News on the Topless Woman in Her Home in Utah Case

[bluebell]

https://kutv.com/news/local/judge-deals-blow-to-utah-woman-charged-for-being-topless-at-home-in-front-of-stepchildren?fbclid=IwAR2Jr94p8YTdSLwKMtgqmf11uOGp2xGG0GDhSHJPYEIAlpGu_RU0qBqk5Dk

I know this was discussed earlier and I thought people might be interested.  Hopefully it hasn't already been posted.

[katherine the great]

What a waste of taxpayer money.

[smac97]

I can't help but wonder if those seeking to erase gender differences will come to regret their efforts.

Will VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act) be deemed unconstitutional?

Will women be required to register for the draft?

How about women in the military?  Will they be held to the same physical fitness standards as men?  Will they be required to remain on active duty when they are pregnant?

Are women's sports on their way out?  See this May 2019 article:

Quote

The moment Selina Soule had waited for was finally here. She had trained hard, set goals, and persevered to reach this point: the Connecticut girls indoor track championships.

Yet, instead of qualifying for the New England regionals in the 55-meter, Selina was outpaced by two biological boys.

Welcome to the new world of women’s sports. In school after school, boys are outcompeting girls and taking home the prize. And this is being celebrated.

Hmm.

Quote

As a former track coach, I worry for the future of women’s sports. As a member of Congress, I worry about the rights of women as more and more government policies redefine “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This is already having major repercussions on the rights, privacy, safety and achievements of women and girls.

Downtown Hope Center, a safe haven for women experiencing domestic and sexual abuse or homelessness in Anchorage, Alaska, is being investigated for redirecting an injured man, who claimed to be a woman, away from the women’s shelter and to immediate medical care. Hope Center offers hot showers, laundry services, and meals to all the city’s homeless. But the center’s overnight shelter specializes in serving women, many of whom have been trafficked, raped, or physically abused. One woman who sought shelter at Hope Center voiced the concern of many abused women with these words, “I would rather sleep in the woods than sleep in the same area as a biological man.”

Surely women have a right to private sleeping quarters in a women’s shelter. But not according to Anchorage’s non-discrimination policy, nor according to the Equality Act.

In the next few days, Congress is scheduled to vote on this grossly misnamed measure, the “Equality Act.” This bill, however, is anything but equalizing. It hijacks the Civil Rights Law of 1964 creating a brave new world of “discrimination” based on undefined terms of sexual orientation and gender identity. The legislation threatens women’s sports, shelters and schools, silencing female athletes, domestic abuse survivors, mothers, teachers, physicians.

This is not an exaggeration for Tamikka Brent who suffered a shattered skull and concussion in an unfair mixed martial arts fight against Fallon Fox, a man by birth and a woman by surgery, or for Selina Soule who knew that the two boys competing would take the top spots of her high school women’s competition. The male physique is advantageous in strength to a woman when it comes to athletics, and as a result, women lose. Or in the words of Professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman before the House Judiciary Committee, “even at their absolute best…women would lose to literally thousands of boys and men.” 

Congress enacted Title IX for a reason—to provide an equal playing field for men and women. But by requiring that all federally funded programs ignore the biological differences between the sexes, the Equality Act dissolves decades of women’s achievements overnight.

The Gender Wars.  Oi.

Quote

But wait, there’s more.

In California, nine women were sexually harassed in a women’s shelter. No one stopped the leering, the inappropriate sexual comments, or the harassment. So much for the #MeToo movement. The shelter pointed to federal grant guidelines requiring that transgender individuals be admitted to the safe haven. Assaulted in the shower by the biological male, the women, not the perpetrator, were threatened with expulsion from the shelter. 

The Law of Unintended Consequences.  Oi.

Quote

There’s another more sinister aspect to this bill: placing children at risk of medical experimentation and bleak futures when they are given the “right” to hormone blockers and sex change operations.

Most children, 98 percent of boys and 88 percent of girls, who question their gender identity will accept their birth gender after passing through puberty. Under the Equality Act, however, physicians are only given one option: affirm a child’s questioning. In other words, doctors will be forced to perform double mastectomies on healthy 13-year-old girls, and pediatric endocrinologists will have to provide hormone blockers like Lupron to kids experiencing gender dysphoria or be charged with “discrimination.” Parents who dare to oppose doctors performing life altering surgical procedures on their children or using cancer drugs—suspected of causing lasting health problems—on kids without cancer, will be considered abusive and neglectful.

