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

@StandWithYou

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.

I can't help but think that some schools these days would report it to Prevent or something.

[quote OvaHere]Another good substack piece. No paywall on this one.
voidifremoved.substack.com/p/the-guardians-ideological-dead-end[/quote]
That's really good.

Painted themselves into a idealogical corner indeed. And I worry that this won't end well for trans people as a whole. People who haven't beem entrenched in this debate (i.e. most people) may not be able to disinguish between trans people and opportunistic predators, because the pro self ID crowd has failed to do so.

@Cailleach1

If there are laws against indecent exposure, yet those males who proclaim id as women are exempted, then there is some contradiction in the laws. I imagine every male who is up for indecent exposure will now proclaim id as a woman. It is a charter for sexual abusers.

This is quite a problem, isn’t it?

It’s all very well saying “rights aren’t like pie!” And “no-one would make themselves out to be trans just to commit a sex offence!”

If you can access areas where women and children are naked or partially undressed just by being assumed to be trans what is stopping any bog standard sex offender? An inner sense of decency? Stigma? Behave.

If someone wants to expose themselves to women and children but doesn’t want to be on a register of sex offenders or have a criminal conviction then arguing that “female penises” have as much right to be in a changing room (or spa etc) as women do is a bloody gift.

Why are so many women who call themselves feminist unable to see that? A massive great loophole to be exploited.

Sharing as relevant I think.

That is disturbingly and infuriatingly accurate as the consequences of logical outcomes continue to challenge the present systems. It's not that this wasn't anticipated, as the Hansard for the relevant debates before GRA 2004 indicate, there were people who foresaw all of this but were persuaded not to vote it down because 'this will never happen'.

Basic statement: non consenting females and children should not be exposed to male people's genitalia while using female single sex spaces. This is in law that single sex provision is there where offense may reasonable be caused, and indecent exposure is a well known (and often performed) crime.

The backbends to try and get around this are varied and constantly shifting.

• a male person who says they identify as a woman is different to a male person who says they identify as a man which nullifies the above.

• a male person who identifies as a woman will never be one of the 98% of sex offenders who are male, and it is morally wrong to imply that this is a possibility.

• a male person who identifies as a woman and then commits an offense was therefore not actually genuine in their identity - however there is no way to tell the difference between who states their identity genuinely and who states it for a personal agenda to offend, and this cannot be established until after a female person or child has been harmed.

• it is wrong to keep all male people out on the grounds that some of them may be a risk to the non consenting female people they wish to be present with while in a state of vulnerability and undress (and this may be lifechanging harm for the female in many cases)

• female people need to learn to not be offended, upset by or dislike the presence of male genitals in a space where they are vulnerable and naked, this is their problem and not the problem of having a male person present. However whether or not the male genitals are ok or not and whether or not the female people's feelings are ok or not is all entirely based on what the male states is his internal sense of identity at the time.

• Male people will absolutely never abuse this system that means any male at any time can make use of female spaces and the female people in them with any agenda at all and have a free pass if they just make a verbal statement on their chosen identity. Female people questioning this risk not only a possibly aggressive and punitive reaction but possible involvement of the police.

• female people have no right to privacy, dignity, consent, spaces away from males as a sex class, a right to name and recognise themselves as a sex class, or standard safeguarding practice for their safety if this presents a barrier to a male person's self expression and feelings.

• the option of providing third spaces so that male people can have their self expressed identity respected and female people who are happy to use mixed sex spaces can do so without removing all provision from female people who are not is unacceptable. There must never be a space where female people can say no to male people or have female sex based needs recognised, because too upsetting and wrong towards male people.

• the female people still excluded from female spaces anyway just by the sheer presence of a male person regardless of whether a vulcan mindmeld on the door has proven that this male person is absolutely no risk to them in any way, deserve to be discriminated against even when their exclusion on the basis of sex is caused by other protected characteristics, because their needs conflict unacceptably with the wishes of the male person for there to be no space at all anywhere that is not one they can use at will.

