Shameful, incoherent, poorly referenced, completely biased piece of 'journalism' from the Guardian

Precious Child made a video - since deleted - admitting to being the person in the spa. Now either they are telling the truth (in which case it happened) or they are lying (but surely trans people don't lie? I thought they were all saints).

So which is it?

I've had to stop listening to a podcast I really enjoy.

They are in the US and left wing, pro BLM, very politically active, go on protests against police violence etc. I've learnt a lot about US politics from them.

This week they were talking about the Wi Spa incident and were pro the spa and very anti the woman involved (cast doubt on the event). Talked about trans rights and thought it was down to "white women's fears" and trans phobia. Acknowledged womens concerns, so were aware of them, but completely dismissed them.

I thought about sending them a message, and I may still do that, to tell them why they've lost a listener. Doubt they will care much because I don't pay for the content.

Yes eresh.

Last night we had a poster who posted ‘How often do you think that's happened as compared to, say, a bona fide, born-as-a-woman woman - in a dress, to boot - beating up some other woman in a women's toilet? Not flashing at a woman, mind you, but actually beating one up?’

The only interpretation here that this poster knows that ‘flashing at a woman’ is commonplace and cannot defend it at all. Yet, told us that women were beating up transwomen in the toilets regularly. And it was rare to have males identifying as women beating women up in the toilets, but flashing… well draw your own conclusions.

TRAs rely on the narrative existing that males (either MTF trans or chancers benefiting from "inclusive" policy and law) flashing their cocks in women's spaces, although perfectly justifiable in their eyes because TWAW, never or hardly ever happens as they know it doesn't play well with the public at this point.

They hope they will be able to normalise it gradually, but they don't want a media storm.

Let’s not forget that hot mess too!

She went to the desk and complained about the 'man' exposing himself as if it had happened. The staff didn't 'play along with anything.

That’s right. They haven’t played along but have calmly reminded the woman that males are allowed in the naked female section of the spa as per the law and their policy.

The police have investigated - and found NOTHING.

Been over this claim. And again, do you have the official statement from the police that there was any investigation and what were they investigating. Unusual for a high profile incident such as this not to have an official statement made if an investigation was done.

The spa say no trans members used the spa that day.

It is important to get the words right. Wasn’t the wording ‘there were no regular transwomen clients booked in for a treatment that day’ or something similar. So treatments are not use of the general spaces like hot tubs so, that comment from the spa doesn’t say anything that refutes what the woman reported.

The woman who 'reported' the incident is rabidly homophobic, an evangelical who has scored a massive 'win' over the coverage for this in the right wing, and world media.

If we were to apply similar framing to the prominent trans spokespeople, how many would be left with any credibility? Yes, this woman has some points of view that are not ones I support (and many other MNers I would suspect). Why do you believe that a woman’s integrity on reporting an incident should be evaluated on her religious beliefs on homosexuality and trans issues?

Also if she is such a devout Christian, why do you believe that she would lie about it.

Either way, isn’t this just a form of female victim shaming and victim blaming? Rather a misogynistic move.

I just don't believe the incident happened. At all.

Yeah. Ok. It is a free world.

And people lose credibility when they use something like this to prove ther points

Actually, I think you have displayed considerable lack of critical thinking here yourself. It doesn’t do anything for your credibility at all.

So, we are to fully believe people are who they say they are despite the fact we can see the reality clearly. And we are to denounce a woman’s report of an incident because of ambiguous accusations from highly invested individuals despite her telling us ‘who she is’….

If you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in that, your credibility is nil.

If I remember correctly, there is some brilliant examples of misogyny on that thread too. Where male posters accuse the women who recorded the video of being responsible for the male violence of the protesters.
They did indeed, although the most egregious examples were deleted, which I thought was a shame - as far as I'm concerned, the more people who see this level of thought process the better.

*”We know it is legal for a male who has self identified as a women to use the female section of the spa in this way. So exactly what crime did you expect the police to have investigated?”

- To see if a man, not a TW, really did expose himself in the aggressive manner described to women and children in the way this woman complained.

But as self-ID is legal in California, how could the police know if this penis-displaying person was a TW or not?

The subs (not that Guardian Media Group seem to have them) would have to have performed microsurgery on that article to raise it from its abysmal state in order to approach shameful and incoherent.

The hatred for women is so profound and deeply seated I worry that we'll never be able to get out of this awful situation. That any women are willing to side with the swivel-eyed loons is baffling.

them 'anti-pedophile protesters' in an attempt to discredit them might not be as successful as you think it is

Ooops

If I remember correctly, there is some brilliant examples of misogyny on that thread too. Where male posters accuse the women who recorded the video of being responsible for the male violence of the protesters.

Oh, and the same accusation was leveled at the feminists posting on this forum. What a surprise!!!

That was quite breathtaking, as we were told that we personally were responsible for the Proud Boys, as GC women in the U.K., and I haven't seen those posters since that night. Maybe they've had a little think about what they were doing.

https://cathy.arcdigital.media/p/the-battle-of-wi-spaa^^ - another journalist summarised pretty well the situation with the negative of all the sides. There are at least 3 firsthand accounts since 2018 of a male person exposing their penis the women's section - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9773417/Mother-says-trans-woman-penis-beard-got-hot-tub-daughter-6-LA-spa.htmll^^ the DM reported on another one here, and the woman in question posted her account on youtube after the first protest.