Wow.  I wonder if this is an accurate characterization of the effects of the law at issue (the author is a politician...).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

In California, nine women were sexually harassed in a women’s shelter. No one stopped the leering, the inappropriate sexual comments, or the harassment. So much for the #MeToo movement. The shelter pointed to federal grant guidelines requiring that transgender individuals be admitted to the safe haven. Assaulted in the shower by the biological male, the women, not the perpetrator, were threatened with expulsion from the shelter.

Given that other incidents had names or places attached to them, I would like to see an actual report with such details before accepting this as an actual occurrence.  I am not saying it didn't happen, but given the evidence of transgender being attacked themselves, it needs to be established as solid fact to be used in an argument that such incidents are not just fears, but actual occurrences.

[Calm]

Looks like I used the wrong search terms in my first search they only pulled up the report.  Went a bit vaguer and got a hit, wonder why they didn't give the details...possibly because the transgender community isn't responding with outrage about the lawsuit?

https://abc30.com/3514544/

[Calm]

Unfortunately, the shelter is not commenting until after the litigation and that hasn't happened yet so we have only one side of the story.

http://www.kmjnow.com/2018/10/05/poverello-sued-for-protecting-transgender-individual-in-womens-shelter/

This may provide more, adding quickly before reading before I get locked out of the post:

https://casetext.com/case/mcgee-v-poverello-house

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20190702774

This doesn't really make sense to me.  If a biological woman was doing this to other women, would this not be against the law?

Quote

Plaintiffs are homeless woman who have sought shelter at Naomi's between June 2017 and present. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs allege that beginning in approximately June of 2017, a male to female transgender person identified as "D.N." was admitted to Naomi's. (Compl. ¶ 22.) D.N. dressed in female attire, but still had male genitalia. (Id.) Naomi's requires all women who stay to shower every night or risk being excluded from the shelter. (Compl. ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs allege that D.N. was allowed to observe the women when they were required to undress in the open area, and that during shower times, D.N. would repeatedly make lewd and sexually inappropriate comments to some of the Plaintiffs. (Id.) D.N. would allegedly "stare and leer at Plaintiffs while naked and make sexually harassing comments about their bodies," in addition to showing sexual pictures and/or videos of D.N., and making sexual advances on some of the Plaintiffs. (Compl. ¶ 22-23.)

Plaintiffs allege they repeatedly complained to staff at Naomi's regarding such conduct, both verbally and in writing. (Compl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs were informed that they had to respect D.N.'s decision to identify as a woman, and that because Naomi's received HUD funding, there was nothing Naomi's could do. (Id.) If Plaintiffs refused to take showers with D.N., staff threatened them with expulsion, and Plaintiffs complain that Naomi's refused to take appropriate disciplinary action against D.N. or make any reasonable accommodation to protect Plaintiffs' rights and privacy. (Id.)

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

This story is fascinating.

On one hand I find myself scratching my head as I think about a woman walking around topless in her home while step-children are present. I guess people do that, but it seems strange. Still, it is her house. Putting her in jail or making her register as a sex offender for 10 years because she was topless in her own home seems crazy to me. Her toplessness doesn't fit the cultural norms I'm comfortable with, but do I really want the government telling me 1- what I can and can't wear in my own home, 2- that nudity is itself, in my own home, a criminal act

Such a strange story.

 

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This story is fascinating.

On one hand I find myself scratching my head as I think about a woman walking around topless in her home while step-children are present. I guess people do that, but it seems strange.

The question, I think, is whether such behavior is acceptable in our society.

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Still, it is her house.

Where her step-children live.  

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Putting her in jail or making her register as a sex offender for 10 years because she was topless in her own home seems crazy to me.

She was topless in her own home in the presence of her minor step-children.

If an adult man was walking around nude in front of his step-children, would charges against him be "crazy"?

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Her toplessness doesn't fit the cultural norms I'm comfortable with, but do I really want the government telling me 1- what I can and can't wear in my own home, 2- that nudity is itself, in my own home, a criminal act

Such a strange story.

Again, the issue is not "nudity...itself," but nudity in the presence of minors.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The question, I think, is whether such behavior is acceptable in our society.

Where her step-children live.  

She was topless in her own home in the presence of her minor step-children.

If an adult man was walking around nude in front of his step-children, would charges against him be "crazy"?

Again, the issue is not "nudity...itself," but nudity in the presence of minors.

Thanks,

-Smac

True.

But we're talking about a bare chest. I understand your point and don't even disagree. How much should we allow societal norms to dictate what we can and can't do in our own homes?

[katherine the great]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If an adult man was walking around nude in front of his step-children, would charges against him be "crazy"?

She wasn't nude. She was topless. If an adult male was walking around topless in front of his step children would he have been charged?

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

True.

