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

@Sophoclesthefox

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.

Exactly. No decent man would do this. We all know this. Everyone knows this. Why are the Guardian even pretending otherwise. I'm so lost.

@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.

On a sidenote, a cute tiger photo with 14K likes has been retweeted into my Twitter timeline and I recognised the tweeter's name from here - Mx Anderson. This sort of thing seems to happen a lot - cute animal pic, thousands of likes and retweets, original tweeter turns out to be an activist doing a 'hey, I'm cuddly!' after saying something dubious.

@NiceGerbil

'Given the number of women who think this sort of think is ok, I'm do think there are some men who really think so as well. There are some very predatory people in the TRA movement, but also some who seem vulnerable and easily led.'

What number of women who think this sort of thing is ok?

Where has the idea come from that loads of women are cool with this?

They aren't. Obviously.

You know there are lots of women who support gender ideology. Particularly in the teens and twenties age group there are probably more women than men.

All of the most dedicated people I know in person who support this agenda, as opposed to internet activists, are women. And the statistics support that too. Sally Hines isn't alone.

They might not be a majority but that doesn't mean they are vanishingly rare.

Ereshkigalangcleg

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:

Ugh. There are just no words to describe the insanity of a male body being abnormal in a woman.

Is there any law that says a sex offender can't be naked in a spa with women and children?

In the old days, there used to be laws or rules about males not being in spaces reserved for women.

Has there ever been a law about sex offenders being excluded? I'm not talking about individuals having restrictions, orders etc, I'm talking about a blanket law.

Has there ever been a law about sex offenders being excluded?

For practical reasons I don’t think there have ever been laws that place responsibility on service providers to exclude sex offenders. How would that work? It’s not at all clear what Arquette thinks the process would be.

I have seen it said that this arrest shows that women are wrong for worrying about males in women's spaces as look, this person was arrested.

Is there any law that says a sex offender can't be naked in a spa with women and children? Has there ever been a law about sex offenders being excluded?

Why would you have ever needed one? Sex offenders are male, so were already excluded. Whether they had previously offended, or were only intending to.

The system of excluding all males is basically foolproof safeguarding.

If the law said to exclude sex offenders the spa would have to see a check on everyone who came in, just like when you hire someone.

Though I kind of get the impression some people are thinking the sex offenders should exclude themselves if they new it was against the law?

I'm not aware of any law, nor any practical way of excluding sex offenders.

98% of sex offenders are male.

This is exactly why we exclude all males from female spaces.

You know there are lots of women who support gender ideology. Particularly in the teens and twenties age group there are probably more women than men.

I think it’s a mixture of denial and privilege. Many women want to feel able to take risks (I strongly remember the visceral frustration of my parents telling me not to take a particular route home). The belief that women and girls need specific protections feels suffocating.

Some are unaware of how much control they have over their environment - so because I feel safe in the unisex toilets in that nice restaurant everyone should feel safe in all unisex facilities.

I think there is also a lot of internalised sexism - a woman must make others feel comfortable and her own comfort is irrelevant.

If the law said to exclude sex offenders the spa would have to see a check on everyone who came in, just like when you hire someone.

So let me think...

a) an infeasible plan to exclude already-convicted sex offenders, with no attempt to stop unconvicted or future ones.

or

b) a foolproof plan to exclude 99% of all potential sex offenders, but make some men feel sad.

I don't know. It's so hard to decide what to do?

Not to give any credit to the Guardian because their article reporting about the sex offender was terrible but at least they reported it. The Independent ran 4 articles on the Wi Spa incident and subsequent protests and have nothing since the warrant was issued and Meragers sex offender history was revealed. How can an incident in LA warrant 4 articles in a UK publication and when the real news comes out, nothing

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trans-rights-wi-spa-exposure-b1880610.html
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fox-news-los-angeles-trans-b1877775.html
www.independent.co.uk/news/protests-over-transgender-rights-at-la-spa-turn-violent-police-koreatown-lapd-los-angeles-times-twitter-b1885999.html
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/lapd-koreatown-spa-protests-video-b1887274.html

Has there ever been a law about sex offenders being excluded? I'm not talking about individuals having restrictions, orders etc, I'm talking about a blanket law.

I think this does demonstrate the dilemma now for the prosecutors in LA. If this male person insists that he (or she) is really a woman, then in what sense can he (or she) be said to have committed an offence? He (or she) was using the women-only section of the spa as was his (or her) right. And if he (or she) happened to have an erection while there, well, isn't that just one of those things that happen, just as much to a lady penis as to a man penis?

Yep, Royal. That's it precisely. This naked person with a semi erect penis and a history of sexual offences was completely within his (or her) rights and legally correct.

@NecessaryScene

If the law said to exclude sex offenders the spa would have to see a check on everyone who came in, just like when you hire someone.

So let me think...

a) an infeasible plan to exclude already-convicted sex offenders, with no attempt to stop unconvicted or future ones.

or

b) a foolproof plan to exclude 99% of all potential sex offenders, but make some men feel sad.

I don't know. It's so hard to decide what to do?

That. ^^

If they had a law to exclude sex offenders from single sex, that would require all sex offenders to not come into those spaces.

I'm sure it's much more reasonable to ask sex offenders to exercise self control not to enter female spaces than it is to ask all males to stay out.
/s

I’m always surprised that people who are keen on relying on the better natures of flashers and exhibitionists to do the right thing and not exploit the obvious loophole can’t seem to see the tiny weeny drawback with that approach.

