Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
Sophoclesthefox · 03/09/2021 11:01

You’ve absolutely nailed the house style of those who will defend the spa flasher, invisible dragon

NotBadConsidering · 03/09/2021 11:03

Someone needs to tell the media and certain activists that continuing to call this ''anti-trans'' when it's actually anti- sex offender is not the best look.

Well Lois Beckett, one of those “journalists” Hmm, at the time of the original protests complain about “anti-paedophile protestors” before deleting it.

That’s the level of intelligence we are dealing with.

EarthSight · 03/09/2021 11:06

@GromblesofGrimbledon

The TRAs have no option but to double down on this.

They accept that women can have penises. If a woman can have a penis then there is no recourse to complain if said "woman" sits next to other women in a nude spa with an erection.

If women can have penises, women can have erections. If you complain you are ostracising and embarrassing them.

This.

What a grim future for the younger generation of women who will be gaslit and demonised if they complain :(

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/09/2021 11:08

Not sure who this person in the screenshot is, but they have a blue tick:

twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1433697521369501708?s=20

Highlights:

"It's common for trans people to have records because of how transphobia reacts to non-normative bodies"

"This propaganda will be used to further restrict the rights of trans individuals"

And the crowning glory:

"Not to mention how this bullshit intersects with the complete horror that is sex offender registries, which continue to perpetrate a cruel and unusual punishment upon people long after they have served their time”

well clearly the issue for which they served time hasn’t gone away, hence the need for the sex offender monitoring 🙄🙄🙄

merrymouse · 03/09/2021 11:08

One of the problems here is that news-gathering is expensive, whereas comment is not only free but cheap

Comment isn't just cheap, it's also click-bait.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/09/2021 11:15

Well Lois Beckett, one of those “journalists” , at the time of the original protests complain about “anti-paedophile protestors” before deleting it.

Self awareness is not these people's strong suit.

StandWithYou · 03/09/2021 11:29

So if my 11 year old DD goes into school and says that she saw a (semi) erect penis the school would note it and deal with it as a safeguarding issue. (Perfectly sensible course of action).

If the same DD goes into a spa with me for a treat if she seems a (semi) erect penis that is perfectly OK and she shouldn’t be staring at someone else’s genitals.

I would love someone to be able to tell me what the difference is. Since when did a grown adult become more oppressed/ sensitive that a child.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 03/09/2021 11:32

Except we all know you would be on shaky ground if she went into school and told them about the erect penis she had seen at the spa you took her to.

StandWithYou · 03/09/2021 11:38

The point is how it is seen by commentators, legislators etc. We have safeguarding procedures for good reason but this situation at the WiSpa seems to be an exemption to some people. Why?

Helleofabore · 03/09/2021 11:44

Well Lois Beckett, one of those “journalists” hmm, at the time of the original protests complain about “anti-paedophile protestors” before deleting it.

This bears repeating. This is the bar that these reporters meet in integrity.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 03/09/2021 11:55

In the week when the Guardian publishes this article about all the religious groups failing to safeguard children:
Freedom of religion and belief can never justify or excuse the ill‐treatment of a child, or a failure to take adequate steps to protect them from harm
www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/02/millions-children-religious-groups-vulnerable-abuse-england-and-wales

They then publish this:
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charged-with-indecent-exposure-at-la-spa-after-viral-instagram-video

Given that the incident involved indecent exposure in front of a little girl as well as numerous women, I struggle to see anything other than repeated victim blaming and the identical demands religious groups use to protect a predator in their midst - just as the IICSA report exposes.

The child gets no concern from the Guardian. Hypocrites.

RoyalCorgi · 03/09/2021 12:02

We have safeguarding procedures for good reason but this situation at the WiSpa seems to be an exemption to some people. Why?

I guess because they have gone so far down the self-ID route they now have to defend it to the absolute bitter end because they can't back down without looking foolish. Obviously they know that it isn't OK to have men with erections walking round in women's and girls' changing areas. They have to pretend that is - at what psychological cost, who knows.