But we're talking about a bare chest. I understand your point and don't even disagree. How much should we allow societal norms to dictate what we can and can't do in our own homes?

I think the presence of children alters the calculus quite a bit.

Look at the extent to which we are interested in protecting minors from sexual abuse and related issue.   Look at "mandatory reporting" laws.  If you, as a private citizen, receive any information about sexual abuse of a child, you have the affirmative duty to report it to law enforcement.  Failure to do so is a misdemeanor.  

It doesn't matter if the information is correct or not.  It technically doesn't even matter if it's hearsay.  With some very few exceptions, we as a society have decided to turn all of us into mandatory government informants.

The motivation is understandable, but ceding too much power to the government is always a concern.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, katherine the great said:

Quote

If an adult man was walking around nude in front of his step-children, would charges against him be "crazy"?

She wasn't nude. She was topless.

Okay.  So if an adult man was walking around with no pants on, with his genitals all hanging out for minors in his home to see, would charges against him be "crazy"?

Just now, katherine the great said:

If an adult male was walking around topless in front of his step children would he have been charged?

No.

If an adult male tries to gain admission to a women's shelter, will he be let in?  Should he be let it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[katherine the great]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  So if an adult man was walking around with no pants on, with his genitals all hanging out for minors in his home to see, would charges against him be "crazy"?

Breasts are not genitals. The purpose of female breasts is not to reproduce it is to feed our young. 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This story is fascinating.

On one hand I find myself scratching my head as I think about a woman walking around topless in her home while step-children are present. I guess people do that, but it seems strange. Still, it is her house. Putting her in jail or making her register as a sex offender for 10 years because she was topless in her own home seems crazy to me. Her toplessness doesn't fit the cultural norms I'm comfortable with, but do I really want the government telling me 1- what I can and can't wear in my own home, 2- that nudity is itself, in my own home, a criminal act

Such a strange story.

 

A man walking around without his pants on in front of step children would have his children taken out of the house by Protective Services and he'd likely be arrested.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Breasts are not genitals. The purpose of female breasts is not to reproduce it is to feed our young. 

From chapter 5 of the Church's A Parent's Guide (emphasis added):

Quote

The scriptures often refer respectfully but plainly to the body and its parts. There is no embarrassment and often there is sacred symbolism. It is the world that makes the divinely created body an object of carnal lust. For example, it makes the female breasts primarily into sexual enticements, while the truth is that they were intended to nourish and comfort children.

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This story is fascinating.

On one hand I find myself scratching my head as I think about a woman walking around topless in her home while step-children are present. I guess people do that, but it seems strange. Still, it is her house. Putting her in jail or making her register as a sex offender for 10 years because she was topless in her own home seems crazy to me. Her toplessness doesn't fit the cultural norms I'm comfortable with, but do I really want the government telling me 1- what I can and can't wear in my own home, 2- that nudity is itself, in my own home, a criminal act

Such a strange story.

 

If there hadn't been children present, that she wasn't biologically related to, I don't think it would have been an issue.  

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

She wasn't nude. She was topless. If an adult male was walking around topless in front of his step children would he have been charged?

The topless husband in the case was not charged.  All about cultural norms.  In most parts of Europe this would not even be a footnote anywhere.

She should not have to register as a sex offender for this, if convicted.  That's totally ridiculous.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Will VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act) be deemed unconstitutional?

THAT will be the acid test, to see if they are willing to put their lives on the line.

That will separate... well you get what I mean.

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If there hadn't been children present, that she wasn't biologically related to, I don't think it would have been an issue.  

Ironically, if she had been feeding twins, the presence of other children wouldn't even have mattered.

[provoman]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If there hadn't been children present, that she wasn't biologically related to, I don't think it would have been an issue.  

That a mother is second class because she is not a birth mother adds to the absurdity of case. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

That a mother is second class because she is not a birth mother adds to the absurdity of case. 

I don’t think it has anything to do with being second class. 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

A man walking around without his pants on in front of step children would have his children taken out of the house by Protective Services and he'd likely be arrested.

Apples and oranges. No pun intended.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Ironically, if she had been feeding twins, the presence of other children wouldn't even have mattered.

Probably. I think Utah just pass a law allowing breastfeeding anywhere without being covered. 

That’s the nature of our current culture, where female breasts are seen differently than male breasts. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Probably. I think Utah just pass a law allowing breastfeeding anywhere without being covered. 

How many billions of women have managed to feed their children without needing a law to allow it? 

[provoman]

 

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think it has anything to do with being second class. 

The treating the breast of the step mother as offensive but not the birth mother, is to treat the step mother in a second class way.  Utah law does not distinguish birth mother from non-birth mother breast except for breastfeeding.