There is an interesting case out of Olympia, Washington where a transgender person is alleging discrimination after being asked to leave the women’s locker room due to his exposing himself to young girls. In a case that is likely to become more common with the expanded rights for transgender individuals, the question is whether schools should bar such exposure in areas with young children or teens.
The incident occurred at Evergreen State College where a 45-year-old male student, who dresses as a woman and goes by the name Colleen Francis, was naked in the women’s locker room. Young girls use the facility from the nearby Olympia High School and a local swimming club. The mother of a 17-year-old girl complained about Francis walking around naked with his genitals exposed and a female swim coach confronted him as he lay sprawled out and exposed in a sauna used by the girls. She asked him to leave and called police. However, she later apologized when she discovered that he was a transgender person. The local district attorney also declined criminal charges because he felt the “criminal law is very vague in this area.”
Francis is alleging discrimination and complained that “[t]his is not 1959 Alabama . . We don’t call police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.”
I am not convinced by the analogy, however. While I agree with the prosecutor’s view of the murky legal standard, it seems that the college and city would have a legitimate interest in barring such exposure to young girls in such shared areas. Obviously the best solution is a separate locker room but that might impose high financial and logistical challenges. If someone is still anatomically male, it presents a legitimate concern for parents. While this is a college, it is common for such facilities to be shared with local schools.
What do you think?
Source: KIROTV
This seems more a case of someone trying to rile people up. I have been in plenty of public males only saunas and never felt the need to splay myself out on the bench. The rights of the one do not outweigh the rights of the many. The teen girls should have a reasonable expectation that they can walk around the locker room without having to come eye to eye with cockn’balls.
The published description of the deemed-objectionable conduct of Colleen Francis fits rather well into the paraphilia realm.
Having, over the span of my life so far, tens of thousands of “contact hours” with people whose lives had aspects of conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of the American Psychiatric Association, it makes more sense to me to allow that the described conduct of Colleen Francis has one or more plausibly appropriate DSM category designators.
While I was sadly astonished by the references to Colleen Francis as being a “man,” it is also clear to me that there is such terribly intense, vast, and pervasive prejudice against the essential diversity of human biology that has made the human species possible, that I am vividly aware of what led more than one gender-diverse person to end up in a psychiatric hospital day room, waking up from emergency room treatment in another hospital because the nth suicide attempt had failed.
Without naming or outing anyone, and with enough changes in trivialities to preclude accurately identifying the person, I do have a true story, modified only enough to provide mandatory confidentiality. The chromosome gender and gender identity of the person in the story may, or may not, be correctly presented here. The gist of the story is true.
One day, in the late 1980s, while I was not yet done with sorting out what morphine had done to me following my colon surgery in 1986, I was sitting in the day room of a private psychiatric hospital in Cook County, Illinois.
Two “ambulance people” brought a person into the day room on a “stretcher,” and placed the person in a “sleeping position” on a sofa in the day room. After about an hour, the person, who had bandaged wrists, began to stir, then sat up slowly, then developed what was, to me, a bewildered/perplexed countenance.
When it appeared to me as though the person had awakened enough for me to speak to the person, I told the person my name and said a few trivial things, to which the person responded as though my talking was welcome.
I said, “Some of the other patients here think you are a boy.”
The person said, “I am.”
I said, “I think I may know something about that.”
My “transdar” was as though firing on all cylinders at full throttle.
(How is that for a messed-up mixed metaphor?)
Bingo.
“FtM.”
I have a strong disinclination to blast traumatized people with pejorative disrespect.
While I am seriously circumspect regarding flaunting my “private parts” in public, or semi-public, settings, the notion that human sexuality is, in any way, obscene makes, to me, the whole of human life as though obscene. That, to me, is the plausible limit of obscenity.
After the manner suggested by Dr. Abraham A. Low, I find it far more pro-social to excuse than to accuse, and, having excused, set about helping to pick up the pieces.
Breaking something or someone who has already been broken may merely increase the damage already done.
Jeri, thanks for sharing your views. I would have put more out, except, being MtFtE puts me on the outside of what some trans community members may deem within normalcy.
The more the actual diversity of humanity is made known, the safer it will eventually become to be a normal, normally-diverse, member of the human (homo sapiens sapiens) species.
For all I can yet figure, humans may yet earn that species name identity.