OnlyTheLangOfTheTitberg · 03/09/2021 12:04

The Guardian has always been at war with Eastasia.

334bu · 03/09/2021 12:05

Patricia Arquette who trumpeted the "Hoax" theory said this when asked to apologise to the woman who posted the video.
There are laws that sex offenders are not allowed to be in areas with children. They were breaking the law. No sex offenders should be allowed to be in areas with any people naked or kids.

Not quite sure how anyone can know that a particular penis belongs to a sex offender, when there are laws in place in California which bar you from excluding any penis from a female safe space, if the penis owner says they identify as a non man?

Datun · 03/09/2021 12:07

Are sex offenders not allowed in the same place as 'other women'. Is there a law about that? She's missing the point.

Clymene · 03/09/2021 12:08

I can't believe the number of women defending the right of sex offenders to expose themselves to little girls.

Gay men have spent decades trying to prove to the world that they're not sex offenders and the queer non binary trans crew are trying really hard to make a connection between LGBT and paedophilia.

Who needs enemies when these people are your friends?

Incidentally, Mx Anderson has blocked me despite the fact I've never heard of her (she writes crappy books it seems)

Floisme · 03/09/2021 12:13

I do understand that sinking feeling when you realise you've been shooting your mouth off and got it totally wrong. Been there many times, so here's a tip: if you ever find yourself in such a hole that the only option you can see is to defend sex offenders, then maybe take a Twitter break.
And if you're a journo, perhaps it's time to ask for that sabbatical while you contemplate a career change.

EdgeOfACoin · 03/09/2021 12:13

There are laws that sex offenders are not allowed to be in areas with children. They were breaking the law. No sex offenders should be allowed to be in areas with any people naked or kids.

What if they don't identify as a sex offender?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/09/2021 12:16

Not quite sure how anyone can know that a particular penis belongs to a sex offender

Not sure why it should be much more relevant, apart from possibly leading to escalating sex offending such as physical assault, than not wanting underage girls to see surprise penis in any circumstances? It's a boundary violation in and of itself.

IvyTwines2 · 03/09/2021 12:18

The Guardian / Twitter / Laurie Penny reaction seems to be that nothing has changed regarding their views on self-ID, but they are now calling the WiSpa transwoman a 'person' or 'individual' rather than 'she'. Maybe this is a sort of progress - can we look forward to the police and news organisations, going forward, using 'individual' or 'person' rather than 'she' when reporting on, charging or imprisoning a biologically male, self-IDing-as-female offender?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/09/2021 12:19

Yes I noticed that too Confused

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/09/2021 12:19

What happened to "Acceptance Without Exception"?

Mrsjamin · 03/09/2021 12:20

In other news, the pope is catholic and bears shit in the woods.

I cannot believe that Guardian article - just outrageous - who can say this is reporting? Why are they defending a sex offender exposing himself to a child?

Helleofabore · 03/09/2021 12:25

There are laws that sex offenders are not allowed to be in areas with children. They were breaking the law. No sex offenders should be allowed to be in areas with any people naked or kids.

Is this a joke?

Is this like the tattooed penis joke that when the penis is aroused spells out a message. Does it need to have 'sex offender' tattooed on it and that will be the only way we can tell who is who?

I cannot believe that other women are so blind as to use the 'prosecute after the event' rather than preventing it in the first place.

Helleofabore · 03/09/2021 12:27

@EdgeOfACoin

There are laws that sex offenders are not allowed to be in areas with children. They were breaking the law. No sex offenders should be allowed to be in areas with any people naked or kids.

What if they don't identify as a sex offender?

This particular person does not identify as a sex offender at all.

And believes that they have the ear of politicians that will make the laws change to allow them even greater access, erect penis and all.

Swipe left for the next trending thread