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

@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?

What? You want a group of women who are fucking furious, scared, because their rights are being systematically stripped away to feel sorry for a man/men who are disadvantaged because of the consequences of their own actions?

Fuck that!

Maybe go find a group of men to show those maps to and ge them to lobby someone for something... just be sure it isn't to ban those maps, how else will you protect your own property, wives, daughters?

Pshaw!

I've only read about half the thread, but I've seen several posters saying that TRAs will now deflect with a 'they're not really trans' defence. I don't think that's a defence at all - one of the biggest things we've been saying for years is that self ID will be ripe for abuse by sex offenders who aren't trans at all but can exploit a loophole to enter female spaces. I think thats exactly what's happened here, and proof positive that the idea that this can and will happen isn't a 'fantasy' as Judith Butler claimed. Certainly I didn't assume this person was necessarily trans, so much as claiming to be in order to access women, which is exactly what many of us have been warning of for years.

Since according to the most up-to-date thinking "trans" is simply the perception a person has of themself, then someone being trans is neither her nor there, it's a matter of their own personal belief system, nothing more. Which means the deciding factor is whether people are male (whether trans or not) or are female (whether trans or not).

Here's one of the greatest ironies: as "trans" has become more abstract, in fact so abstract it's beyond the wit of many trans activists to define the term in a comprehensible way, rather than "trans" becoming less important in our society, it is becoming fundamentally important. The less "trans" means, the more society has to bend itself out of shape to accommdate this concept as it heads towards meaninglessness.

@QuimReaper

I've only read about half the thread, but I've seen several posters saying that TRAs will now deflect with a 'they're not really trans' defence. I don't think that's a defence at all - one of the biggest things we've been saying for years is that self ID will be ripe for abuse by sex offenders who aren't trans at all but can exploit a loophole to enter female spaces. I think thats exactly what's happened here, and proof positive that the idea that this can and will happen isn't a 'fantasy' as Judith Butler claimed. Certainly I didn't assume this person was necessarily trans, so much as claiming to be in order to access women, which is exactly what many of us have been warning of for years.

From what I can make out, the argument kind of goes

No true trans person will do this

When shown evidence that yes, a number of TW have sexually offended against women in single sex spaces: ok, but it's unfair to exclude all male people on the grounds that some of them will be sex offenders.

Which then moves on to: yes this is a risk female people will take in their spaces being commandeered, and some will suffer, but this is a fair price to pay for the genuine TW having the freedoms they deserve.

Which is essentially male supremacism: that the needs and freedoms of people born male and their self actualisation is more important than the actual physical injury and life changing harm caused by a sexual assault.

And yet the reason given for male people being able to identify into female spaces as they feel they need to is that sex isn't binary/not a thing. The very much sex based thinking and very much intentional and entirely sex based disadvantage proves how very little anyone really believes this, even when they are the ones putting it forward.

When shown evidence that yes, a number of TW have sexually offended against women in single sex spaces: ok, but it's unfair to exclude all male people on the grounds that some of them will be sex offenders.

It's Peter Tatchell's stance, and he seems to be representing TRA a lot in recent tv interviews.

It's safe to say tatchell is unconvinced about the needs of safeguarding.

"it's unfair to exclude all male people in the grounds that some of them will be sex offenders*
By that argument, it's unfair to carry out DBS checks on everyone who wants to volunteer or work in a school on the grounds that some of them will be sex offenders.

And yet, we all get DBS checked all the same...

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

When shown evidence that yes, a number of TW have sexually offended against women in single sex spaces: ok, but it's unfair to exclude all male people on the grounds that some of them will be sex offenders.

It's Peter Tatchell's stance, and he seems to be representing TRA a lot in recent tv interviews.

It's safe to say tatchell is unconvinced about the needs of safeguarding.

Tatchell who said in defence of a pro-paedophilia book “The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends - gay and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”.

And the TRA’s think he’s a good spokesperson to address our concerns about safeguarding!

If anyone wants a little remider of the modus operandi of Ms Penny, enjoy the link.

Perpsonally its the little girl voice I cant get over, most of all its just fucking weird.

Omg her voice

Tbf, the look on her face when she realises shes been caught out really is priceless, its almost painful to watch (and I loath her)

Oh my word, that video. How embarrassing for both of them but she attacked Starky first, does she expect him to be silent and not respond to her accusations?

She really does like

Gawd what a pair of wankers .

(Watched the video).

That clip is an embarrassment of riches, two insufferable twerps knocking lumps out each other

Maybe when TW start getting sexually harassed and assaulted by Sex Offenders in female only spaces something might get done 🙄

Re the Laurie Penny clip, she is indeed insufferable (as is Starkey) but she is not wrong to want to be paid for her work. Too often women are expected to do everything for free, while men get paid. We are worthy of payment.

She comes across as one of those horrible children who sit there pulling the dog's tail.amd ears and whiskers, ignore the air-snap, carry on and then howl the place down when they get bitten.

Dishing it out and not being able to take it... Plus the voice. Plus the whole floundering around about why she asked for a huge fee. Just say, I'm busy, something has come up. Starkey was v rude but he was sorely provoked.

@WorkingItOutAsIGo

Re the Laurie Penny clip, she is indeed insufferable (as is Starkey) but she is not wrong to want to be paid for her work. Too often women are expected to do everything for free, while men get paid. We are worthy of payment.

Yes. It's very common for women to be offered no payment or a paltry honorarium while the men receive money.

Even in Hollywood a lot of leading actresses were upaid as producers (Good Wife) while the men were paid for it. Sometimes this even happened on the same series.

I can't say that Starkey came across well on that clip either. Penney should have had her right to reply uninterrupted (and I really can't stand Penney, so am not used to defending her).

It looks as though neither of them were due to be paid for their time in the previous debate, not just Penney.

What an odious little man. I can't say either of them come off well.

Wow, Penny comes off so badly there. If she’d assertively said “Yes, I asked to be paid, I can’t afford to not be paid for two days work” she’d have been fine and would have probably been able to flip it round on him.

Of course it’s easy for me to say that, I’m not the one put on the spot by a shouty man in front of a live audience.

Still, I think it’s telling that her instinctive reaction was to deny it and then go into that victim-y “I don’t have very much” thing. I was cringing so much for her I had to stop watching. She goes into victim mode a lot, it seems. No wonder she’s a TRA.

I'm not fan of Penny but that's because of some of the things she says and writes - I don't see what the pitch of her voice has to with anything.

As for that clip, I thought Starkey was entitled to reply to her point but the way he approached and then stood right over her jabbing his finger not far from her face wasn't on. If someone did that to me, I'd be intimidated.

@Sophoclesthefox

That clip is an embarrassment of riches, two insufferable twerps knocking lumps out each other

I feel sorry for both of them.

I dislike them both intensely and that performance enforces my perception. They are both snide, petty little shits with horrible attitudes and it's good to see the light shine on it.

Thanks for that clip.

She's not wrong for wanting to be paid, whether what she asked for was unreasonable I have no way of knowing. I doubt she has a fraction of Starkey's wealth so doing it as charity might not have been an option.

However neither come out of that situation looking good. I can't muster much sympathy at her feeling intimidated by Starkey because presumably if David announced he was Davina she'd retrofit his behaviour as not being a display of male aggression and welcome him into a spa with little girls.

I don't see it as sympathising with Penny, I see it as recognising Starkey's behaviour as a display of aggression that was intended to intimidate. Turn off the sound and it's even more striking.

There was no need for it. Penny's attack was a verbal one; it wan't especially compelling and I'd have thought a seasoned public speaker like Starkey should have been perfectly capable of responding in kind.