Saturday I noted a story from Raleigh TV station WTVD about a transgender woman’s claim about being confronted by a janitor in the women’s room then escorted out by security at the Durham Transit Center. Now, I called it agenda driven news, because WTVD ran the story despite having not a shred of evidence that it was real, that it happened, and the thrust of my post was about that, rather than the TG woman in question, Alexis Adams. I wrote
Did [WTVD] ask to review any security video of the incident? Surely, there are security cameras within the Durham Transit Center.
I asked something similar in the comments at WTVD, as well as though email. I’m sure quite a few others did, as well. Kudos to WTVD, they followed up and Asked Questions
New video shows a different perspective in a back and forth debate between the City of Durham and a transgender woman’s bathroom experience inside the Durham Transit Center.
The transgender woman’s name is Alexis Adams. She says on Thursday afternoon, she was escorted out of the women’s restroom by security. The city of Durham owns the Transit Center and says that never happened.
Surveillance video at Durham’s Transit Center shows Adams walking into the women’s restroom at 1:17 p.m. About four minutes later, a janitor enters the restroom. Adams says the janitor confronts her and tells her to use the men’s restroom or she would call security. Adams, who transitioned to female 5 years ago, told ABC11 she was embarrassed.
“There [were] other people in there and as I was walking out of the bathroom and security took me out,” Adams said on Thursday. “The woman was making a scene about it.”
Watch the video at the link. You see her go in. A little bit later, you see a female custodian enter the bathroom. It looks like the custodian grabs what appears to be supplies from a cart or shelf prior to entering. It in no way looks like she was going in their to confront Adams. It looks like she’s just doing her job. Did Adams decide to take advantage of the janitor coming in? If so, for shame, denigrating a woman just doing her job.
Video shows Adams leaving the bathroom on her own, with no security.
Furthermore, the video shows Adams leaving the building on her own, with absolutely no security escort. Then you see her walking away with a man with a backpack. It looks like the man was waiting for her at the door.
WTVD confronts Adams with the video, and boy o boy, did she look uncomfortable. She has that “oh, crap, I got caught look”, like a child confronted by a parent for having a dirty magazine under the mattress.
On Saturday, ABC11 showed Adams the surveillance video of her walking out of the women’s restroom alone and not by security. Adams response was, “They’re not in the shot.”
ABC11 showed Adams a different camera angle-this time of her walking out of the transit center with a man that does not appear to be a security guard. Adams response was, “I can’t. I guess you just had to be there to witness it. The security did escort-ask me to leave the premises. They may not have dragged me out of the bathroom but they were there.”
And she’s sticking with her story.
So, yesterday was about slamming WTVD for running a story with zero evidence. Today is about highlighting yet another leftist agenda hoax.
More: On reflection, there’s something else that really bothers me about this story, namely, how the custodian’s job was put on the line by what certainly looks like a hoax. The minute the allegation was made, you know that the powers that be looked at all the video. When they saw the custodian, the PTB surely called her into an office for an Official Interview to get her side of it. And, as anyone can tell you who’s been a part of this, it’s not a comfortable meeting. Even when you know that you did no wrong, you’re concerned for you job. You do not know which way you’re bosses might lean. Even if they know you did no wrong, in today’s social justice warrior society, you might become a sacrificial lamb.
Even if everything shakes out OK, the bosses might be keeping an eye on her. She’ll surely be paranoid. And, would you put it past any of SJWs to attempt to wait for her to go into a bathroom and then pull the same stunt, accusing her of the “hate crime” in order to make the first one look legitimate? Most of these SJWs are unrepentant, and they seemingly have little concern for the other people they hurt. What if the custodian was fired? And then had her name leaked, and had to deal with all the picketing, abuse on social media, having all that notoriety? Would the SJWs care that they ruined this woman’s life?
I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to discover that yet ANOTHER Lefty SJW claim was not only incorrect, but staged or set up by the accuser.
