Article about WiSpa incident *title edited by MNHQ*

Just in case stats and Steph still aren't clear.

So, it's OK for a man to go into the women's section, show his penis around the other women, young little girls, underage, in your spa? Wi Spa condones that, is that what you're saying?' the woman asks.

Which he did.

The staff member's response remains unclear as it is difficult to hear their response behind the Plexiglas at the counter. However, Fox News reported that the clerk appeared to say that the transgender customer was protected by California law.

Which he is.

Hordes of people showed up outside of Wi Spa on Wilshire Boulevard to support a woman who had complained about the alleged exposure incident when they were met by Antifa counter-protesters supporting transgender rights.

Which they make no secret of. Frankly, if it was me, I would be trying to distance myself from them, because they appear to be to be nothing more than a rent a thug.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9753675/amp/Violence-breaks-spa-customer-complains-transgender-woman-exposing-penis-kids.html

And if, which I believe is correct, there are at least 12 lurkers for every poster, that means there are 12,000 people reading that article and comments.

Fortunately, this whole it didn't happen, and if it did it's because she's a right-wing bigot, and if there was violence, it's your fault, schtick seems to be confined to under the stones on Twitter.

”I'm surprised that people think pre-op trans women as a whole would want to expose the body they hate to others. I'm not saying there aren't had trans people but i 'd be astonished if we're a common trait.”

The point is that, on the basis of self-id, any man could access women’s safe spaces. Indeed the spa seems to have either assumed or knew that the penis-haver in question identified as a woman - it wasn’t Angel - so possibly men don’t even have to actively identify as women to get that access.

Well I seem to have missed quite a night. It's taken me a while to catch up but I recommend anyone else joining the thread this morning to go back and read every post from Steph751 and statsgeek1 .

Every single one, not just the quotes - illuminating as they are, you need to read the whole lot
I hope they're not taken down because these 2 posters have just shown us in their own words exactly who they are.

The absolute nerve of TRAs trying to get us to take responsibility for something we have no control over, whilst doing anything to wriggle out of taking any responsibility for or even condoning something which is a direct result of what they have been pushing on women for years and something we have been warning about for years...well, it's remarkable.

Isn't it. It's quite enlightening to many, I'm sure.

For those who do not know.

Ian Huntley is the man who brutally murdered two young schoolgirls.

He was the school caretaker who was filmed by a news reporting crew, acting all heartbroken.

It is still reported as one of the most shocking crimes ever in UK modern history.

However, reading some alternative reporting I would not be totally shocked if we were heading for another Ian Huntley is trans debacle. Do you remember that?

What I remember, statsgeek is that it was reported in a National newspaper, and believed by many TRAs, including such luminaries as Jane Fae, who said that Huntley shouldn't be misgendered.

The "alternative reporting" is 100 percent bullshit, anonymously sourced innuendos written by an anonymous author. There's no there there.

This.

I agree.

The absolute nerve of TRAs trying to get us to take responsibility for something we have no control over, whilst doing anything to wriggle out of taking any responsibility for or even condoning something which is a direct result of what they have been pushing on women for years and something we have been warning about for years...well, it's remarkable.

It's great when the hard of thinking turn up here with their arguments to tell women why cock and balls should be allowed in women's spaces. Their lack of logic just clearly highlight even further exactly why cock and balls shouldn't be there.

In the end it simply boils down to the fact that those who are predators want to be able to undress next to naked women and little kids. That's it. They don't want the opportunity to be taken away from them. After all, they've come so far. The removal of safeguards for women and children is every predators state sanctioned wet dream.

It may well be but, until I hear the LAPD say 'we've investigated this and it happened and this is why we think that', then I am going to have my doubts

I can repeat this until the cows come home. Not one police force anywhere will investigate this or any other incident like this.
Why? Because it's not against the law to be a man in a woman only space if that man says the magic words

"I am a woman"

Now I disagree, but I dont make the laws.

