Darren Merager, transwoman at centre of Wi Spa controversy

[ArabellaScott]

Recently arrested again. This article gives some more history of his criminal past.

Interestingly, a comment defends Merager, offering a different slant.

Merager is either a transwoman with a long string of criminal history and sexual crimes, or according to one of the comments, a persecuted victim:

'another arrest adding to a long criminal history but another unprovoked attack on a single innocent person in the community that is not bothering anybody at anytime'

https://wehotimes.com/trans-wi-spa-suspect-arrested-again-adding-to-long-criminal-history/

Oh my goodness, the stupidly to protect men is off the scale. Women never have penises EVER.

A person with a penis is a male no matter what he wears or how he feels. He has no idea what being a woman actually is. Can play act his version of what he thinks it is, but reality means he can bever really be one.

Just leaving this here…

Presumably the PP mean that Darren wasn’t breaking the law at WiSpa, and other places, because of self id.

The law which allows Darren and her dick in the women’s section is the issue.

That Darren has other criminal convictions for behaviour that is a separate issue. You can’t arrest a sober woman in a women’s spa because they have been arrested for being drunk and disorderly elsewhere a couple of years ago. That would be discriminatory.

Now obviously the law is an ass and Darren and his Dick are taking every advantage of that.

Even if he technically didn’t break the law, he is the perfect man to have forcing his way, over and over, into women’s spaces, thus demonstrating perfectly why self-ID is a pervert’s charter.

He’s the kind of transactivist who will, eventually get these laws repealed everywhere.

This is a lame thread...no one can make a good argument. These statements sound like they come from someone with a mental capacity of a two year old child. Grow up!!!

What argument would you prefer?

Definitely satire. Oh, and welcome to Mumsnet. 😁

PriOn1 · 09/01/2025 18:41

Even if he technically didn’t break the law, he is the perfect man to have forcing his way, over and over, into women’s spaces, thus demonstrating perfectly why self-ID is a pervert’s charter.

Even if? He certainly was breaking the law. He's a convicted paedophile, who is specifically banned from being naked in the presence of girls in places like this.

The irony.

It’s weird how the legal system seems to come down on some people like a ton of bricks, but then act completely helpless in cases like this

Is it not against the law to flash your alternating flaccid/hard penis in front of women and girls in a women's changing room. Especially someone with previous convictions?

Well, which law? I'm not abreast of Californian law.

Indecent exposure does seem to be a UK law that is fairly rarely prosecuted, perhaps difficult to do so. Even though we know that it's often a red flag for future sex offences.

"California Penal Code (CPC) §314(1) – Indecent Exposure – In California, the crime of Indecent Exposure occurs when a person exposes his or her naked body or genitals in front of anyone who could be annoyed or offended by it. While most people think it only happens in public, Indecent Exposure can happen in just about any environment. The exposure, however, must be willful and lewd."

Bit rich to call us childish when you clearly haven’t yet reached the ‘boys have a penis, girls have a vulva’ stage of your education yet.

What law is "she" following? I suppose your theory is that this person can't be guilty of exposing a penis to underage females because only males have a penis and he is a she!

He wasn't following the law.
He is a disgusting pervert, who targets very young girls.
He is subject to a specific court order, which mandates that he is prohibited from being naked in spas, pools, changing rooms, in the presence of females in general and underage girls in particular.

Anybody defending him is a fucking dangerous idiot.

Thanks, that's helpful, and reassuringly sane.

It's this bit that is the problem - "The exposure, however, must be willful and lewd".

The argument of gender ideologues is that transwomen are women whatever the appearance of their genitals, and if natal women are allowed customarily to be naked in a particular place, then so are transwomen.

The "wilful and lewd" bit has to be proved.

In this case, perhaps it can, given the history of the accused.

In other cases, I'm not at all sure it could be.

We have the same problem over here - the intention to cause alarm or distress has to be proved.

The bot tries logic 🙄

California penis code, OK to get out in front of women and girls if you say the magic words

Oh God, not him again 🤡

asterndabu · 12/01/2025 05:45

This is a lame thread...no one can make a good argument. These statements sound like they come from someone with a mental capacity of a two year old child. Grow up!!!

Okay, I'll bite, carefully using non-inflammatory language.

Statement:
Person, on more than one occasion, exposes their penis to children in order to gain personal gratification.

Argument:
Is this acceptable or should it be considered a sex-crime?

@asterndabu
How would you respond the the above statement and argument?

(Edited because I meant to quote aterndabu's post and somehow failed so I've copied and pasted instead so it's clearer what I was responding to.)

Yes, and as has been discussed before, much law hinges on intent.

It does make exposure and voyeurism etc hard to prove. Especially if you will actually have people argue that a man with a history of exposure/sex crimes being in a space where women and girls are naked/vulnerable is acceptable, even laudable.

I'll never, ever forget the man in the video telling the woman who reported this pervert she was 'being a dick'.

1.40

That Hipster Moustache’d Fella deserved a Dick of the Year Award.

I wonder if anyone ever informed him that his desperation for clout led him to caping for a Sex Offender?