Convicted sex offender seeks access to women’s locker rooms through bathroom law

Convicted sex offender seeks access to women’s locker rooms through bathroom law

The battle over the Washington bathroom rule repeal just got a whole lot more interesting.

Transgender activists have sounded off in recent weeks claiming that they are being unfairly characterized by those concerned about locker room privacy and safety following the launch of the Just Want Privacy campaign. Proponents of repealing the open bathroom rule have repeatedly said that their concern is not that the transgender community is going to harm women and children, but that it creates opportunity for those who would seek access to places they don’t belong.

Much of this debate has taken place in social media.

Seattle-based transgender rights activist Johanna Wolf has been among the most vitriolic in her responses to privacy activists, claiming that it’s only their “hatred” and “bigotry” that is trying to keep her and others out of the locker rooms and showers.

Recently we have discovered that Johanna used to be a man, Jonathan Adrian Wolf, who is a sex-offender convicted of raping a 20-year old deaf girl in Nebraska in 2006.

Why is this relevant?

Because a sex-offender is now seeking access to a woman’s locker room through this open bathroom policy.

Wolf, now identifying as a woman (view the name change document here), appears to be shocked and offended that people in Washington want to take away “her” rights to use the locker room and shower of “her” choice (caution: strong language):

Obviously, it remains true that not everyone who experiences gender dysphoria is a sex-offender or wanting to do harm.

But the fact is, this new rule would create liability for businesses who would seek to intervene in cases like this.

Despite maintaining residency in the Seattle-area, Wolf does not currently appear as a registered sex offender in the online sex-offender registry operated by the Washington State Department of Corrections or the database operated by King County.

There are already many cases of men impersonating transgender women to gain access to private places. Now we know there are convicted sex offenders seeking access to women’s bathrooms under the same rationale.

Just in case you needed another reason to be concerned about this new bathroom rule, now you have one.

http://www.fpiw.org/blog/2016/02/25...-to-womens-locker-rooms-through-bathroom-law/



Many transactivists pushing these laws have, in my opinion, have deliberately sided with the millions of rapists and pedophiles to gain their agenda. It is NOTABLE that in NO such laws have I seen ANY language that:
1. Prohibits genetic male convicted rapists and pedophiles being in ladies bathrooms or
2. No legal standard whatsoever what defines being transsexual other than the man says he is.

They are 100% fine with convicted male rapists and pedophiles staking out and following girls into ladies restrooms as long as they know the magic words of "I'm transgender." He can be dressed in typical male clothing, have a full beard and convictions for violent raping children - but if he is hanging out in a ladies bathroom at a remote public park waiting for a victim, all he has to say is "I'm transgender" and there would be no reason or basis for police to investigate, let alone make the rapist leave or arrest him.

Again, it is notably there are NO safeguards whatsoever in these laws I've seen - and I don't think that is inadvertant oversight.

 

so what if he was a male sex offender, could we ban him from all male bathrooms..... this is why private unisex bathrooms are in are future.... cases like this will demand it

- - - Updated - - -

"all he has to say is "I'm transgender""

and is he is a male sex offender, he just says the magic words, "I am male" and in he goes

your always gonna have exceptions to everything.... that is life, when people are caught breaking the law, you arrest them and sentence them... all you can do

...

 

I had no idea about this development, and I said this might happen in another thread a couple hours ago.

Then again, leftists are as predictable as a sunrise.

 

Who didn't see that coming?

 

I wonder if he did this to try and conceal his identity as a sex offender as they are on a list

this may be more a result of the list, then bathroom laws

people would know a perverted man lived there, but they would not expect the women to be that man

.

.

 

Nor could it be claimed the rape proves s/he's not transgender. S/he just has to say "I'm a lesbian transwoman."

The difference in if men (people with male genitals) are banned from public ladies restrooms his presence would be illegal period, which among other things likely would revoke his probation (if on it) and regardless could be arrested.

WHY is at least no prohibition of CONVICTED SEXUAL PREDATORS being allowed to use these laws even if not having undergone SRS or even any hormone therapy? I see that as representing 100% total disregard for the obvious danger to women and girls ways such laws could be tools for sex predators.

 

It is only a fluke he became known. How many dozens, hundreds or thousands (or more) men will use these laws as predators?

 

I say we switch to private unisex bathrooms and be done with this issue

when strangers mix in bathrooms, bad things can happen regardless of what bathroom people are in

.

 

has nothing to do with these laws, it was because of these laws we know about him

1000's on the list have probably been doing this for years and no one knew... being on the list would be like being an outcast, this would conceal their identity as a sex offender from neighbors

the list has made us less safe, time to end it and go back to lwop for rapists

 

Obvious question.
Men, your in the men's room.
You see this women enter.
What is your response?

A man wearing a dress, is not Transgender.
Transgender generally means that you live your life as the gender
you identify as. Even to the point of taking hormones.
If the only thing a man has done is put on a dress and say he a women.
Then goes into a women's restroom. You throw him in a men's prison.

 

San Francisco (of all places) hit on the idea very early in the national debate. If a company or public facility truly feels that they must jump into this entire "degendering" fiasco, then in addition to traditional facilities for each gender, simply add on a third, gender neutral bathroom or other facility. Then anyone going in can be informed that there is no gender requirement for occupancy and, likewise, the owner/management offers no guarantee as to the gender of the other patrons you may encounter in there... The real motivation of the SJW is to force such twisted claims on everyone else and mandate their participation even when it comes at the expense of the rights of the majority.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/...r-bathroom-boycott-swells-to-over-on-million/

 

Then there's that thing called crime prevention. "Don't worry about being raped, he'll probably, 50%/50%, go to jail for ...a few months at least...and a ..there's nothing to do about it."

I don't know how you come up with this stuff, but tell me, isn't the gender of a person generally defined by whether he's got a penis or not? There can be exceptions to this that have nothing to do with sexuality, but when there isn't it's pretty easy to define. So when a man appears and proves in the locker room he is a woman, what's he going to do? Won't you notice? And he really is a woman, maybe the reason he became a rapist was because of a confused sexuality.

It's always worked so far. If they look like a girl and feel like a girl, want to go with the girls, with the girls they go.

 

Ultimately I feel it should be left to the private establishments themselves what their bathroom policy is. I just cannot understand this notion that we need the government to dictate how we organize our restrooms. We don't need to add bathroom prohibitions or legal standards, let the establishments themselves decide what their bathroom policies are, and if the customers don't like it they can choose to go elsewhere. The only requirement should be that everyone has a place to use the bathroom and wash their hands. That's it.. that's all we need

Another thing I don't understand are the concerns over incidents occurring in gender neutral bathrooms that could also happen in gender assigned bathrooms. Sure, a transgender could be a peeping tom.. so could anyone else. Why is one worse than the other? as if to say a sex offender who identifies as A is worse than a sex offender who identifies as Y

Also, if someone is willing to go into a public restroom and violate another person, do you really believe the sign on the wall is going to be the one thing preventing them from committing this act? As if to say someone who has no respect for the law will selectively respect the law that says they cannot enter the restroom.