I am sure the usual hacks and shills for the Left will be here momentarily to say how this doesn’t prove anything about legitimate attacks.
Well, if it is such a problem, if the culture is so heavily arrayed AGAINST the Left, why do they have to stage and fake so many outrages?
It’s almost like their claims, start to finish, are outright lies.
Another great post.
She’s just doing her part for the social justice jihad.
I will call the individual a guy, as he has a Y chromosome. So, the guy had no problem with the fact that an innocent, hard working individual might get fired. Typical for our liberal associates.
Teach typed:
Do you have evidence that Ms. Adams is a leftist?
Can a transgender person be a conservative?
The reliably dense dave typed:
How do you know her chromosomal makeup?
I will call you a moron, as you have an IQ under 70.
Finally, Mr. Teach was criticizing the TV station for reporting the news, even though the
Oh, please, Jeff, you know damned well there is no chance she is anything other than a Democrat voter.
I assume there was supposed to be something after that, and, yes, I was criticizing the news for running an article which had zero proof. They simply took her word for it. If it was a conservative, a republican, a Trump supporter, making an allegation, you can bet the ranch that WTVD would have required proof before running the story. At the most, they would write that a completely unsubstantiated allegation was made. That’s not what they did.
But, a day later, they followed up and…..why am I explaining this again? Read the f’ing posts! You liberals sure have short term memory issues.
I too, am shocked that there’s hoax by another crybully. Seems to be more hoaxes than actual events
As explained, yesterday the station was reporting the news AND made clear that these were UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS made by Ms. Adams, and they were looking for further clarification. It was good reporting yesterday, and even better today.
Our esteemed host wrote:
Fixed that for you.
You should never refer to the ‘transgendered’ by any words or pronouns which give some sort of legitimacy to their deranged beliefs.
Jeffrey asked:
He is a
manmale claiming to be female; that is evidence enough.No.
The news reports (incorrectly) referred to him as a ‘transgendered woman.’ That means he is a male, thus the XY chromosomes, who is deluded into believing that he is female.
Um, basic biology?
It’s not news its Fark
Dana,
Are there any gay conservatives? Black conservatives? Hispanic conservatives?
You can tell a conservative by looking??
Nighthawk,
You can tell Ms. Adams chromosomal makeup (karyotype) by looking? That’s so cool.
Have you ever heard of XX Male Syndrome? There’s likely only about 500,000 worldwide. Genetically female, but with male parts.
This is complicated for everyone except conservatists! They can tell what chromosomes you have just by looking!
jeff,
I find it amazing that you are now discussing chromosomes when several weeks ago I pointed out that Ms. Curtis has Y feminizing syndrome and you said it was an internet rumor. Despite the fact that several articles in the literature have carried a discussion of the problem and she is used as a poster child in medical schools in discussing the issue. But then, don’t accuse you of reading material not on the internet. Now, all these syndromes are very rare and by the time a child is able to go to the restroom alone, they have had gender designation surgery. So, the majority of the time, if you have a penis you have a Y chromosome and are a male, no matter what your desire may be. Thus, penis’s and Y chromosome people are designated male, even Obama can not change that. And as such, the majority of women in the world and the US are uncomfortable with what they observe as males in their private area. But some how, this does not sit well with liberal/communistic folks. And the politicians will stop supporting the idea as they observe the spanking that Target received. But continue to try to turn our world upside down as your activities will stop as soon as Trump is president, which is shortly.
Jeff,
Excuse me, but the issue Ms. Curtis has is actually testosterone feminizing syndrome. And yes, you can tell a woman by looking at her outward appearance, there are clues rather than breast. Once again you are commenting on issues for which you have no knowledge or experience.
jeff,
Finally, referring to IQ is the same as calling some one retarded. This is frown upon as it is a biologic abnormality that people can not avoid. Now, calling law breaking scum “wet backs” is ok in my book as they need to be discouraged from coming here without going through the proper process. If they are legal immigrants, I know of no one that would disparage them or not welcome them into our community. My term for you is stupid as you willing comment about subjects for which you have no knowledge or experience, outside of a quick web search which is often wrong.