Useful wisdom may not forever remain outside human reach.
Idealist:
Yeah it is odd this thing called socialization. Some things in Europe would be scandalous here in the US and they are normal there. A few I can think of seeing when I was there was the co-ed semi-nude spas in Germany, another–at least to high school males here–was walking with three other guys with our arms over each others’ shoulders when I was in Moscow in 84 in kind of a “buddy” thing as it seemed with the Russians, and the most striking of all to me was Zwarte Piet in The Netherlands
Admittedly, being an American and knowing our history,seeing children dressed as Zwarte Piet was probably the most I have been culture shocked in my travels Not that I was offended, but I was bewildered completely this was acceptable to Dutch People. Again, socialization was the reason for my reaction. You make a good point.
Jeri Hughes,
Very astute observations. Well said.
Jeri Hughes,
Thank you for your comment.
Shoppers seen at WalMart in various locations:
Jeri,
Was impressed how well your gender sits, judging by your words. Nice to see.
I, seriously wonder, if this person is in the new gender at all. I think that he/she is a flasher. And I use the he/she as a pejorative way of describing this creep. No “woman” would act in such a manner.
Inasmuch as I can’t do Walmart here in Sweden, then I will take your word that the trans world has their Walmart people.
Is it true that people who shop there are of “that class”, looking down your nose at them?? Or is that your prejudice. We all have them, but that one jarred me. Are there too many residents of house trailers too? 😉
The nature of cissexism is that trans identities are viewed as less legitimate and subject to cis approval. If a cisfeminine person displayed the same level of aversion to towels in the sauna you would not degender her. That is cissexism, plain and simple.
The “locker room”and “bathroom” issue, in this instance, actually becomes an issue. Extremely unfortunate, but bound to happen sooner or later. Please note that this was an incidence lacking ALL tact and common sense, but was not – at least at face value – criminal.
As a transgender woman I can absolutely state that during my transition period absolutely NO ONE ever saw my genital area. I would have been absolutely mortified. I know of NO transgender individual that will allow “private areas” to be viewed by ANYONE but the most private and intimate partners.
Jonathan, you should know better than to describe a transgender woman using a phrase like “a 45-year-old male student, who dresses as a woman”. If she is indeed transsexual/transgender,then she IS a woman, albeit not anatomically correct. She should always be referred to as a woman. Period. That being said, Coleen Frances is an insensitive clod, who has unfortunately created an actual incident where a bathroom or locker room has become a matter of controversy. It is extremely distasteful, but I sincerely doubt that it was criminal or meant to in anyway sexually offend or create a self excitement, as is the case with MALE flashers. She IS MOST PROBABLY just an insensitive fool, like the men and women you might see in Walmart wearing clothing that is overly revealing and inappropriate. Members of the transsexual/transgender community are in general a most empathetic and considerate individuals, but like every portion of society, we are not without our fools. Or our “Walmart” population.
Colleen Frances SHOULD use the rest room and locker room that corresponds to her gender presentation and gender identity. By the account provided, she exhibited extremely poor judgment and showed a complete lack of regard for the sensitivities of others. While her actions were not criminal, she should be reprimanded by the institution for her lack of plain common sense and instructed that any future lack of discretion would end her welcome at the facility.
Frankly, I find it difficult to comprehend her actions. In reality, the “bathroom” issue does not exist for the transgender population. Thousands of pre-op women use the gender identity appropriate facilities on a daily basis with no incident. Thousands. This one woman, and this one incident, can be used as an example for extremists to pass legislation that would deny access to those facilities. She is, IMHO, a pathetic boob.
Darren,
Enjoyed your joking comment. Let me “misundestand” it by adding that am not sure anybody would want to go through a door with a photo of an ugly white guy on it. All would end up in the “taco” room.
Can’t you hear the kids saying: “Mom, I need to go to the “Taco” room!”
Seriously, it might help us go further in our socialization process, which seems to be a necessary
prerequisite for the solution that you propose.
My joking solution is:
Instead of a picture of a woman in a dress and a man as symbols of which bathroom a person is to use, change the logo for bathroom “A” to a Wiener and Bathroom “B” to a Taco. Admit yourself based upon which is more similar to your own.
