young as six years old who weren’t used to seeing male genitals.”

    Apologize?!? Because 6 year olds aren’t “used to seeing male genitals?!?” Are you kidding me? In the old days, a couple of men would have had a little “discussion” with this transgender. Because that’s what REAL men do when little girls are victimized by perverts. But, now, we live in a culture that requires us to apologize to perverts for showing their genitals to 6 years old girls.

    I would say “shame on the pervert,” but, of course, he-she-it is incapable of shame. Instead I say “shame on you, coach – for even thinking about apologizing to a pervert, much less actually doing it!” I know, I know. I have it down by now: “My name is WGC, and I am an intolerant, bigoted, racist, homophobe, confused-gender-phobe, etc.”


  3. As I a woman myself, I would not want to be sprawled out in the locker room with all my bits hanging out. And If I for some reason had male genitalia down there, I would be even less inclined to walk around naked in the women’s locker room.

    There’s no reason this person cannot join an establishment, one without children present, where the other patrons are fine with this behavior. If they want to sit around naked, they can join a nudist colony or stay at home.

    It sounds like this person is simply an exhibitionist.


    1. Not simply an exhibitionist, but one who wishes to expose himself to young girls. There is a reason he isn’t in a nudist camp, but rather does this in a place where children are present.

      You do raise an interesting point though. If this person does indeed consider himself a woman, one would think “she” would be embarrassed to expose “her” male genitalia. The narrative is that these transgender people need surgery to remove unwanted features that don’t fit their view of themselves. They act like they’re ashamed and upset at having the wrong biology. Yet if a “woman” is perfectly fine with showing off her male features, one suspects “she” isn’t really a woman at heart. The ruse of being a woman is a good cover to prevent being arrested for behavior that would result in jail time for an ordinary man.


      1. Once again, Lindsay connects the dots to “expose” another liberal lie. Well-done!

        BTW, if my post-menopausal wife encountered this situation, this individual would no longer require a sex change operation.


  4. I wish I had known of this ruse back in highschool. Free access to the girls’ locker room. Woohoo!

    But putting that aside, you can see what a perverted freak he really is: he could have been discrete and thoughtful and do his best not to be in anyone’s face (pardon the expression). But there he is, parading around naked in front of six year old girls. You’d think that someone who wanted everyone to be sensitive to them might be sensitive to others. But you’d be wrong.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s