Would someone please explain to me how this isn't just plain male supremacism?

Excellent post Artichoke

In respect of this:

Would someone please explain to me how this isn't just plain male supremacism?

They can't because it is and here it is in all its unvarnished glory.

This is a gift to a certain cohort of men the fact that some women are tying a bow on this gift and handing it over is what is truly obscene about this, these women are many things, the one thing these women are categorically not are feminists.

04:05NiceGerbil

Radiatori

There are laws in lots of places in the US that prohibit convicted sex offenders from being in the presence of children. I expect that's irrespective of sex. So maybe that's the law that was broken.

Any chance of posting the relevant law in LA/ California?

When I posted that I hadn't read the whole thread. I felt like a dope once I did so I was glad my post was ignored.

Since California has self ID, I thought the presence of children might be the difference in this case. However here's the indecent exposure law: www.keglawyers.com/indecent-exposure-law-penal-code-314
Since the penis person is reported to be aroused, it looks like that law was clearly broken.

Just reading that law you posted, Radiator.

California Penal Code 314 PC defines the sex crime of “indecent exposure.” This statute prohibits willfully exposing your private parts in a public place in the presence of another person who might be annoyed or offended.

Surely all males know their penis and testicles might annoy or offend women in a female, single sex environment. In fact, even a single woman in that environment would be enough for a sexual offence to have been committed. Doesn't matter whatever ideas the male had about themselves. Could they now say it doesn't matter about women being annoyed or offended at all? That their lack of consent is now irrelevant. Is it now being postured that it is more important that a male who wishes, and identifies himself as female, can now go into a women's and girls single sex area and expose himself.

I think most women and girls haven't adopted any belief that someone with male reproductive organs is anything other than a man or a boy. Mainstream view, indeed. Women with this mainstream view would be the ones offended or annoyed by the presence of testicles and penis intruding in our spaces. And we would be the ones whose consent should be sought before our bodies can be seen in a vulnerable situation by what most would consider as man or a male.

Surely all males know their penis and testicles might annoy or offend women in a female, single sex environment. In fact, even a single woman in that environment would be enough for a sexual offence to have been committed. Doesn't matter whatever ideas the male had about themselves. Could they now say it doesn't matter about women being annoyed or offended at all? That their lack of consent is now irrelevant. Is it now being postured that it is more important that a male who wishes, and identifies himself as female, can now go into a women's and girls single sex area and expose himself.

I think that's the endgame here, yes. And yes, they do know what they are doing.

Any man whatsoever could claim he was in the women's section without seeking sexual gratification for himself or sexually offend women. If one male can do it, then the other male could claim to be equally innocent of that intention.

If you have claimed that a nude male in a female section can have completely innocent intentions, then you can claim it for any nude male parading himself around that environment. Equally, if one male can supposedly innocently gawk at naked women, then any male can claim they are innocently gawking that the naked women.

Seems, it all depends on what the male wants and claims. Women and girls are at their mercy to be indecently exposed to and to be gawked at in vulnerable environments. Such progressive people! So, gender busting!

I think that's the endgame here, yes. And yes, they do know what they are doing

The compelled acceptance of an immersive fiction (as Stock phrases it).

I shall defer to IrisChild's poem here: I will not say it

what if truth becomes a crime?
would you say it, given time?

If you want to enjoy some schadenfreude you can go back to Owen Jones' tweet gleefully spreading the hoax disinformation to remove the credibility of the women victims of the sexual assault (by exposure) and see the additional replies it's picked up:

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1420688381638553601

Scroll down and enjoy.

Any chance of posting the relevant law in LA/ California?

In a busy city it would be pretty hard to never be near any children.

There must be specific situations etc.

Also if a person has offended against adults- women or men. Then why a law to keep away from children? What about their actual target group?

How would it even begin to be policed?