My serious solution is:
WA state law makes no distinction of which restroom a person must use. It’s a social issue not a legal one. I don’t see any jurisdiction of the state here. If the person violates laws such as indecent exposure well, that is all a matter of definition of “open and obscene”. It is bad that a person could be nicked for indecent exposure just by the ordinary act of using a bathroom, People should not risk an over-zealous prosecutor just for doing so.
Thanks. I understand that you enjoyed your effort. It is always pleasant for me to inform, however little I can. And certainly so for you. Communication, as Barber has demonstrated, being a primary function even at unitary cell level. Thus in some way pleasant at alllevels. Hello out there so to say. Anybody out there to phrase it otherwise.
To give a fast and facile reply would ba a disservice to myself and no polite return to you. I felt comfortable that most of what you wrote waa within my range. Onle a few, most notably singularity which is an old comprehension problem for me.
Your mention of the cell and its activity reinforces my amazement in re. How that activity is steered other than by purely chemical reactions is not to be found, I feel. Study of that leads us to the observer vs the quantum objest’s objection to being observed.
The life vs substrate model is congenial as well, tending as it does to support the holistic view.
While I do not as far as I know have any long term memory talents of note, I do feel that the pursuing of answers goes on continuously, although there must be a level which directs the process, but the popping up of unwanted answers suggest that there are layers who live a “thinking” life of their own. Hope that that makes sense.
Many parts will require further study. Particularly, ingestion of the “fault” being a mental construct or mismodelling of the learning process, that being only one example. Another being the infant/child transition of which I would like to hear more. Of course, the whole thing will require re-reading. A rarity here. Not to be nasty, just placing your efforts where I believe they belong in my mind.
Meanwhile, thank you.
Savants have always been fascinating. The obvious question being not why they are as they are, but why are we NOT savants too.
Why and how did our brains get screwed up?
It seems to me that some people, plausibly for diverse reasons, are relatively insensitive to the concerns of others; while there may also be people so sensitive to the concerns of others as to hint at some form of possible paranoia.
I seem to be somewhere toward the more sensitive aspect of concern about others and how what I do, or do not do, may affect other people, but nowhere close to that sensitivity that would qualify as clinically significant paranoia.
When, in 1986, I underwent the two main cancer risk minimizing surgeries I have had, the orchiectomy and the total colectomy with ileo-rectal anastomosis, except for a scar that went almost from bone to bone along my abdomen midline, the colon surgery would not be obvious to other people, while my concern about not needlessly “freaking out” sensitive men led to my getting testicular prosthesis implants, solid silicone, which had not been found, as I read the medical literature, to cause any noteworthy problems.
It would never, never ever, have occurred to me, regardless of surgery, to do as the story has it that Colleen Francis did, as though what i regard someone with exhibitionist tendencies might do. However, stories are stories, and some stories are not accurate.
In the mid 1990s,with the silicone fluid filled breast implant “thing,” the sort of implants I got were pulled from the prosthesis market, and men who needed a bilateral orchiectomy because of one or another cancer issue tended to become, as male cancer sites tend to put it,, “flatbaggers.”
In 2011, after some 20 years, one of my implants and my body took on a foreign body reaction, something that I find may end up compromising immune system function. So, I went back to hospital where they were put in, where it was determined to be medically indicated that they be removed because of the foreign body reaction.
Since the mid 1990s, I there are a fair number of men who are “flatbaggers,”and who go swimming for health reasons. Perhaps the prejudice against cancer and people vulnerable to cancer will further decrease. I hope so.
I never learned to be proud of my life, and I never learned to be ashamed of it.
I never learned to judge my life or the lives of other people. I have never had a day of my life that I wished, after the day was over, had been different than it was.
As I have suggested earlier, to me, life consists of organisms and substrates, such that the whole of existence is the whole of the phenomenon of life, not only do i observe, to use title of one of the late theoretical biologist, Robert Rosen’s book titles to describe my sense of life, that existence is “Life Itself,’ the directly observable creatively evolving way of existence and all that existence is and does, makes the title of the book by theoretical biologist, A. H. Louie, “More Than LIfe Itself,” a good way for me to understand life as process.
If the model I tend to favor, that the whole of existence may perhaps most usefully be mentally modeled as a singularity (would the title of the book by theologian Paul Tillich, “The Eternal Now” be informative?), then is it a mentally useful hypothetical to allow that the whole of existence is “the big bang,” such that existence is only beginning, and is therefore without end?
