The story comes from KIRO TV on the Olympic peninsula (see this on the same story also from Fox News Radio and the Gateway Pundit).
First, some background. In Washington there is a statute for "indecent exposure." It's defined as follows (see this for the full details and exceptions for breast feeding):
"A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm." [ underline mine ]
Secondly Washington state also has an "anti-discrimination" law passed in 2006 (see this for links to the actual law as passed) that defines discrimination based on both sex (in the traditional external genitals sense) and "sexual orientation."
The law defines "sexual orientation" as "
"... heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being
- perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth;"
The issue here is interesting because prior to 2006 Washington's anti-discrimination law prevented discrimination based on "sex" - which would mean whether or not your were "externally" a male or a female.
So in the case of using a locker room, for example, it would be clear that any person appearing to be a woman would be allowed into the woman's locker room and any person appearing to be a male would allowed in the male locker room.
Within a given locker room of either gender there is the expectation that everyone in that locker room would be of the same gender.
In the KIRO news story a person who is externally a male was discovered by the parents of a number of female children in the Evergreen college woman's locker room. The parents were parents of children on a local Swim team that rented space from the college.
The issue here is based on the "sexual orientation" definition. The "male" in the story "identifies" her/him self as a female. "Identify" here apparently means believes to be because externally this person is a male and has male DNA.
The parents, alarmed to discover their underage girls viewing what to the girls appeared to be a naked man in the woman's locker room asked the "man" to leave. The "man" claimed that he/she was being discriminated against under the Washington state "anti-discrimination" law because he/she "identifies" himself as a woman.
From the parents perspective they viewed the actions of this "man" as "... conduct [ is ] likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm."
Which clearly it did based on the subsequent actions of the parents - to remove the children from the situation, to complain the administration of the college, and to engage lawyers to make their position clear to the college.
Prior to this law external appearance determined the legal "sex" of a person.
After the passing of the law the "sex/gender/sexual orientation" of a person is now determined by the person's "self image." So while still appearing to the rest of the world as a man a person could now have access to woman's locker rooms by merely "believing" they are female.
There is no time frame or means "test" to determine this for anyone but the person making the determination for themselves. So, for example, the person in the story could have "decided" to be a female minutes before the event occurred or years.
There is no age limit either - so, for example, twelve-year-old boys could simply change their self image for access to the girls locker room - clearly based only on their own self interests.
Clearly parents of small children have no access to this process and would likely be suspicious of persons found in this situation.
The college's subsequent actions was to move the "swim team" to another, smaller and private locker room where only the swim team would have access.
The purpose of the law is to provide anyone of any sexual orientation "full enjoyment of" all facilities and to prevent them from feeling "... treated as not welcome, accepted, desired or solicited."
So one has to wonder if the female children in this case felt "not welcome" in this environment.
What's patently clear is that these two laws are clearly in conflict.
The new 2006 changes to the anti-discrimination law removes "objectivity" from all law, such as indecent exposure as defined above.
The standard of "affront or alarm" is now dependent not on the disposition of the "victim" but on the perpetrator's "self image."
For example, I could imagine myself to have no gender what-so-ever and walk through the world stark naked and expect "full enjoyment of" virtually everything society has to offer.
With the perspective of the perpetrator the focus of such situations there is no longer the possibility of, for example, an objective jury in a criminal action. The "facts" are new by definition one the "self image" of the perpetrator which can only, surprise, be defined by the perp his- or herself.
Hence "guilt" in a crime cannot be determined by actions because the actions are relative to the perpetrators "self image" alone.
The result is that gender and "sexual orientation" are devalued by this law.
Clearly the college directly created a situation (by renting the pool to the swim team knowing full well that small children could be exposed to these situations) where a naked person of the opposite gender created "affront or alarm" (the children reported this to their parents as a problem).
What about the "sexual orientation" (or lack of it in small children as the case may be) of the children and their "right" to "full enjoyment."
Clearly that "right" was by design taken from them - hence it is now less valuable because they no longer enjoy it.
These laws are clearly logically inconsistent now and, because this law is new, there exists no case law regarding how to handle these situations.
Which exposes small children to even more jeopardy in this sense.
Must "full enjoyment" literally expose children to naked persons of the opposite physical gender?
These children were lucky that they were not exposed to a person that felt it necessary to self identify with some sort of violent sexual orientation - an orientation which is not prohibited or banned and clearly could be construed as physically threatening.
Like my posts on the failure of education and debt its clear that this situation is a similar failure.
Whatever you're beliefs are relative to discrimination laws that create purely "subjective" means to determine discrimination based on the "state of mind" of a potential perpetrator is pure insanity.