Jeffrey wrote:
There are a few conservatives who are homosexual. You can identify them by spotting people whose sex lives are only a small part of their political ideology, rather than the defining point. And Hispanics are more naturally conservative.
Can you tell a conservative by looking? Well, he’s the one who showered this morning, and he’s the one who actually goes to work every day, and he’s the one who isn’t trying to use the law to force everyone else to do the things he won’t do himself.
Mr 7134 wrote:
I am always amused by the Swiss Family Robinson movie in which they encounter a girl pretending to be a boy, because she was afraid of the pirates. Somehow, they just never spotted that the ‘boy’ was a girl, even though it was as obvious as can be to movie watchers. Viewers were asked to suspend disbelief that anyone could fail to recognize an obvious girl.
And that’s what the left are doing now, suspending disbelief when they look at Bruce Jenner and say, “Hey, that’s a chick!”
dave typed:
It is an internet rumor. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your claim?
Nope. Don’t get me wrong, IQ is not a very reliable measure of anything more than the ability to take IQ tests. But labeling you a moron because of your IQ of 70 is not the same as slurring you as retarded. Typically, ‘retarded’ refers to those with Down’s Syndrome. Such a use is considered a slur.
Jeff,
Yes I do, but it is in journals. I know in the world of your drug company that you avoid those things, unless you have paid off the editors as with the statins.
dave,
Just cite the journal article to prove your point.
Jeffrey is half right:
I agree: IQ tests measure test-taking ability, and little else. Everybody knows that some people are more intelligent than others, but we feel a need to try to quantify that, and perhaps one day we’ll be able to, once we can define one unit of intelligence.
However, referring to people who are
dumb as a box of rocksintellectually challenged as morons or retards or whatever can be perfectly correct. It might not be all that nice, but I’ve never been concerned with favoring nice over telling the truth.Dana is right. We should constantly judge people on what they look like, their personal beliefs or how intelligent we perceive them to be. We do other people a favor if we keep it real by constantly pointing out their flaws. In fact, it’s best to start with children, as it toughens them up. The world needs more straight talk and less being nice to each other.
Jeffrey thought that he was being sarcastic, but he was actually telling the truth:
And the truth is that yes, we do judge people on their appearance, on their beliefs, and how intelligently they present themselves. We all know that taller, better looking people wind up more financially successful, even though that has nothing to do with their beliefs or how intelligent they are, because we all have prejudices. I, at least, admit it.
So you admit that life is much easier for white people based on nothing but skin color.
Should a short, chubby Black woman strive harder to be a tall good-looking white man? Is that how she should improve herself?
Maybe female to male transsexuals are just trying to be more successful like you!
How did you decide in utero to be a tall, white man?
Should we strive in society to try to balance these advantages based on dumb luck?
I wrote:
To which Jeffrey replied:
Apparently, Jeffrey must believe that white people are better looking, because I did not include race in my statement.
Actually, the “chubby” part is something she could improve, and there have been plenty of studies which indicate that overweight people earn less than those within the normal weight ranges.
Research has not shown that taller women outearn shorter women, in the same way that taller men outearn shorter men. As for good looking, people can’t do too much about their features, but they can strive to present themselves the best they can.
I s’pose so, but their derangement will precude that.
My mother decided that, by marrying a man who stood 6’4″ tall. Alas! I was shortchanged — pun very much intended — and topped out at only 6’2″.
No, absolutely not. No matter how hard you try, you will always get it wrong.
That, of course, is the problem with Affirmative Action: the program assumes that every white person has the same “advantage,” and that every black person has the same “disadvantage,” and is a blunt instrument trying to “balance” things out. Why, for example, would a poor white kid like me have had an advantage over the son of wealthy black parents?