For me, as a theoretical biologist and practical bioengineer, I regard what is sometimes named “religion” to be human brain activity regarding what is not yet understood. In that sense, religion informs science as to what may usefully be investigated next.
As life is made of death and as death is made of life, to me they are inseparable and complementary and not in conflict or competition with each other. If food will not die so that I may eat, both food and I will die.As I have lived for more than 73 years through eating food, I expect the time is getting closer,day by day, when my turn to be food will come. What more could I ever want, yet I am not in a hurry.
I have never understood life as competition,nor as struggle. I have only understood life as the process of possibilities becoming probabilities becoming actualities.
i cannot be taught to be afraid of death because I cannot be taught to be afraid of life. I cannot be taught to seek death because I cannot be taught to be afraid of life.
I cannot be taught to retaliate because I cannot demonstrate that anything in the future would be better had anything in the past been other than it was.
How could I ever accurately test the effect of anything in my life on anything whatsoever a billion years from now?
In an ultimate sense, is the tragedy of beauty any more or less important than the beauty of tragedy?
RE:
idealist707
1, November 3, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Dr Harris,
You say:
“…the work I have done has demonstrated that the adversarial system, to the extent that it is based on the misinformation that leads people to believe that it is possible for an avoidable mistake to happen is demonstrated as a falsehood my (sic) the demonstration of my doctoral research.”
As far as I know I am not a savant, but notice that you have written down to our level today and hope you
can answer these questions:
1) life is a competition. If I understand right then adversarial is similar. While Nature is not in any way correct, only one of many ways to develop and exist. the question is what is the alternative to adversarial systems? Or are you thinking only in terms of law?
2) “…it is possible for an avoidable mistake to happen is demonstrated as a falsehood…”
We do what we think of as avoidable mistakes daily. How could this be demonstrated as a falsehood.?
———-
Further I was interested in your study of the effects of “bullying” (can’t find your term to quote) on the physical and thus mental capacity of the brain. Recently this came up here under the headline sticks and stone (can hurt), where to be short, the corpus callosum could be demonstrated as being reduced by “bullying” to students in middle school after reaching ages 18-25. I would hope that you have time to discuss this some time.
——–
As for your sharing of your gender accomodation, I can say that you again demonstrate the value of knowledge taking the fear out of ignorance.
* * * * * * *
Sorry, I do make finger blunder typographical errors, on a blog, I regard them as part of ordinary life (re: your “(sic)”)…
The notion that life is a competition is a “natural consequence” of interpreting live through a framework based on Cartesian dualism. For a constructive rejoinder regarding Cartesian dualism, the book by neurologist Antonio Damasio, “Decartes’ Error,” (1994) may be informative. Cartesian dualism is an apparently necessary aspect of analytical-reductionist approaches to biology, and that approach has fallen into serious rejection for its inadequacies in accounting for biological phenomena accurately. the basis of analytical reductionism is to be found in Newtonian physics and its predecessors, and does not allow for accurately accounting for relativistic and quantum mechanical aspects of recent observations in biology.
The alternative to analytical reductionism is relational holism, which I find vastly better accounts for biological phenomena from biological minutae to very large system aspects of biological organism and organism-substrate interaction phenomena.
I believe that “holism” was coined by Jan Christiaan Smuts, and I find it to be much of the essence of his book, “Holism and Evolution,” MacMillian, 1926.
From Smuts, op.cit, page 1, “The old mechanical view-points persist, and Natural Selection itself has come to be looked upon as a mere mechanical factor. But this is wrong: Sexual selection is admittedly a psychical factor, and even Natural Selection has merely the appearance of a mechanical process, because it is viewed as a statistical average, from which the real character of struggle among the living has been eliminated.”
While Smuts did have, in my view, a rather decent grasp of relativity for his time, much of the implications of quantum mechanics for biology were “over the horizon” in 1926. However, Smuts did have an evident sense of “fields” plausibly coming to represent biology far better than computable analytic mono-dimensional equations could.
I suppose I could expound in detail the work of Walter Elsasser, Robert Rosen, Francisco Varella, A. H. Louie and other theoretical biologists and the way theoretical biology has become ever-increasingly of holism and relationalism. To paraphrase Walter Elsasser, what happens in one second in one living cell is beyond the power of binary digital computation were such a computer to be made of everything in the observable physical universe running for the entire expectable duration of the physical universe. Elsasser used terms like “unfathomably complex,” and “transcomputational” in his descriptions of biological phenomena.
