Good news on the WI Spa incident

I suspect those people who try to present male reproductive organs as being female, are ok with the indecent exposure of same. Even to children. Didn't someone say that the kiddies shouldn't be so awful as to see the male who was indecently exposing himself. In my view, those fellow travellers are a little perverse themselves to be cheerleading that. I think they are complicit in trying to pretend sex offenders are not just to be tolerated, but to be celebrated.

It appears to me that they think the male sex offenders who do that are fine, as long as they identify as female. So, I don't think they will give a toss about the alleged sex offence or indecent exposure in Wi Spa.

I wonder if the women present, and mother on behalf of the child can also sue the spa (possibly others) for not taking the offence seriously when they complained. It appeared that the spa were ok (and dismissive of the alleged victims) with the male who allegedly had an erection exposing themself to the women.

[quote Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons]Aunt Sally is digging in
mobile.twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1433509754781962240
mobile.twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1433530572626825217[/quote]
Does she not realise that Afghan refugee women will need single sex spaces to take part in public life in the UK? They’re covering their hair for modesty all day long but will be fine to get naked next to EI or CJ in girl mode?

Do you know what the fucking irritating thing is….when she was telling us that our daughters were at fault for being exposed to male genitalia, there were all sorts of womens issues she could have been looking at

But now shes WRONG…sally mate you were wronger than a wrong thing in wrongville,….she telling everyone they should concern themselves with other issues

Well thats not how it works you absolute hypocrite

If he hadn't got a hard on then I can't see they could charge him with anything surely.

It's not really good news. It's good the police actually investigated though actually that's really positive.

I think all those who said hoax, it's just bodies, what's so scary about a penis, can't have happened because pissed off woman had certain beliefs, girls should not be noticing/ concerned about a naked male in with them when they're naked etc etc

I think they'll completely ignore it.

I did see a week or so ago that police were investigating so this is a good outcome.

There is a massive massive problem here though.

WiSpa were following the law. It would be illegal for them to have said no you can't use the womens to this person.

Women and girls are being told that it's transphobic to react esp not be happy with male people in single sex places. It could be seen as a hate incident to say anything/ report to desk etc etc. With the law in eg Scotland. I don't know the law on this in California.

If I were the person the police are looking at. Then I'd be saying as they are. It's a naked place of course I was naked. I'd be making an argument that erections can be involuntary and in this case it was. And a person can't help their body and shouldn't be shamed/ seen to be committing a crime due to natural involuntary aspects.

If the person hadn't had an erection or had somehow hidden it then no crime was committed. But still a male who has history of sex offending was a. In a room with naked women and girls and b. Could wander about get in spa pool etc with penis exposed

Quote from the NYP article.

Merager claims to identify as female so he can access women’s locker rooms and showers,” reads an internal flyer by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department that was sent to law enforcement departments in southern California in late 2018. Merager has pleaded not guilty to all six counts and her next court date for the incident is on Sept. 8. Merager told law enforcement she’s transient but bail was set at $150,000 in early 2019, which was paid.

I wonder who paid the bail?

Per a post on Ovarit even if it was paid via a bail bond which only requires 10% to be put down that's still $15,000. A lot of money for someone to pay out to bail a transient known felon.

Oh Sally. If anyone needs to delete their account, it's her.

Oh dear.

Was going to archive some tweets and stuff, but I see some people got there before me.

My prediction is reluctant acknowledgement that it was a sex offender in this case, but we're still transphobic because we try to paint all trans people as sex offenders.

Or tumbleweed.

She's reached a new low tonight. Can't believe she's in academia - wouldn't let her near any students.

And more:

twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1433531409814237186

twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1433516418729918464

People have commented before that as the evening wears on, Hines' tweeting can become more erratic.

I'm confused. If female athletes just need to try harder to beat male ones, then surely any woman who needs to overpower a Taliban fighter just needs to make more of an effort? I wouldn't want to suggest that a certain person is picking and choosing when she notices men and women have different biology.

Aunt Sally is digging in
mobile.twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1433509754781962240
mobile.twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1433530572626825217

There are people on Twitter wondering if Antifa, transactivists, the media and certain commentators knew the kind of person they were supporting, and, let's be honest, I think they did and I think they actively enjoy the fact that gender ideology allows them to viciously attack women and girls having sexual boundaries. That's the endgame.

Sally Hines though, I mean where to start with this ..
twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1413247019745959939

Yeah, The Guardian thinks plain old sex-offending is boring unless a celebrity angle like #MeToo makes it fashionable.

I wonder if the women and girls involved have a legal case against the spa or the state for enabling this? I know it's hard to bring a defamation case in the US, but I wonder if they have a case against all the publications who claimed they were liars and bigots (for complaining about a sexual offence FFS!)?

Sadly the news cycle has moved on so this will be roundly ignored and at best minimised by a few who might respond. It will still be derided as fake or distorted because of who reported it and the outlet that ran it.

The shocking aspect to this isn't that sex offenders do what sex offenders do, that's a given, but that laws have been deliberately created to make it legal for a sex offending man to do this and provide him with an easy supply of female victims both adult and minor.

Victims who then have little recourse to have the wrongs put right because their politicians are busy having meetings with the sex offenders to see how they can give even more protections to them.

I fully expect to see legislation proposed at some point to remove indecent exposure as a criminal act altogether in service of this ideology.

I would make them all sign one of those bloody open letters they are so fond of and when, in 3/ 5/ 10/ or however many years all the compensation claims come in, they are held personally responsible....

Hell fucking yeah

After their coverage of the protests regarding this incident, I'm looking forward to seeing the Guardian investigate and produce a piece on this...................

.....don't think we'll see that though, do you?

Completely predictable and no doubt being studiously ignored by all those adults enabling predators to access children.

I can hear them crying "I'm shocked, shocked" -- as the corrupt police chief in "Casablanca" says about illegal gambling (which he has of course profited from).

That's what I always think of when I read stories like this. The TRAs and their handmaids are of course shocked, shocked, that a sex offender might use self-ID to further his enjoyment of exposing himself at children.

If anyone here hasn't seen Casablanca, I recommend it. For the wit, for the Humphrey Bogart/ Ingrid Bergman charisma, for loads of reasons. And of course for Claude Rains looked shocked, shocked.

I would make them all sign one of those bloody open letters they are so fond of and when, in 3/ 5/ 10/ or however many years all the compensation claims come in, they are held personally responsible....

Unfortunately, the vested interests will ignore this because it doesn't fit their agenda. I don't know what it will take to make them acknowledge the huge risks inherent with self id.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Be kind only works one way and that's to the sex offenders advantage.

I predict all the people who supported the idea this was a hoax will ignore latest developments, and eventually claim they've had a lot of 'hate' and 'pile ons' refer to some kind of personal tragedy and vanish for a period of time.

It's exactly how it always goes.