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]twitter.com/msediewyatt/status/1413007992484601864?s=20[/quote]
Thanks for sharing this. That woman is amazing. She used plain language that made it very clear what that man was in that changing for - semi erect penis.

I really hope this starts a chain reaction of change.

demanding that anyone have surgery to be considered a real woman runs counter to every feminist ideal of informed, empowered choice.

I’m not surprised that someone who clearly has no idea what feminism is — or knows and opposes it — should tell feminists how to do feminism properly, Ereshkigalangcleg.

I just wonder why they would bother to call themselves feminists? It’s not even fashionable.

You forgot about mulitilating and sex abuse of kids, that is that too

Stonewall have been campaigning for an end to single sex exemptions in the Equality Act

Stonewall want to undo all protections for Religious women and men.

Stonewall want to undo all protections for homosexual women and men.

Stonewall want to undo all protections for Women.

Stonewall want to undo all protections for those who belong to ethnic minorities due to them being disproportionately being affected by TRA and MRA demands.

If you are

1. Female
2. Male
3. Lesbian/Gay
4. Bi-sexual
5. Religious
6. Pregnant (or a female who may become pregnant)
7. Part of an ethnic minority (inc White Traveller/Gypsy)

Stonewall are everyday lobbying the government to take away your Rights.

Oh FFS everyone, stop giving these clowns oxygen.

Though I guess it is such a clear display of the DARVO this movement uses to shield its facism from public vier that any observers must be needing oxygen masks right now iykwim.

Stonewall have been campaigning for an end to single sex exemptions in the Equality Act

We ALL need to be emailing/mailing/talking to our MPs/SMPs about this fucking atrocious act that Stonewall are trying to do.

Ok so let's be clear, what is it you believe women do to incite a man to violence?
Is it by any chance just being female? Or is it talking? Or is it a look?

Please do let us know soonest.

Nice sleight of hand calling those right wong men " GC". GC, as you well know, is short for "gender critical feminist/feminism".

I see what you're trying to do here, and it stinks to high heaven.

Desperate.

By "pre-op trans women" in plain English you mean males? Men?

Yes. That's exactly what they mean. Just using carefully chosen words in order to hide the truth. But pre op transwomen are males with a cock and balls. It accounts for the majority of males who identify as women.

From what I saw, the woman making the complaint never mentioned trans at any point, she saw a male body and that was her complaint.

From memory, when challenged, she says several times that the person wasn't 'a transgender' . And that it was about dick. Hence the other guy's razor sharp repartee with no you're a dick.

Ye gods what did I just read?

Happily, yet again, the sensible posters here haven't reported any of it, so all that twisting and turning remains for everyone to see.

Having read this thread a few times (I couldn’t make any sense of some of the posts), I now think I know what’s going on.

1. Stategeek and Steph are almost exclusively interested in the complete and unrestrained access into all female spaces. This access includes non passing transwomen with penises.

2. The women on this board worry that this inevitably will grant access to a large number of perverts.

3. Stategeek and Steph think that total access for non passing transwomen with penises is more important than keeping perverts with semi erect penises away from little girls. This is because of the validation of transwomen is more important than the safety of little girls.

4. Stategeek and Steph worry that if GC women point out the perverts, non passing transwomen with penises will find it harder to access female spaces.

5. Stategeek and Steph finally believes that women talking about safe guarding will make men trying to protect little girls from all penises including trans penises and cause violence. This violence is, they believe, the fault of the GC women trying to protect little girls. They do not think it is the fault of the penis people in women’s spaces, nor the fault of the penis people hurting each other.

Did I get this right?

Wow, last night's comments are really eye opening aren't they?

As PP pointed out, people are now saying the incident didn't happen but that if it did happen the male person was definitely trans.

From what I saw, the woman making the complaint never mentioned trans at any point, she saw a male body and that was her complaint.

As males can legally use female spaces in California, the person wasn't breaking any law so why would there be a police report? Why would ther be an investigation?

It's shocking but not surprising to me that again women speaking about their experience seems so much more problematic than what they actually experienced. This is a man's world, thats for sure.