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

Seems like a reasonably fair and accurate article. Don't see what the problem is.

Suggestions the law in California supports this situation.

It's transphobic to imagine that seeing a naked male in a female naked spa is anything to even notice let alone be concerned about. It's for women and girls so any woman can go in.

Why are you so keen to say it didn't happen. Surely it's a good thing? The changes fought for to allow this are working.

Isn't that a good thing?

Intent is easy to establish

Excuse me this is the women's area do you feel this is the right place for you?
Yes, I'm a woman.
Great! Apologies for asking please don't sue us. Accept this complimentary pass for the month for this inconvenience. Have a wonderful day!

Excuse me this is the women's area do you feel this is the right place for you?
I'm a man but I prefer it here...
Said no one asked this ever. If they were asked. Which they wouldn't be because discrimination.

They cannot be surprised when the women and girls get upset and offended.

The Guardian is appalling. I can barely bring myself to give it any clicks. I was horrified by their non-response to the Cologne NYE stuff - it was that non-response which, in part, re-awakened my feminism, which had gone dormant under the pressures of a houseful of young DC.

It was crystal fucking clear that no one is going to do this for us, we have to do it for ourselves.

OK, so if we were to choose to believe it was all some type of fake incident, despite the statements made by the spa itself and that the story has been changed by the TRAs so many times now, that you would have to be seriously mentally challenged to fall for it.

There was a scathing review to wispa from 2 years prior on trip advisor (which isn't now on there seemingly 🤔)

Of course not Floisme. Who are we to think that we should have had a choice?

Some prominent people on twitter have also stated that they don't care about the rights of women, that they will simply keep using those facilities because they feel it is their right.
Were we ever asked in the first place if we minded? I certainly can't remember anyone ever asking the question so I'm not in the least surprised to hear that.

What kind of male, transwoman or not, wants to get their penis out at all in a place where they know women and girls are expecting it to be a female only space and may well be uncomfortable at the sight of a penis, whether it's intentional or not?

Well, up until last night, I would have said that surely males who identify as females would respect female's enough to not do this.

Then on another thread last night we were told by an activist that even if the law changed and the toilets became single sex, "transwomen will keep using women's toilets, despite the law, because they'll assume that it's their right to have a pee without being beaten up."

But then that poster also said that it was women who were beating transwomen up with great regularity. They did acknowledge that flashing of penises seemed to be an undeniable issue though.

So, I think it depends on who you listen to actually. Some prominent people on twitter have also stated that they don't care about the rights of women, that they will simply keep using those facilities because they feel it is their right.

So, yes. There does seem to be a group that simply will do it because it is 'legal' and without any care of the distress it causes women and girls. That the needs of women and girls don't matter.

That is also where the 'unintentional' exposure argument fails. Because it simply matters not a jot to those using it that women and girls will be harmed.

How, in any case, do you tell whether the person's intentions are benign or malign?

Though I agree with Jack. Anyone exposing their penis in a female changing room knows exactly what they're up to and it's difficult to discern any motive other than the desire to upset and shock.

A transgender woman, legally going into a spa and acting in accordance with all rules and with no thoughts to offend or harm, is not culpable in the same way as an individual who deliberately and intentionally attempts to upset others by acting in a certain way.

What kind of male, transwoman or not, wants to get their penis out at all in a place where they know women and girls are expecting it to be a female only space and may well be uncomfortable at the sight of a penis, whether it's intentional or not?

A male who gets naked with women and girls knows full well what they are doing.

They do indeed.

Claiming that that males exposing their penis because they are legitimately in a naked spa section restricted to females have no intention to harm others is really disingenuous posting. And completely negates the needs of female's who will be harmed by this exposure, thoughtlessly dismissed by others.

What do you mean by not culpable in the same way?

A male who gets naked with women and girls knows full well what they are doing.

A transgender woman, legally going into a spa and acting in accordance with all rules and with no thoughts to offend or harm, is not culpable in the same way as an individual who deliberately and intentionally attempts to upset others by acting in a certain way.

Males are fully aware why indecent exposure is a crime. Anyone who says they don't understand why it's a problem for women and girls is being disingenuous, and try to gaslight people. See the response Laurie Penny rightly got when she tried.

The person who had a heart attack at the wheel of their car and killed another person did not intend to kill them and is not culpable in the same way as someone who deliberately aimed their car at a person and mowed them down.

