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

The same logic denies the need for any female spaces. Let all males in, and if they do anything, then they can be prosecuted. So no need to exclude them.

So, as they don't identify as being a sex offender, they should be validated in their 'non sex offender' identity. Drop the charges straight away! If anyone brings up their offences, they are dead naming them. Reality is a crime in that instance.

Identity is all, right. Lets you do anything you want, and get away with anything. There really is an anti reality movement at play.

@Beowulfa

Imagine even ten years ago the thought of otherwise intelligent people tying themselves up into linguistic knots in order to defend a serial pervert. That a bloke with his cock out in the womens changing room could be redefined as not a bloke, and it's not a cock if some magic words were uttered.

It's like what some students might scribble for their end of term play after doing a load of drugs and binge-watching Chris Morris.

Yes. It’s totally unbelievable…but yet it’s happened

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.

Sex offenders shouldn't be around women and children but simultaneously defending the same person when they were around women and children, in the actual process of sex offending!

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.

Patty should have a chat with Mx Anderson.

I know, Necessary. It is just so demoralising to see people continue to use this argument. They seem to live in a world of their own where bad things never happen, and if they do, it is OK as long as the bad person is caught the victim will be able to continue life like it was never an issue.

And anyone who thinks any differently is a very negative person.

Sigh.

I’ve been trying and failing for hours to formulate a question about the likelihood that an unexpected spa penis belongs to a transwoman or a sex offender, taking the transally approach that these are two separate, discrete populations who ought not to be conflated with each other.

I’m struggling though, because every time I try to separate them out, I come back to the awkward fact that any person who violates the expectation of women and girls that there won’t be penises in the women’s spa has already proven that women’s boundaries are not of any interest to them, so to my mind, the parsimonious explanation (always preferable) is that they are, in fact, vastly more likely to be sexually predatory.

So the logical end point of the risk assessment for making single sex spaces into single gender spaces using the logic of the trans ally is that women and girls are at an increased risk of sexual assault. And to many people’s way of thinking, this is acceptable collateral damage.

No, thank you.

It's a version of the "just world" fallacy.

You've got it, Soph.

The fact that we are supposed to keep quiet about our own discomfort and obvious red flags around boundary respect and violation is one of the most worrying things about gender identity politics.

Everyone should read the Gift of Fear.

Case in point:
twitter.com/ThisGirl_is/status/1433701688947396640?s=19

According to this logic, any restrictions that would prevent abusive men abusing women's spaces is actually curtailing women's rights (because trans women are women).

So the logical end point of the risk assessment for making single sex spaces into single gender spaces using the logic of the trans ally is that women and girls are at an increased risk of sexual assault. And to many people’s way of thinking, this is acceptable collateral damage.

No, thank you.

This is very apparent when you then look at some of the paragraphs that Naomi Cunningham highlighted in the law guide book on this other thread. (Thank you Naomi)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4268563-Would-anyone-mind-if-I-ask-a-question-about-Robin-Moria-White?pg=8

When a lawyer who is a known activist uses acceptance of mantras to question why males who identify as women cannot be accepted as females (not new but good to have it published in a book on law) and also question the relevance to a traumatised female who requests a female counsellor if a male can somehow 'pass' as a female, you know that even the activists have stopped saying the quiet bits out loud.

Indeed, woman and children are acceptable collateral damage in the progress of males getting access to women's and girl's single sex spaces. And any ally that cannot see this is determinedly blind at this point.

They haven't really changed the argument all the way through, tbh. It has always been that women must accept violation. Every single pro-Genderist response has been a variation on that.

We must be kind, or be quiet, or report a problem if we see it, but if we see it we should accept it. There simply is no possible excuse or reason or position women can take in objection to being violated that will be permitted.

When you consider that so many Genderists hold to ideas of 'female' or 'woman' being inherently submissive, it's quite obvious no other response is acceptable.

Fuck. That.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

Patty should have a chat with Mx Anderson.

Non normative bodies?

What exactly is non normative about the penis of convicted predator getting erect by looking at naked women and girls?