Yes, this happens in many places in the US and causes really significant difficulties in terms of finding housing and such for offenders. There was a story a number of years ago about a place in, I think, Florida, where there was a tiny area far enough a way from schools etc that registered offenders could actually stay in. Police would drop them off there.

I imagine it's not policed very effectively but for the offender it means if they are caught, they can go right back to prison, even without having really done anything.

There was a story a number of years ago about a place in, I think, Florida, where there was a tiny area far enough a way from schools etc that registered offenders could actually stay in

I'm sure I saw something similar on a Louis Theroux doc.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Surely all males know their penis and testicles might annoy or offend women in a female, single sex environment. In fact, even a single woman in that environment would be enough for a sexual offence to have been committed. Doesn't matter whatever ideas the male had about themselves. Could they now say it doesn't matter about women being annoyed or offended at all? That their lack of consent is now irrelevant. Is it now being postured that it is more important that a male who wishes, and identifies himself as female, can now go into a women's and girls single sex area and expose himself.

I think that's the endgame here, yes. And yes, they do know what they are doing.

I'm sure that's their end game but I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the LAPD. Why are they charging this guy? Can't be the only transwoman in LA doing this. I'd like to be hopeful that's it's pushback from the police but I've been disappointed before.

I'd suspect the police are caught between a rock and a hard place.

A male person in a state of excitement invaded the privacy of non consenting female people and a minor. That's an offence.

The male person identifies as a woman, entitled to use women's spaces and be regarded as a woman in every practical sense, regardless of the reality of their biological anatomy. That causes absolute confusion now, because in what sense does this male differ in real terms from any other male? And at what point does the offense and the lack of consent and distress caused to the female people and minor stop being a problem because of the male person's self identity? The absolute incoherence and muddle of law around all this becomes stark.

Then the male person involved turns out to have a serial of offenses in which this is a consistent MO, a criminal record, and the police move to apparently feeling this is a sexual offender, who was offending in this spa as they have in other places.

Which again illustrates the absolute absurdity and incoherence of all this.

It does not work. At all. It's a complete and utter shambles of policy. In which a male person has to apparently have enough convictions of actually proven, convicted harm before they stop being just an innocent TW exercising their right as a male to be naked with non consenting females under certain circumstances regardless of female rights and any other considerations, and become - the same person, in the exact same situation, doing the exact same thing, with the exact same impact on the females present - an offender who is being prosecuted for a crime against those females.

Baldrick could come up with something saner. The average toddler could.

And really, what difference does it make now if the male person is:

• a male person who is not in any way trans who is exploiting a loophole in law in order to offend

• a male person who is sincerely trans with no intent to offend at all

• a male person who is sincerely trans and exploiting a loophole in law in order to offend?

It's ridiculous to call it an offense unless and until the male person makes a statement of their internal self: their feelings at the time have no bearing. It is the impact upon the female people involved that is the previously unquestionably prosecutable offense.

There are certainly laws relating to sex offenders in the US, though they differ from state to state and between cities/counties. Mostly they relate to living within such a distance of a school or other institution attended by or lived in by children.

A couple of years ago I read a story about a guy in his 20s on the registry in Florida who had been going with a 15 year old, I think, and who had served his sentence and was on the registry, and ended up living under a freeway because no-one would rent to him. Props to him, he went straight, started his own business. He finally saved up enough money to put down a deposit on a house, but then he couldn't find one to buy, because there was so much real estate covered by the areas around schools and/or the seller didn't want to sell to him. He had an app on his computer which showed him these slivers of land where he could buy. He had finally found a place at the time of writing.

There are many websites that show whether someone is on the registry. Here are two for LA:

www.offenderradar.com/offender/state-california-county-los-angeles-city-los-angeles
www.city-data.com/so/so-Los-Angeles-California.html

(NB sex offenders don't suddenly on the western end this map—this map doesn't show data from Santa Monica, which is a separate city.)

What I don't know is, how accurate these maps are. Whether they get everyone, how often they are updated, etc.

