Right-Wing attorneys to represent Swim Team at Evergreen College after Colleen Francis exposes his penis to High School Girls

November 2, 2012

Follow up to THIS POST.

Parents of the high school girls who were forced to witness the naked genitals of a 45 year old man in the Evergreen College locker room have retained legal counsel and vow to challenge “Gender Identity” policies and hold the college liable for any further infringement on the girls legal right to use the facilities free from indecent exposure.

Fox News reports that the parents have retained the conservative Christian legal team of “The Alliance Defending Freedom”. From the article:

“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.”

[click on screen caps to enlarge]

Colleen Francis police report 1 of 2

Colleen Francis police report 2 of 2

View complete PDF of police report here:


The legal team sent the following letter to Evergreen College today. According to the letter, the college has hung curtains up in the locker room for the girls to hide behind to try and escape the man’s gaze as they undress, and to avoid looking at his exposed penis.

Evergreen letter 1 of 3

Evergreen letter 2 of 3

Evergreen letter 3 of 3

View complete PDF of letter here:


It is unfortunate that parents were forced to seek representation from such a conservative right-wing group in a matter that most common-sense people (regardless of religious or political views or sexual orientation) can immediately understand:

Women and girls have a right to be free from- 

1. Having penises shoved in our face.

2. Being forced to undress and perform private bodily functions in front of men.



Read more about Colleen Francis here:



38 Responses to “Right-Wing attorneys to represent Swim Team at Evergreen College after Colleen Francis exposes his penis to High School Girls”

  1. leopold Says:

    hate to say it but i think a certain brand of lib-left mentality is at least partly to blame for the freak show that is the “gender expression” circus. i feel sympathy with young people experiencing “gender dysphoria”, but the impression i get of wack-a-loons like “colleen”, middle-aged men who have often married and fathered families is mid-life crisis attention-seeking and bizarre, selfish fantasy-fulfillment.

  2. subdjoe Says:

    The “Male privilege trumps…” message at the bottom of the article is very misleading. This situation is a direct result of lefts mantra that society must accept any and all sex/gender oriented “lifestyles” as normal and natural. The guy “self identifies” as a woman and therefore, we are told, must be accepted as a woman.

    Balderdash. Leopold hit the mark with the comment “the impression i get of wack-a-loons like “colleen”, middle-aged men who have often married and fathered families is mid-life crisis
    attention-seeking and bizarre, selfish fantasy-fulfillment.”

    • GallusMag Says:

      Balderdash. Liberal men or conservative men- no difference whatsoever in terms of preying on women. Whether a man is in a suit or a dress wearing lippy, whether he is rich or poor, whether he is right-wing or left-wing, makes not a damn bit of difference.

      Also, Gender is a conservative philosophy:

  3. PGar Says:

    For them it all about “protecting the children,” not an issue of women’s rights. I wonder what the christian fundamentalists think of having common cause with radical feminists. I find it amusing, and NOTHING about this I-am-a-woman-with-a-penis nonsense amuses me.

  4. KittyBarber Says:

    I can hear it now: “Radical Feminist scum are just like those right-wing haters! This is proof!”

    What passes for Post-Modernist “analysis” and “thinking” deserves the best that the right has to offer; they are not our allies, however, despite the genderists’ screaming and shouting. Occasionally, two opposing schools of thought will arrive at the same conclusion.

    In this case, the conclusion happens to be that putting this man in a girls’ locker room is INSANITY.

    Is it time for another Friend of the Court brief? We should have OUR position explained, to bolster the argument proffered by these lawyers.

    Who will step up to this challenge?

    • GallusMag Says:

      Agreed: it should have been a FEMINIST legal team that stepped up to represent the girls. I guess Gloria Allred was busy defending the rights of males to participate in sexist “beauty pageants”. *snicker

  5. cibo Says:

    Women, we are here. What has been predicted and feared has arrvived: Perverted men can share locker room with girls if they *identify* as female. It has happened; girls have already been forced to change clothing with this perv looking at them and exposing himself. They have gotten the message that their comfort and safety isn’t important. And you know, girls are discouraged enough from doing sports activities – do you now as girl have to prepared to share your nudity with male perverts if you want to do sports? A curtain? Please! A curtain would never be a acceptable divide between normal female and male locker rooms.

    I wish for some sanity and justice to quickly come to Evergreen College.

  6. michelle Says:

    The use of that particular firm just illustrates once again that politics can make for strange bedfellows sometimes. But as PGar notes, their actions won’t be based upon anything related to women’s rights when viewed in the broadest sense. I really wish that the parents would have looked from a different viewpoint and brought in a firm that had more of a Title IX interest since I believe there are stronger arguments for relief to be made there in light of the ‘resolution’ that had previously resulted in the kids being shoved to a lesser facility as a direct consequence of a male perverting the notions of common sense (in more ways that one).