Come on! You are saying that women are safe because sex offenders are decent people! Give your head a wobble.

The trouble is, how many sexual offences does it take to get a conviction? How severe a sexual offence? How many don't get reported, are unevidenced with just one person's word against another, don't get past CPS, or involve a woman or child who can't handle the long, hard and very stressful road through court? And should a sexual offence offender be prevented from transition or just from access to female spaces after having demonstrably abused the privilege while quite possibly having caused life changing harm to the female/child they offended against?

I'd be fine with tossing GRCs around like sweets. Hand them out over the counter on request: any female person can have proof of being a TM, any male person a TW, those words can go on every document they have. But I'd want that GRCs are not an entry into female only spaces, and the difference between a TW and a female person are kept distinct and separate in law where sex is a relevant thing.

Provide mixed sex additional spaces by law where those who are happy to or wish to use additional to sex based provisions spaces can have this extra access, and retain sex based gatekept spaces and services alongside. All needs met. Equally. No one excluded. Risks managed. We can then see how well this works in practice, anyone using mixed sex facilities consents to do so and it will emerge as to what proportion of people use and need each area.

@merrymouse

You know there are lots of women who support gender ideology. Particularly in the teens and twenties age group there are probably more women than men.

I think it’s a mixture of denial and privilege. Many women want to feel able to take risks (I strongly remember the visceral frustration of my parents telling me not to take a particular route home). The belief that women and girls need specific protections feels suffocating.

Some are unaware of how much control they have over their environment - so because I feel safe in the unisex toilets in that nice restaurant everyone should feel safe in all unisex facilities.

I think there is also a lot of internalised sexism - a woman must make others feel comfortable and her own comfort is irrelevant.

Yeah, and I would also add rather poor education and poor logical thinking skills.

But whatever the reason, there is a good sized group of women that believes and advocates for this stuff, and often are quite passionate about it. It would be odd if there weren't also some men who thought the same way for the same reasons. And some of the people who fall into personally identifying with gender ideology do so because they have other problems, and they aren't always the best places to be thinking things through clearly. In a way they are the people who need really clear boundaries to be able to function in society.

@NecessaryScene

If the law said to exclude sex offenders the spa would have to see a check on everyone who came in, just like when you hire someone.

So let me think...

a) an infeasible plan to exclude already-convicted sex offenders, with no attempt to stop unconvicted or future ones.

or

b) a foolproof plan to exclude 99% of all potential sex offenders, but make some men feel sad.

I don't know. It's so hard to decide what to do?

It's just stupid at a practical level. Everyone has to present a sex offender registry check to get into the spa?

Nor does it address the fact that many people don't want mixed sex facilities even if no one has bad intentions.

And then the little fact that most women and girls are not comfortable naked with males there, or too have naked males popping about the place in their day to day lives...

And that goes for anything single sex even if no nudity.

Because it crosses a very heavily embedded social norm.
Because we are at risk from blokes.
Because loads of men enjoy doing stuff that makes us uncomfortable / feel vulnerable. That is not illegal.

And they are way way more common than the flasher types. And given flasher types are not uncommon...

Really the aim is to make women and girls feel so cowed. That there would have been no reports to police or women coming out and saying what the hell is going on to reception.

The message is to stfu and turn a blind eye to creepy men. brilliant. Thanks 'progressives!'.

I mean there's all these. Sorry for language and misogyny but UTTER FUCKING C*NTS on Twitter etc saying the thing that REALLY concerns them is NOT that it's legal for males including sex offenders to wander naked around areas with naked women and girls. That's CHILDREN in case they struggle with the meaning of the word girl. But the effect this could have on the rights of trans people.

There's their priorities loud and clear.

A male sex offender waving a hard on at a roomful of naked women and children is. Well it's bloody inconvenient isn't it.

Fuck them all.

@merrymouse

You know there are lots of women who support gender ideology. Particularly in the teens and twenties age group there are probably more women than men.

I think it’s a mixture of denial and privilege. Many women want to feel able to take risks (I strongly remember the visceral frustration of my parents telling me not to take a particular route home). The belief that women and girls need specific protections feels suffocating.

Some are unaware of how much control they have over their environment - so because I feel safe in the unisex toilets in that nice restaurant everyone should feel safe in all unisex facilities.

I think there is also a lot of internalised sexism - a woman must make others feel comfortable and her own comfort is irrelevant.

As a woman, the older you are, the more likely you are to have experienced sexual assault, and then you realise that people and places you once thought were safe and harmless are not, and that however tough and strong you think you are physically, the average male is stronger.

I just don't buy this.

I know I say it all the time. But even if got money etc young women go to pubs bars clubs. They walk on the high streets and travel on public transport if in larger cities, certainly do in London. They have boys at school give them shit (see recent reports of sex assaults in expensive schools). They have boyfriends and so are as likely as any others that age to experience coercion from whenever they start snogging boys etc which is school age for most. They are not immune from abuse from family members, people in positions of trust etc etc.

So no I don't buy it. It's a nice out but I don't buy it. Something else is going on.

Probably the same mechanism as woman and girls minimising male dodginess generally. A fear of not agreeing with the prevailing doctrine. Rape myths and victim blaming type response.

That's my best guess anyway.