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

This demonstrates perfectly when new laws are made without any consideration to the interaction with existing laws. So which law trump's the other?

This utter determination to ignore the real world with all of this is so, frankly, it's insulting. And crass.

1. No male will exploit this
2. If they did then there's no additional risk. And anyway men attack women and girls all the time. That's life for you so get over it.
3. It didn't happen.
4. If it did then there would have been reports to the police. Obviously. (Women and girls rarely report. Pointless. Seen as trivial. And anyway no law has been broken so why would they. This why no reports thing is utterly nonsensical).
5. Woman seems religious? Well then. So what. She should be ignored by everyone and assumed to be a liar just based on that).

Etc etc.

And all to try and, for some reason. Push the point that it didn't happen. When the fact is it's LEGAL and the reason it's legal is because activists fought for the law to be changed so it was legal!.

At least the 50% ish who said so what it's only a cock. Get over it. If you don't like it don't go there. Teach your children not to be in any way phased by random cocks about the place.

At least they were honest.

Well now we've the actual law.

On the one hand naked penis people are definitely allowed in the women's (equality law)

On the other hand it's illegal if others could be offended. (Or annoyed! I like that).

The nakedness is certainly wilful.

Not sure how they define public.

As it would be fine for a business to have mixed sex things if they wanted. And eg nudist places exist.

I'd say that the equality law is the one that applies in this spa.

Self ID must be allowed.

So. Legal. As long as the person says woman then it's fine.

I just wanted to check something as indecent exposure laws vary a lot.

In California:

'Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

1. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

If on the other hand it can be established that someone was acting inappropriately in that spa, beyond what state laws permit, by exposing with deliberate intent to distress others, that is very serious too and requires appropriate action to prosecute, and safeguarding steps within the spa.
@suggestionsplease1 what if someone was acting inappropriately in that spa, but within the bounds of Californian law?

Independent piece

'The LAPD confirmed to The Independent the viral video was never officially brought to its attention.'

IT'S LEGAL FOR NAKED MALES TO BE IN THERE YOU UTTER DIMWITS.

this outrage at a dick in the spa, when the whole point of the activism that got the law changed was for the dick to be in areas like the spa ..

Hypocritical disingenuous arseholery at maximum off the scale levels.

The Independent reported this in a similar way the weekend after

Ignoring totally what the issue was about (female spaces for females)

Once again we are reminded males have the upper hand

I'm very sorry to hear that Floral. I can well imagine how this is making life harder

Or answers any questions.

The post I wrote got an 'answer' that was completely and utterly random!

It is bullying.

I don't think suggestion is making any mistakes tbh.

I think they are well aware of what their posts say.

Suggestionplease1, you are making the classic mistake of thinking the lack of evidence of attacks is evidence of no problems with self id. Lack of evidence does not mean nothing happens, just that women don't report, police don't take note (as there is no crime committed like with stalking) or women self exclude.

It is the same as saying there is a decrease in rapes instead of verifying if there is indeed a decrease in rapes or a fear of reporting rapes or lack in trust in the police and judiciary system.

Or as in the Netherlands, a decrease in the number of reported stolen bicycles doesn't mean less bicylces get stolen, it just means less people take the effort to report because nothing comes out of it anyway. So why bother?

Just as women won't report feeling excluded, because of fear being called a bigot, so why bother... or like with the lady at wispa, you get villified on social media and called a religious nutter who lied anyway.

I don’t know NiceGerbil.

I suspect though that readers will make up their own minds seeing what questions have been answered and how. Those reading along tend to read between the lines and get a sense of the motivations of all posters as we all do.

I wonder what some posters think they are achieving.

Maybe just enjoying poking at some women for fun?

• Women's refuges are being shut down.

• Women's prisons, including those with mother and baby units are now mixed sex.

• Women and girls are losing out to places in sports teams, sporting events and scholarships to males.

• Actual harm that is happening to women and girls is being minimised and denied, those women being brushed off as crazy/liars

Nothing to see here

fwiw, I do get more shit now, in terms of comments and looks. Was in a city centre very recently and was very aware of being stared at in a ladies loo, and I also got an unpleasant comment from a group of young men on the train. I think I've been called a d*ke more in the past few months than I ever remember being called that when I was much younger (though, to be fair, the most common insult tended to be 'lemon' which has significantly less bite, despite the somewhat incoherent intent to shame the lesbian that it comes with).

I don't blame women discussing and defending their rights and protections for this, because they are my rights and protections too.
I lay it at the door of the bullies who want to police how women look and simultaneously gaslight people with this cobblers that a man can be a woman for any reason. We didn't open the box of stupid, you lot did. And we pay for it, as we knew we would. Ta very much.

Are their photos of the "Precious Child, transactivist" supposed to be reassuring?

Because they're . . . not.

This is what you believe. It isn't kind, and it isn't humane.

Well… it can be considered humane if you are prioritising males over females for the purposes of believing them to be the more marginalized group. If you are part of the community that needs to be seen to support those males.

If you will be ostracized for not prioritising those males.

Then I am sure you will pretzel your thinking to stifle any discomfort.

You will ignore inconvenient questions and who knows what you might tell yourself.

Yet even here the same poster post the same shit every single sodding day.

Over and over.

Refusing to acknowledge any of the evidence or facts, or even reality.

They post and post passive aggressive and openly offensive nonsense on a feminist forum, for women.

Oh such entitlement.

You aren't trying to educate or convince anyone of your positions. You are just bullying women. It's sick.

How about we look at the statistics that we have pulled out in the UK? On males who identify as women, committing sex crimes and are in prison

I was looking at the Keep Prisons Single Sex website earlier while preparing my email for the UN call for evidence on the status of women.

I refreshed my memory about Jessica Winfield, who is serving a life sentence for the rape of two girls, one of whom was the disabled daughter of a family friend.

He was sent to a women's prison after identifying as a woman. Using the risk assessment framework you proposed above @suggestionsplease1, namely

complete risk avoidance is not possible and not compatible with other values that are important

he made sexual advances to the poor women forced to live with him, of course.

but they are just collateral damage in your world aren't they?

This is what you believe. It isn't kind, and it isn't humane.

OWN IT

And focusing only on attacks completely ignores the plight of those women being excluded from female spaces.

And to collect that data requires women to admit to what, micro aggressions that are considered hateful, being bigots, not being progressive, not being liberal or left wing.

Let’s fucking face it. Women cannot win. And if you have valid issues why you cannot share spaces with males, however they present, you are even more fucked over.

That was for the persistent

@suggestionsplease1

Still on the cycle of ‘it will never happen’.

If it did, it was just the once!

If it happened again, it was just the two times.

And they were not really trans….

And anyway, we will ignore the fact that the proportion of males who identify as women who are in prison for sex crimes… because… a hateful group of women worked out the figures, they are not trans anyway, but look over here at this country…

It is very tired and we have seen it many times already.

How about we look at the statistics that we have pulled out in the UK? On males who identify as women, committing sex crimes and are in prison.

Nah, you can't ever refer to those cases because that is just 'tarring everyone with the same brush' which is pure bigotry innit. So you have to pretend those cases don't exist.