Pretty bloody terrifying, isn't it, ladies?

/suddenly stop/

@Fitt

Haha, I like RuinedLeon. He sounds exactly like a Mumsneter.

He's done another one, on the Slate "jounalist".

Going forward, isn't there a possibility that males who indecently expose themselves won't be charged or have their abuses recorded; precisely because they say they are women. That means that males who have indecently exposed themselves as many times as the charmer in the Wi Spa will not have their priors recorded. Even if they have previously carried out multiple sexual abuses against women and girls.

What a time for women and girls. Men free to carry out abuses in full view.

@Aparallaxia

There are certainly laws relating to sex offenders in the US, though they differ from state to state and between cities/counties. Mostly they relate to living within such a distance of a school or other institution attended by or lived in by children.

A couple of years ago I read a story about a guy in his 20s on the registry in Florida who had been going with a 15 year old, I think, and who had served his sentence and was on the registry, and ended up living under a freeway because no-one would rent to him. Props to him, he went straight, started his own business. He finally saved up enough money to put down a deposit on a house, but then he couldn't find one to buy, because there was so much real estate covered by the areas around schools and/or the seller didn't want to sell to him. He had an app on his computer which showed him these slivers of land where he could buy. He had finally found a place at the time of writing.

There are many websites that show whether someone is on the registry. Here are two for LA:

www.offenderradar.com/offender/state-california-county-los-angeles-city-los-angeles
www.city-data.com/so/so-Los-Angeles-California.html

(NB sex offenders don't suddenly on the western end this map—this map doesn't show data from Santa Monica, which is a separate city.)

What I don't know is, how accurate these maps are. Whether they get everyone, how often they are updated, etc.

Pretty bloody terrifying, isn't it, ladies?

Ladies?

Sorry I just hate that. Not super relevant but it always makes me feel like I'm in a really shitty disco or having some bloke deciding to generously join a group of women who are in deep conversation!

Anyway.

This is in California. I don't know the laws there apart from what's been posted.

Here they have conditions like keep away from a certain person/ area. Not allowed within X metres of a school etc.

Over here there's no situation where a sex offender released with conditions would be told to stay X distance away from all children full stop. Because he wouldn't be able to leave his house would he. Because walking down the street going to a shop to buy food obv there might be children.

Relevant law please in California or probation options etc.

What does 'going with a 15yo' mean?

You're telling me that in the USA a man was prosecuted and went to prison? For going out with a 15yo in a consensual relationship. I'll read the link in a sec.

That wouldn't happen here (unless when I read the link it turns out not to be 'going with' which I assume means going out with). Not a matter at all for CPS etc if everyone cheerful and happy no coercion etc. Not of interest to society. I mean so what really if all is cheerful.

So man went to prison for going with (whatever that means) a 15yo. Got fitted with a tracker.

He lived rough and started his own business (on what premises? If no one would rent or sell to him). Made money and then couldn't buy because in whichever place in USA it wasn't big sprawling conurbations etc but all land dominated by schools completely. In that city even in suburbs. Because he still had?? Prevention order on being near children full stop.

No I'm not terrified by a man who you describe as being in a consensual relationship with a 15yo going to prison and then being on some extended tracking while living rough etc etc.

Why would I be?

That website is weird.

Link to news reports of case please.

What do you think this sort of thing does to trust in mainstream outlets in the long run?
I missed this yesterday but it is such a pertinent question. I have zero faith in the Guardian. I began to lose trust over issues unrelated to feminism, but that process sped up during the whole Cologne furore, when they set the reputation of a group of men over the safety of women. And they have refused to see the risks for women inherent in self-ID. 95% of the time, the chosen narrative is more important than the facts, which is not what journalism should be about - it just becomes thinly-disguised propaganda. It's utterly shameful.

I'd barely even click on the them for a good-news story about abandoned puppies. I have zero faith in the left-wing media these days, and not whole lot of trust in the rest of them.