Well, it is challenging to do unfathomably complex, transcomputational calculus by crunching numbers. There has to be an easier way to do the mathematics of biology if the mathematics are to be done. And there is an easier way, only not everyone seems able to do it. For myself, the way of doing that sort of mathematics, which I tend to name, “high-dimensional space, complex-variable relational tensor calculus,” is to let patterns form in my Long Term Working Memory (yeah, need to be a neurological prodigy, if the relevant 2001 paper in Nature Neuroscience is accurate) and let patterns form until they result in something sufficiently tangible as to allow noting it, and subsequently sharing what was noted.
Think that form of mathematics does not exist? Methinks that it is how spectacularly competent athletes do stuff with some semblance of regularity that is impossible to begin to describe in words or numbers.
The book that best explains this stuff for me is a privately published book of Walter Elsasser, “Biological Theory on a Holistic Basis, Second Version.” In addition to the copy I found with intensely patient effort, I am aware of only five other copies, which are listed on worldcat.org. Because of the difficulty of anyone being able to read this book, I propose to describe what it led me to ponder.
In the existential model of biology that i find most effective and efficient, the entire universe (including all parallel and other whatever universes) consists of organisms and their substrates, No organism can exist without its necessary substrate, For any particular, specific organism, the rest of the entirety of existence is substrate. Thus, for one organism, all other organisms are of substrate. That means that life cannot actually be based on competition, the basis of life can only be collaboration.
The competitive model is based on the misinformation of Cartesian dualism as of an analytical-reductionist model of a relational-holistic phenomenon.
Furthermore, to avoid the difficulties of models of the universe which are fraught with undecipherable contradictions resulting in the experience of the universe being not only stranger than it is imagined to be; it is stranger than it can be imagined to be, modeling the universe as a singularity (now) which, to exist, has to change in the manner of an open system, such that the observable universe is actually made of probability patterns within the singularity which are observable as the observable universe, including its observability and its observers, and every supposed paradox of physics, at least to me, as-though vanishes identically.
So-called paradoxes, such as Bertrand Russell’s Barber Paradox and the self-referential “This sentence is false” become trivial, tangible mechanisms.
As for the notion of the making of avoidable mistakes, at issue is time confusion (as in the epigenetic chart of psychosocial developmental crises of Erik H. Erikson) or time-corrupted learning (as in the trauma research of Robert C. Scaer).
The experiment that is reproducible I have described on the Turley blog before. The experiment consists of asking three questions of the sort a little child (or an autistic savant?) might ask:
1. Ever make mistakes?
2. Ever make a mistake you shouldn’t have made?
3. Ever make a mistake you could have avoided?
The first question merely frames the other two.
The second question relates to declarative brain function (like, what people say, and not what people do, save for the awkward fact that saying something is a form of doing the saying of what is said).
The third question relates to procedural brain function, the function which actually does whatever is done as a brain activity that has overt effects.
For my thesis, I asked those questions of about 400 people, exactly 8 of which answered, “No,” to the second and third questions. When I asked those 8 people why they answered as they did, all of them explained that they had not known for sure what would happen until after they had made the mistake, and informed me that making a mistake and learning were the same process, differing only with regard to whether someone did, or did not, like what happened after it had happened.
To the people who answered, “Yes,” to all three questions, i asked the person to tell me about a mistake made that could have been avoided that the person was comfortable telling about, and to tell what the person could have done to have avoided the mistake made. Every such person readily described a mistake and what could have been done.
To what the person could have done, I asked, “Why didn’t you?”
Every such person promptly gave me a reason preceded by,a form of “Because…” and gave me a description of something else that the person could have done.
This process of “Because…, but I could have…” alternating with, “Why didn’t you?” always ended up with some form of, “Because, until after I made the mistake, I did not know for sure what would happen.”
So, the first chunk of evidence is that no one can actually describe a mistake actually made and also actually describe any actually-achievable process through which the mistake actually made could have been avoided, this being because the information only gathered during the actual making of the mistake would actually have been needed before it existed for the mistake to have actually been avoided, thereby demonstrating that the avoiding of the mistake was a tangible actuality and not an intangible hypothetical in the form of misinformation regarding the nature of tangible (not mere hypothetical) absolute impossibility.