So we have two videos and one tripadvisor review saying that someone exposed a penis in the nude women's section.

• California law says that this is allowed
• The WiSpa staff say that this is allowed, both in the video and in their statement
• The guy with the moustache in the video comes up to tell her this is allowed

So why would there be a hoax about something that's legal and the spa permits? Yeah cubanaangel looks nutso, but does that mean she has no right to be in a female only space if she's naked?

Indeed. Agree Cathy Young's piece is very thorough.

Just posting this link here for any other conspiracy pushers. This covers many of attempts to dismiss this incident as made up.

If I remember correctly, there is some brilliant examples of misogyny on that thread too. Where male posters accuse the women who recorded the video of being responsible for the male violence of the protesters.

Oh, and the same accusation was leveled at the feminists posting on this forum. What a surprise!!!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4292052-Article-about-WiSpa-incident-title-edited-by-MNHQ

She didn't. She went to the desk and complained about the 'man' exposing himself as if it had happened. The staff didn't 'play along with anything.The police have investigated - and found NOTHING. The spa say no trans members used the spa that day.

This is pure propaganda that you have swallowed. It comes from that Pink News-alike local paper that made these claims from the police and the spa, from "anonymous sources". That is the source of all those claims, not the spa and the police on the record.

Its legal in California for male people of any identity to use female facilities. Thats what people have been lobbying for, therefore it is not a crime for a male person to expose themselves to females in female facilities.

I don't understand why people say this didn't / wouldn't happen when this is the natural conclusion of what they've been fighting for.

Oh and accusing a woman who speaks out about male sexual aggression of being crazy has been done to death. Nothing new there.

So if the spa said that there were no trans customers that day, then that’s saying that the penis owner was a man, right?

But the police are saying that there was no crime, so there was no man, either.

The position the graun are taking is that the woman filming fabricated this incident entirely, from whole cloth.

But the film at the time show the spa staff saying not “there isn’t a man in the women’s spa”, but “all the patrons currently in the women’s spa are entitled to be there”. They don’t go and check, they don’t say “no, there are no men there”.

And all of the women in the background, in robes with wet hair, including the one getting refunded on account of not wishing to share the spa with a male- what are they doing? Why are they there? How have they been persuaded to play along?

There is a person on Twitter saying that they are the spa patron in question. Why are they doing that?

Let’s have a swipe at all of that with Occam’s razor and see what survives.

Cancelled after the non-reporting of Cologne NYE 2015.

Same here and this reminds me of that, as when they grudgingly reported it they did everything they could to dismiss it or paint the perpetrators in a sympathetic light. The Guardian is misogynistic.

God, it's just awful, more like a comic than a paper of record. I can't believe previous editors like Peter Preston would have allowed this childish drivel in the paper.

@sailmeaway, I was watching the events unfold directly.

cathy.arcdigital.media/p/the-battle-of-wi-spa - another journalist summarised pretty well the situation with the negative of all the sides. There are at least 3 firsthand accounts since 2018 of a male person exposing their penis the women's section - www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9773417/Mother-says-trans-woman-penis-beard-got-hot-tub-daughter-6-LA-spa.html the DM reported on another one here, and the woman in question posted her account on youtube after the first protest.

So we have two videos and one tripadvisor review saying that someone exposed a penis in the nude women's section.

• California law says that this is allowed
• The WiSpa staff say that this is allowed, both in the video and in their statement
• The guy with the moustache in the video comes up to tell her this is allowed

So why would there be a hoax about something that's legal and the spa permits? Yeah cubanaangel looks nutso, but does that mean she has no right to be in a female only space if she's naked?

Most of us here watched the sequence of events happen, and watched the narrative change from "you're a bigot if you're not okay with [alleged event]" to "[alleged event] was so unbelievable its clearly a far right hoax". Seeing the Guardian, Washington Post and others uncritically repeat this torpedoes their credibility. For example, the statement that "no trans person registered at the spa was there that day". For one, Cubanaangel doesn't even mention trans, she's quite clear that what she sees is a man. Were any men there that day? Secondly, you can go to the spa website and see that you don't need to be registered to have a day pass. Any journalist could check that website and see that, so why didn't they?

Whole thing is just equating anyone who queries the possibility of a male born person, with no srs, entering and using the female facilities, with qanon, anti vax, homophobia etc.

Completely distracting from the key point.

Oh cross posted with everyone I see

To see if a man, not a TW, really did expose himself in the aggressive manner described to women and children in the way this woman complained.

‘Aggressive manner’ ….

Please clarify.

Do you believe that a male has the right to expose their penis to a nine year old girl, or six year old girl from the other complaint, and to get into a hot tub with said girl?

Let’s not discuss the manner which this was done. Because it seems from your posts that this is acceptable behaviour for any male.

Is this the behaviour you wish to dismiss?