Ffs these people and their made up language.

#superstraight brought us for the first time widespread and clear statements by trans activists that it is transphobic for someone to restrict their choice of sexual partners to people of a particular sex.

Wi Spa is bringing us for the first time widespread and clear statements by trans activists that women can only object to a penis in their single sex spaces if it belongs to a sex offender and if they don't accept the presence of other penises they're bigots, etc.

I wonder what's going to be the next clear foundational statement relating to the gender identity ideology? I'm guessing something to do with damaging medical experimentation on children.

What exactly is non normative about the penis of convicted predator getting erect by looking at naked women and girls?

Exactly. Every single thing about these men is normative, apart from their insistence that they're women. Ignore that, and all behaviour is 100% male-typical.

Can’t believe that Guardian article - last word given to an academic saying there is no evidence of increased risk. Of course there isn’t when every instance (or potential instance - I’m aware the facts are not fully known in this case) is reframed. If it’s a sex offence, the offender isn’t trans. If they’re trans, it’s not a sex offence.

I sometimes think the term gaslighting is overused, but nothing else quite captures this.

How about no penis in women’s spaces? It’s thoroughly threatening to many or most of us, and for good reason. Whether the penis-haver identifies as male or not, whether they’re a nice person or not. That is all this boils down to.

Mx Anderson has a complete lack on understanding about the purpose of sex offender registries.
They are nothing to do with continuing to punish offenders.
They were created as a safeguard tool.

There are significant numbers of sex offenders, so significant that they can't all be permanently in prison even if we wanted that.
So we have to make having these people in the community as safe as possible for the community.

Knowing where they are, what restrictions they have on their behavior and what interactions potentially dangerous helps keep others safe.

Sex offenders have a high recidivism rate and a low rate of criminal conviction.

I think this person means that the erect female penis in question is "non-normative" body type for a woman. We've seen this logic before:

https://www.womenarehuman.com/women-outraged-after-academic-compares-breast-cancer-survivors-to-male-bodies/

Dr Dunne’s 2017 academic paper, cited in a Scottish Government consultation, compared male bodies to other “non-normative” people, including women (whom he labels “cisgender” women) who have had breast removal surgery:

Exactly. Every single thing about these men is normative, apart from their insistence that they're women. Ignore that, and all behaviour is 100% male-typical.

YY.

I think this person means that the erect female penis in question is "non-normative" body type for a woman.

In sane fields of study, when something appears "non-normative" you go back and double-check the steps you made to determine what was "normative".

Helen Joyce has mentioned something similar - the "reductio ad absurdam" proof in mathematics. You assume that something might be true, then work forward to determine a contradiction. When you reach an absurd/impossible conclusion, that proves that your assumption must be false.

The error these fools make is to not withdraw their daft assumptions when they reach absurdity.

If it’s a sex offence, the offender isn’t trans. If they’re trans, it’s not a sex offence

That’s so well put, antigardener.

Heads I win, tales you lose. Then we can’t even have the discussion about whether any transwoman has ever done anything nefarious in a women’s single sex space, because any evidence has been magicked away by this sleight of hand.

Does the Guardian have a different definition of trans than Stonewall? According to Stonewall, this sex offender is trans and a woman because he says he is. The Guardian is misgendering this woman and therefore guilty of literal violence. I can only assume that the Guardian's stance is you are a woman if you say you are unless you are a convicted sex offender. I identify as a woman. If I commit a sex offence, does the Guardian then call me a man and use male pronouns? I would like some clarification. At least Stonewall are clear and consistent as to their definitions.

Further, they have women in a real gotcha. Trans woman in a female space - don't complain otherwise you're guilty of transphobia which will soon be a crime no doubt. But we can't tell if it's a sex offender or a trans woman so can't complain in any circumstance. Brilliant for sex offenders. Logic obviously isn't TRAs strong point. I pity Scotland embarking on this journey.

Interesting, franca. I could certainly get behind the idea of a sexual offence conviction being a permanent bar on getting a GRC, for example. I’d be interested in hearing the arguments against that.