The second chunk of evidence is rather like what Galileo did in terms of a demonstration of the refutation of a null-hypothesis and the inevitable proof of its dichotomous alternative.
Make a mistake, say, the breaking of a glass used for drinking water. After the glass has shattered into fragments having new surface produced by stresses in the glass before it broke and the energy of it being dropped, demonstrate that the mistake was avoidable by demonstrating that the glass was not dropped and was not broken.
Hypotheticals, as used in persuasive legal argumentation may be based on tangible impossibilities because it is trivial to concoct a hypothetical in which there are no tangible impossibilities. The dilemma of hypotheticals is their needing no form of actuality, of tangibility, or of existential reality save as one or another form of childish fairy tale not recognized as such, though the hypothetical that it is not a form of childish fairy tale.
Or, as in Galileo, who forsake the hypothetical that two objects of similar shape and differing weight would fall at speeds proportional to their weights, and measured the speed of falling used experimental observation instead of hypothetical argument, I require a demonstration of the making of an actual, tangible mistake, such that it is unambiguous that the mistake was made, and the, the mistake having been demonstrated being made, demonstrate after the fact the mistake not being made when it was being made.
If hypotheticals are the way of reality, there is this fruit fly, drosophila melanogaster, named Lucy in the Sky With Iron Pyrites, who, traveling at a googolplexian times the speed of light, terraformed Mars using gases from Venus, rocks from the asteroid belt, and water from the Oort Cloud 2.71818 femtoseconds ago< and Mars is not about the mass of the
Earth, with plate tectonics akin to Earth, with a moon similar to that of Earth, and with space ships coming to carry volunteers to Mars so humans will have two planets suitable for human life, the better to save humanity from global warming disasters.
I regard the feasibility of my silly hypothetical fruit fly story to be orders of magnitude less implausible than one real, tangible, demonstrated avoidable mistake actually made because it was avoided before it was made, thereby proving that it was avoidable.
I never learned to confuse impossible fairy tales with tangble events. In my childhood home there was the story of Santa Claus and The Night Before Christmas. I never got one present labeled as being from Santa Claus, my parents were intent on never knowingly lying to me about anything and never knowingly deceiving me about anything. Christmas, during my childhood, was always a wonderful time for me because my parents never tricked me about it in any way whatsoever.
My parents never told me that I could have done anything differently than I had done it. My parents never taught me the ways of deception, of time confusion, of time-corrupted learning, so I never took those ways into my inner life, or, if one prefers, into my belief structure.
Before my mother died in the late summer of 1987, I had successfully defended my dissertation before my thesis committee. The day before she died of "old age," we had a gentle talk together for a couple hours. That was the last time in her life when she told me that she knew that i had never gone through the "terrible twos" (i.e. the infant-cjhild transition or infant-child discontinuity). As she had said before, many times and in many ways, she was so very glad that I was her child.
She also knew, and told me, that she never went through the terrible twos, either.
For those who cannot do without hypotheticals, how about the hypothetical that the infant-child discontinuity is what estranges children from "God"?
Dr Harris,
You say:
“…the work I have done has demonstrated that the adversarial system, to the extent that it is based on the misinformation that leads people to believe that it is possible for an avoidable mistake to happen is demonstrated as a falsehood my (sic) the demonstration of my doctoral research.”
As far as I know I am not a savant, but notice that you have written down to our level today and hope you
can answer these questions:
1) life is a competition. If I understand right then adversarial is similar. While Nature is not in any way correct, only one of many ways to develop and exist. the question is what is the alternative to adversarial systems? Or are you thinking only in terms of law?
2) “…it is possible for an avoidable mistake to happen is demonstrated as a falsehood…”
We do what we think of as avoidable mistakes daily. How could this be demonstrated as a falsehood.?
———-
Further I was interested in your study of the effects of “bullying” (can’t find your term to quote) on the physical and thus mental capacity of the brain. Recently this came up here under the headline sticks and stone (can hurt), where to be short, the corpus callosum could be demonstrated as being reduced by “bullying” to students in middle school after reaching ages 18-25. I would hope that you have time to discuss this some time.
——–
As for your sharing of your gender accomodation, I can say that you again demonstrate the value of knowledge taking the fear out of ignorance.