Julie Jaman Intervened on Behalf of Young Girls
Women and girls do not exist for the validation of males who don't want to be men. Let's not allow this moment to become another discussion on bathrooms. It is larger than that.
Port Townsend Washington is best known for its large collection of picturesque Victorian homes; however, it is currently gaining a different kind of attention. On August 2nd, Jim Scarantino of the Port Townsend Free Press published this story, about 80 year old Julie Jaman who was banned from her local YMCA, of which she had been a patron for 35 years. Her crime? Confronting a trans identified male in the women’s area whom she observed staring at young girls as they undressed to use the bathroom. What Jaman was not aware of at the time was that the trans identified male, Clementine Adams, was employed by the Y.
I fully recommend reading Jim Scarantino’s piece linked above. It is thorough and unambiguous, a fine example of local reporting. He also frequently updates the PTFP facebook page.
Jim has also recently posted a wonderfully in-depth follow up that can be found here.
Click here to view Jaman’s speech to the Port Townsend city council on April 1st, 2022
The story has garnered international attention over the past few days. It includes the usual discussion around the right to sex segregated spaces for women and girls. There is a valid question regarding the existing Washington law that theoretically speaks of accommodations for women who express discomfort but fails to protect women in situations where alternatives are not available. If a male walks into the facilities, why is the burden of finding another space on the woman who, in this scenario, was in the middle of a shower? While that question deserves attention, more attention needs to be drawn to the fact that Clementine Adams, the trans identified male Jaman asked to leave, was employed by the Y. He was given the “all clear” by Y management to take the young girls into the bathrooms where he would watch them undress and presumably assist the girls in undressing if needed. However, there were about four to five girls in the bathroom as reported by The Port Townsend Free Press. As stated by the Y, only two of the said girls were possibly under Adams’ care. Even if the Y had obtained consent and fully informed the parents of the two for whom Adams would be caring, what about any child present in the Y who was not with their legal parent or guardian?
Some have argued that showing Adam’s photo is akin to “doxxing” and I assure you, it’s not. Doxxing involves taking private, personal information such as home address, phone number, name of school ect. and posting it online with malicious intent. The image above was taken from Adams’ facebook account and was an image available to the public. Seeing Adams’ image is extremely important in communicating events. Adams is clearly male and as reported on by Reduxx Magazine, he has only very recently started the transition process.
The male in the locker room was identified by a local citizen journalist as Clementine Adams, a transgender employee of the YMCA, though Jaman says he wasn’t displaying any indication he was staff. According to a GoFundMe managed by Adams, he began identifying as a woman in December of 2021, but only announced his transition in April of 2022.
There is no amount of time that would suddenly make it appropriate for a male to have access to young girls, but to give such unquestioning trust only a few months into transitioning seems especially egregious as well as an unconscionable breach of child safeguarding. If a male caregiver identified as as female, are employers expected to start assigning female children to his care as soon as possible or risk violating Washington State law? This brings to mind an incident in Los Alamitos, California in February of this year in which parents learned that males identifying as “non-binary” slept in the same in the same room as young girls for three night. Parents were not told about the male counselors, nor were they asked for consent in regards to their daughters sleeping arrangements.
There is no signage informing women the shower room is now all gender and what that means. Nor have parents been informed of what they can expect with these new policies. The Y has not provided any dressing/shower room options for women who do not want to be exposed to men that identify as women. It is unconscionable that YMCA would instigate these new policies without clearly informing pool patrons and parents…
-Julie Jaman in a speech to Port Townsend City Council.
I have yet to read any statement from the Y that clarifies if the parents of the girls in Adams’ care knew he was a trans identified male, and if they had given consent to having a male employee provide care that would involve said male possibly providing aid while their daughters were in a vulnerable state of undress. In the reporting from the Port Townsend Free Press, Jaman spoke with the CEO of the Olympic Peninsula YMCA, Wendy Bart. It is reported that Bart told Jaman the display of “Pride” flags around the facility was enough communication.
The Y and its supporters continue to talk about this issue as the “right” of the trans identified employees to be in the locker room in accordance to Washington law 162-32-060. However, that law does not say it is a “right” to allow males to care for and gaze upon young girls who are in a state of undress.
Source: The YMCA of Jefferson County Facebook page
Washington Law states:
“If another person expresses concern or discomfort about a person who uses a facility that is consistent with the person's gender expression or gender identity, the person expressing discomfort should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility, if available.”
What if they aren’t available? And how does this transfer to minors? Women not consenting is one matter, but children legally cannot consent at all. I can only imagine that staff would take it upon themselves to “educate” any child with the wherewithal to understand their situation and not actually provide her with privacy or a change of caregiver. If parents were properly informed, would alternative options actually be available? The Y banned a patron of 35 years - a longstanding active member of the community who is simultaneously part of a vulnerable group, given her age. There are consequences to an elderly person losing access to a local resource. Not speaking for Jaman, but many elderly people’s only source of socialization and exercise come from their routines. Without access to their community resources, isolation can lead to negative outcomes. Where are the protections for these two vulnerable groups - the young and the old? Where is the large-scale acknowledgment of the harms they commonly face?
This situation is similar to what happened at the LA Wi Spa. The facility was adhering to the California law in regards to allowing people access to areas based on their chosen “gender identity”. The Y has yet to actually address the issue of the young girls and their rights or clarify if parents were informed. Choosing to focus their efforts on discrediting Jaman and supporting their employee’s “right” to be in the space. They have begun claiming that Jaman has a long standing history of abusive behavior towards staff, yet when pressed they have failed to produce any sort of description of these other “violations”. While Jaman’s story stays consistent through her multiple interviews, the Y’s story is evolving. They have arguably crossed into libelous territory if they do not have the documentation to back up their claims that Jaman was banned not for the incident on July 26th but for a running list of violations.
Clementine Adams has updated his Gofundme stating that most reports are untrue. In a fashion similar to the YMCA that employed him, he does not go into detail in regards to which reports are untrue or what is being misreported. He has also removed the information regarding the timeline of his transition as reported by Reduxx. However, he will gladly take donations!