Good news on the WI Spa incident

[PostingForTheFirstTime]

I just saw this reported on Facebook:

nypost.com/2021/09/02/charges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-wi-spa-casecharges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-notorious-wi-spa-incident/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR1e_ws81-vaALSlUfdhuYlufJNoLzR31q-WII_WCUISsfR5Rnvx-21RtFc

I couldn’t be more shocked if I was stood in a puddle of water with a fork stuck in a switched on toaster holding an umbrella in an electrical storm.

The only thing that would actually shock me is an admittance of being wrong by any of the usual suspects.

I don't expect academics to comport themselves on Twitter the way that Sally Hines does. She's an embarrassment to academia.

Also, I keep seeing the term 'cis women' on this thread. I'm not a cis woman. I am not a subset of my own sex. I am a woman.

Also the LA Times can fuck off with 'anti trans activist'. I'm all for trans people having proper rights to employment, health care and all the rest. I just want women's rights protected at the same time.

How is it that defending women's right to be safe from predatory males like this individual is seen as sinning against the liberal order? Why is standing up for women against male entitlement seen as such a terrible thing to do?

It's all about sex, isn't it, as in XX and XY? Which brings us back to the roots of feminism and once again begs the question about why these discussions can only take place on the naughty step.

I missed that, screamingmeme

Hello @PumpkinSpiceWoman! Can you just clarify that your position is still that this incident didn’t happen, despite charges being filed? I’d be keen to understand what you think happened.

We've also had plenty of mtf transitioners on here claim that no transwoman would expose themselves in a communal changing room or similar, as they would find the whole experience excruciating.

So would mtf transitioners want to use the women's section at WiSpa or not? Does the very fact that a male-bodied person enters a female space where nudity is expected indicate that that person is not genuinely trans?

More to the point, how are the women in the spa supposed to tell which male-born person is genuinely trans and which male-born person is there for malevolent purposes?

The woman who complained was accused of transphobia because she detected malevolent intentions in the male-born person in the spa. Turns out that this person has a history of sex offences. So was she transphobic or did she correctly detect malevolent intent? If the latter, would it have made a difference if this had been the perpetrator's first foray into a female-only space, so there was no history of sex offences to support her claim?

These are all genuine questions and I will put money on them being ignored by the usual suspects on this board.

I had a ponder on the people who employ the use of the term 'cis' when referring to other people. It is very much the imposition of one's own personal belief on others. I think some religions refer to those who do not follow their religion as 'nonbelievers' or even 'kaffirs'. Imagine going around publicly referring to people or labelling people as non-believers or kaffirs without their consent.

Then, it suggests Merager's gender identity is unclear - obviously going down the 'not really trans' route.

I wonder if they will update this?

If they don’t are they suggesting that Meagher isn’t trans? I’m struggling to understand the difference between what the distressed woman said at the spa and the suggestion from the Guardian (presumably from the comfort of a desk) that despite evidence Meagher is not trans. They seem to be treading a very fine line.

Also interesting to contrast their coverage of ‘me too’ and their coverage of this incident. Here it’s very much don’t believe women, particularly if you can attack their character.

I don’t think this aspect will go unnoticed by right wing pundits. It’s an open goal.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charged-with-indecent-exposure-at-la-spa-after-viral-instagram-video

Sigh...

I’m struggling to understand the difference between what the distressed woman said at the spa and the suggestion from the Guardian (presumably from the comfort of a desk) that despite evidence Meagher is not trans.

The woman at the spa was very insistent that it was a man. It was the person behind the desk saying things about "sexual orientation" and the wokebro insisting that if a man is in there, then it must be a transwoman, so it must be okay.

So clearly self ID is infeasible. As this demonstrates, with it in place, will spring to the defence of any man against a woman, saying that they can be there because they must be a transwoman.

Christ that Guardian article:

Yeah yeah, it does seem to be that these women were victims of indecent exposure at the hands of a male sex offender after all, but that's really not the point here - what really matters is that male feelings have been hurt! I mean, these women didn't even care, in the moment after being the victim of a sex offender, about how what they were saying might imply that trans women don't even exist! Why weren't they thinking about that? Why weren't male feelings at the top of their list of things to be thinking about after being flashed at by a male sex offender. Bitches.....