    And the trans-jacktivists are showing through their silence that they, as usual, cannot see the problems they have created through the creation of the legal fiction that even GAVE the ability for a male to be legally called a female despite the obvious presence of male genetalia. Their tacit acceptance of the situation will hopefully be enough to get the push-back necessary to repeal some of the insanity that has been passed in some State legislatures…

    • Violet Irene Says:

      As a local it would not surprise me in the slightest if they looked for a feminist lawyer and were turned away by several because none of them wanted to challenge the “gender identity” crap.

  7. GallusMag Says:

    Women whether “left-wing” or “right-wing” need to come together to defend WOMEN’S interests. The men certainly won’t do it.

  8. karmarad Says:

    @ Michelle, agreed that raising Title IX from the outset would have been a good choice. As the lawyer letter says, C. Francis appears to have prima facie violated an indecent exposure statute, and it seems to me to follow that the insistence on continuing to differentially subject women and children to this criminal pattern adds up to sex discrimination by the business, since the business appears to contract with the school district and therefore probably comes under Title IX jurisdiction.

    The victims are also being asked to assume burdens men and male children in similar positions are not being asked to assume, such as being required to take (inadequate) steps to try to shield themselves from ongoing criminal activity that is easily correctable by ejecting the perpetrator.

    But the most obvious area of law involved here I think would be premises liability, which includes a long line of cases in which private businesses failed to shield their patrons from rape and were held liable for negligence, beginning with the terrible crime against Connie Francis the singer in the 70s. The lawyer letter is heading that way. It puts the health facility on notice of a potentially dangerous condition on its premises.

    I agree that relying on this cause of action can result in litigating the whole thing from a non-feminist position, and that’s unfortunate. It could even present itself in another way entirely: as a result of this letter, the business may eject C. Francis, who could then sue for discrimination based on federal law. That would save the girls from being the major players in the litigation and put the financial burden of litigation on the transactivist and the business where it belongs, but initially the issues would be framed differently.

    Even so, there is such a direct conflict with the rights of girls and women and the new legal rights of transgender “women” that the court case would have to grapple with this conflict, and that would be of real importance. I’d like to see the business take charge of the situation and ask for declaratory due to the potential conflict of laws, as I said before.

    It would be a relief to put this legally untenable notion to rest, that men may invade girls’ privacy and subject them to security risks merely by announcing they are women and taking some pills.

  9. Bev Jo Says:

    Thank you for clarifying the old right wing/left wing male link — all secretly (or openly) rape girls and women, promote porn, often are tranvestites, and are just plain disgusting. They pretend to be different in public, but in private are much the same. To have a few rights remaining, we are forced to vote for the more leftists/liberal but that is why my support ends. I am under no illusions other than that more females and the environment suffers when the right wing’s power expands.

    Anyway, yes, it’s a shame that feminists lawyers didn’t help the girls, but few are left. Most end up working to support men in the trans cult anyway, like you said.

    And yes, the trannies will use this to further defame feminism as right wing, but we know, and they know, they are lying.

    The real division is the worldwide war on females.

  10. Some Fella Says:

    Remember, it’s not a penis, people. It’s his FUTURE VAGINA!

    Of course, that’s provided that he get’s the surgery to correct Mother Nature’s big mistake.

  11. Becky Green Says:

    So, let’s see here: The men get the men’s locker room, the demented men get the women’s locker room and the women get to hide anxiously behind a fucking curtain?? Yep, sounds about right.

    I hope this nauseating scam gets exposed for what it is.

  12. Lydia Says:

    Seriously, what can we do? As radical feminists? Is there a feminist or progressive law firm that would take this on? Can we strategize around that?

  13. GallusMag Says:

    Indeed. Men are too stupid to adequately represent these girls. The men at “Alliance Defending Freedom” talking about “future” harm or damage: WHAT IN THE WHAT?

    The college should be sued for the damage that has already occurred. No doubt the girls are -at the least- suffering from emotional trauma from experiencing Colleen’s criminally indecent exposure. They should be provided with counseling services immediately. They probably have PTSD. They probably have nightmares. They should receive professional support for trauma and their attorneys should sue for the damage which has already occurred.

  14. Grackle Says:

    “sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing”


  15. karmarad Says:

    @Lydia, my on-the-ground response to that, in spite of my speculations about a lawsuit in the comment above, is a guess that this matter will be resolved quietly and never see a courtroom.

    The exception would be if transactivists fund a legal defense for C. Francis. That would be a strategic mistake because the outcome might well be very unfavorable. From their point of view, this is a bad case that would make bad law.