The person who accidentally injured their squash companion through a mis-hit of the squash ball did not intend to injure them and is not culpable in the same way as someone else who deliberately chooses to punch someone.

A student in class who talks about a house fire, which unknown to them another student finds triggering and distressing because they lost a relative in a house fire, is not culpable in the same way as someone knowingly and deliberately intending to distress that person by talking about house fires.

A transgender woman, legally going into a spa and acting in accordance with all rules and with no thoughts to offend or harm, is not culpable in the same way as an individual who deliberately and intentionally attempts to upset others by acting in a certain way.

I have no idea why anyone would think the police are investigating when no crime was committed.

I'm sure the police have better things to do.

Previously it was being posted that the police had been through their records and found no report. An anonymous source said that.

Why would anyone have reported it? It's legal.

Additionally women don't report most sex related behaviour from men. Up to and including rape. The met said during the investigation into a woman's disappearance (murdered) that indecent exposure wasn't something they were bothered with

Yet we're supposed to believe that women who know this is legal and were told during the incident it's legal to report it. Really? And that the police would waste their time on looking into something legal?

That's all just silly really

I also have no idea why there's not celebrations rather than denial. This is the law and it was fought for. It's what was wanted FGS. So why this freak out saying it never happened and all the other unsubstantiated denial?

It's s GOOD THING. the law is working as intended and orgs like WiSpa are abiding by it

Come on where's the party?

For me it was when they reported on Gary Marie's hunger strike because he wanted to be in a women's prison and was being denied his hair straighteners, but completely neglecting to mention that the reason that he was in prison in the first place was because he was spying on teenage girls and breaking into their houses and filming himself wearing their underwear.

There was also this fawning crap about attempted murderer Lauren Jeska, in which the life changing injuries Lauren inflicted on U.K. Athletics official Ralph Nibbs by stabbing him repeatedly in the face and neck barely merit a passing mention:

The Jamesons make no excuses for Jeska’s violent attack. Both Christians who attend an evangelical baptist church, they say they are praying for Knibbs’ full recovery. In a statement to court Knibbs said he had suffered a “traumatic, life-changing experience” and also a stroke during the assault, resulting in partial sight loss.
The couple hope UKA will learn from the traumatic experience. “Lauren has told us that she is much more passionate about the mental health agenda than about transgender rights,” said Pauline. “Yes, she objected to her transgender status becoming public knowledge, but she was secure in her no-longer-new identity. She has taken coaching very seriously and has deep concerns that UKA might deal in a similarly insensitive way with younger runners, not so secure in their identity.”

amp.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/17/jailed-transgender-fell-runner-thought-uk-athletics-was-trying-to-kill-her

Idon't personally assume the presence of dick and balls means offense, or that their owner is going to be abusive, or expose with the intent of intimidating
So if intent is what matters to you, do you also believe a defense along the lines of, 'I didn't mean any harm' or 'I didn't mean to hurt her' or 'I thought she wanted it' is valid?

So fucked up that we're at a place where people rush to defend and dismiss a male stranger exposing their cock and balls to women and girls. If you don't see anything wrong with that, then I don't know what to say.

Arguing out of one side of the mouth that any and all public nudity is fine, and to be encouraged, and then suggesting out of the other side that there is some sort of criminal investigation underway doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.

It doesn't.

Was that not clear to all people using the spa?

Well clearly not

Idon't personally assume the presence of dick and balls means offense, or that their owner is going to be abusive, or expose with the intent of intimidating

But it doesn’t matter what the intent is, because focusing solely on that completely discounts the reality of what impacted women feel, as if it doesn’t exist at all. This absolutely will be an issue to many, if not most women, and I personally have no interest in attempting to shame or coerce women out of our boundaries in relation to male nudity.

Ok. I understand.

You don't have a problem with a male exposing their penis in an area where females and children are naked in a single sex facility.

You don't have a problem with a male with an exposed penis getting into a spa with naked children.

And people who enter a Korean Spa which caters for families in California should have no expectation of not encountering a penis in the female only naked section.

Have I misunderstood?

It sure is a conundrum Sophocles up there with people not believing that the policies they've been lobbying for are being enacted and that the things that people against it said would happen are happening.

Be careful of what you're posting if so as you wouldn't want the case to be compromised.

The US doesn't have prejudice rules in the same way as the UK. Very hard to compromise a case. Assuming there is one, which as far as I'm aware there isn't.