That article is a disgrace to journalism. Using the word “person” in the headline, as if the sex of someone with a penis was unknowable, then putting “man” in scare quotes in the article, and scrupulously avoiding pronouns throughout. Then declining to actually comment on the facts in favour of rehashing the narrative that regardless of the facts, this is actually all an “anti trans” narrative. Oh grauniad, you do realise that you just agreed that women’s rights and male bodied trans people’s requirements clash irreconcilably don’t you?

Just when I thought the Guardian couldn’t sink any lower.

I think the take on it will be to ignore it, put it in the same camp as Karen White and keep talking about right wing, Christian evangelicals, Proud Boys blah blah blah

The evidence that the person charged identifies as trans is in the New York Post article. Strangely the Guardian article published 12 hours later doesn’t take the direct quotes at face value.

Schrodinger’s self ID.

I think Sam Levin has written all the Guardian articles on this incident. I don’t think one of them has acknowledged that women want to avoid sharing spaces with men who get a kick out of abusing women.

This is a truly low point for the Guardian.

I’d like to never see the excuse that a transwoman’s penis no longer functions as a sex organ again.

‘Some’ males who take medication will have no sexual function of their penis. It seems that group is quite the minority.

Stop telling women and children that penises can be female penises, ladydicks or whatever. Just stop. It is and it always will be a male sex organ. And the growing number of males, who identify as women, who are so fascinated by their penis still that they film themselves with erections and post those videos and images proves it always will be.

I think Sam Levin has written all the Guardian articles on this incident.

And clearly shouldn't write any more. He had this one chance to redeem himself with the facts established (by someone else - he totally failed to establish any).

Guardian, get someone without ideological blinders to write the next one. He's making you a laughing stock. He is an anti-journalist - he's trying to conceal the truth.

Oh grauniad, you do realise that you just agreed that women’s rights and male bodied trans people’s requirements clash irreconcilably don’t you?

No. Nothing to see here. It never happened…

Sadly, siloed thinking allows them to ignore reality yet again.

Somewhere above Sam Levin and Lois Beckett there is an editor who approved of that article and signed off on it going live. I shake my head in disbelief that they allowed it.

The Guardian article is horrendous. There's nothing about safeguarding women in there at all. The entire thing is about the rights of people who were born with XY chromosomes and penises.

So much for women's rights and protections.

Although, I did see the other day that the Guardian did use the word 'women' in an article about period pants. They can't even keep up with their own ideology.

What a total shitshow the Guardian is. I wish I could say I'm surprised that they continue to let arseholes like Levin control the narrative even in the face of the evidence that they were wrong. #MeToo eh.

He is an anti-journalist - he's trying to conceal the truth.

From Levin's 2018 article that I referenced earlier:

And our journalism should be grounded in the principle that trans women are women, and that trans people should have the right to feel safe to live as themselves.

The truth comes second to his ideology.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

Devious lying article from the paper I can’t bear to read much any more. There are not only not apologising for their previous slurs on women, but doubling down. Very glad this man has been exposed for what he is. We don’t really care what his identity is.

I'm sure Stop Funding Hate will be all over this disgusting smearing of a black woman who was the victim of indecent exposure by a sex offender, right?

Someone on twitter is saying that apparently Owen J and D Paisley have deleted any wi spa tweets.

Oh but the screen shots!

Guardian is appalling.

Not "true trans;"how the fuck does anyone know that?!

That Guardian article is a bloody disgrace. Even in the face of the fact that a SEX OFFENDER did this they gloss right over and spend most of the piece on women = nazi bigot rhetoric.

We are told time and time again if a man comes in and acts badly just report him and he'll be dealt with, easy peasy.

In reality, this is what happens. We're attacked and ignored because of some magic words that now mean somehow sex offender good, woman complaining bad.

I'm pretty sure there are archives as well as screenshots too.