    C. Francis is unlikely to be able to fund a defense to a lawsuit.

    The facility will want to settle quietly. A nuisance payment to C. Francis might do the trick.

    The parents will not necessarily want to associate with our point of view, which would limit us to an amicus role.

    And there is the problem of “us”. We aren’t a group as such. We would have to form the equivalent of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. Maybe we should, as a first step toward pursuing other matters requiring a group masthead and with the right to receive donations, for the future. I’m well aware that some of us feel we are safer not doing so and that this is an ongoing discussion.

    Poor Gloria Allred seems sometimes to be the only public feminist lawyer in the US. Of course there are many feminist lawyers at work, but they may not be able to front the money for a civil rights lawsuit in which they may not receive attorneys’ fees at the end (because even if they are successful, the money has to come from a small business and/or an individual who is probably destitute).

    On the public front, the ACLU doesn’t have my confidence. The parents already have free access to the administrative agencies and don’t need us for that. The Southern Pacific Law Center would possibly have some ideas. There are certainly other organizations that could be approached. Liberal feminist organizations like NOW have a legal arm.

    Speaking practically, though, thanks to Gallus the situation has been reported and recorded and discussed. Maybe the best thing to do is continue to watch and report, and if it does down the line turn into a federal lawsuit, re-visit these questions of active attempts to participate. I’m pleased that the parents are fighting back and expect a good result that might be useful.

    Just one opinion, of course, and I realize I’m responding conservatively here.

  16. GallusMag Says:

    Good thoughts Karmarad. And let’s not forget the infringement on the girl’s sex-based Title IX protections.

  17. GallusMag Says:

    Attorneys concerned with the legal implications of this case should familiarize themselves with this document IMMEDIATELY:


  18. […] it’s a Right Wing Organization that is standing up for Women and Girls; unsurprisingly, they rely on the “perversion” […]

  19. Sabina Says:

    why does it seems like feminist do not care about women or at least those feminist who have power to do something about this like NOW

  20. michelle Says:


    perhaps the most telling comment of all comes from the “Media and Community Relations Manager” for the campus when HE states “From our perspective the issue has been dealt with. It’s really has only gained additional interest through the actions of this one individual and this one outside-the-state agency.”

    In other words, the official campus position is that females do NOT matter and we are just blowing things out of proportion by not indulging Francis in his exhibitionist ways.

    Would be interesting to see how Title IX compliance personnel might view the claim that it was ‘dealt with.’ After all, female athletes have been forced to a lesser accommodation precisely because of Francis and his fetish. And I would have to venture that federal law should trump State law in this arena…

  21. Branjor Says:

    Oh shoot, this is the right wing christian law firm defending the high school girls in this case: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/19/christian-attorney-indicted-on-federal-child-pornography-charges/

  22. Branjor Says:

    That particular lawyer is in New Hampshire, not Washington, but still…

  23. Ettina Says:

    She’s not a man. She’s a woman with a penis.

    • Anon Male Says:

      Your blog entry about sympathy for pedophiles reminds me of articles I’ve read at Counter-Punch and Talk Left. So I guess you’re in good libby-liberal company. Or something.

      OTOH, you say that most pedophiles are men. Why bother to say something like that if man has no meaning?

      It’s like you post-gender spectrum of self-identification people really haven’t even embraced your own politics?

      It also seems like those politics don’t even come into play for you unless you’re arguing with radical feminists about how cool gender identity is?

      After all, you didn’t remind anyone that “women with penises” are pedophiles in your protect the pedophiles rant. In that case, you were happy with a man is a man is a man in the exact same way that you’re criticizing others for, here.

    • michelle Says:

      “She’s not a man. She’s a woman with a penis.”

      So, cognizant of the fact that biology matters…he’s a man. Francis will never be female nor will he ever be a woman. Although once the law catches up enough to prosecute perverts like him for the act of indecency with a child by exposure, I am sure some other inmate will be more than happy to treat him as the woman he deludes himself into believing himself to be…

  24. […] think this is fairly reasonable, especially because it was drafted before the Colleen Francis fiasco at Evergreen State College (an intact adult male exposed his penis to underage girls using “gender identity” as […]

  25. born free & female Says:

    Slate’s advice columnist, Emily Yoffe, just got a letter from a mother of an eleven-year-old “transgender daughter” (i.e., a son) who just transitioned at school. In general the school’s telling all the other parents to shut up about restrooms and things, but they drew the line at letting the boy use the changing room with the girls.

    The mom, of course, is throwing a fit about how her boy should never, ever be treated differently from the girls. And Prudence? Takes her side and says the girls who don’t want to change with a boy in the room should have to go somewhere else.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: