Trans woman gym goer caught masturbating in women’s changing room

[LesbianNana]

I’ve included the NY Post article, the original TikTok video and an American police officer YouTuber video (Officer Tatum). This was in California (naturally) at a Planet Fitness gym.

In the beginning of the YouTube video you can see him clearly masturbating (along with his huge gross feet all splayed out), and if you want to avoid YouTube commentary jump to 4:30 for the confrontation.

I’ll transcribe some of the confrontation. It’s a few gym employees, the woman and her boyfriend.

BF: Bro do you go to the Taco Bell restroom and jack off? (Probably.) What the fuck is wrong with you bro? (AGP.)

Woman: Minors walking through here…(Probably the point.)

Trans: You guys, I was IN the stall. (Tip of the hat for not jacking off while at the bench press.)

BF: It does NOT FUCKING MATTER bro.

Trans: I’m not harassing anyone in the stall…I’m allowed to be in here.

Woman: You’re IN THE WOMAN’S BATHROOM.

BF: It doesn’t matter, you’re not allowed to jerk off in here! That is so fucking weird! We have video fucking proof!

Trans: Um are you allowed to video in here? (Attention women: Never video the actions of a man committing a lewd act in public lest it make a man look bad.)

BF: It doesn’t matter, you’re in the women’s bathroom jerking your fucking penis bro!

Trans: I’m transgender! (Here we go! The magic word. All take the knee and beg for forgiveness for your blasphemous ways at the shrine of Transgender!) I was drying off…(HAHAHA.)

Woman: That was you in the shower, too. (Feck’s sake.)

Trans: Right…

At this rate, we’re probably a mere 5 years away from the normalization of public masturbation.

Masturbation Story Hour coming to a library near you! Bring the whole family!

https://nypost.com/2026/01/05/us-news/trans-gymgoer-caught-masturbating-in-womens-bathroom-at-california-planet-fitness/

https://www.tiktok.com/@borderlinebimbo_/video/7591708460211866910

@Kimura

If I understand you correctly, you're saying "take the threats seriously, but don't take the men making them seriously as representatives of the trans community"? Is that right?

If I am: okay, so women don't take the likes of SJB seriously as interlocutors. But what about the men who march alongside him: do we take them seriously? They are not making the actual threats, but they are supporting him by their presence at his sides. So do we take them seriously or not?

If not, then what about the rest of the trans community? They are not using threats - but they are not condemning them either. They are not calling SJB out. They are not saying, "Not in our name!" They are not saying, "Threatening women with rape and death isn't okay!" So do we take them seriously or not?

In short: where is the line between the men women should dismiss, and the ones women should discuss with?

What are you hoping to achieve here? Do you think I'm going to have a light bulb moment and say "Ahhh, I've just realized I've had a mix up, yes I obviously did mean the opposite of what I've been saying all thread!"

So men making rape and death threats to women are not “ serious people”? What exactly is a serious person?

It was explained in very plain English the first time I said it, and has been explained a number of times since. You're free to go back and read one of them.

I don't know what's worse at this stage, that you're pretending not to understand it or that you actually still don't understand it.

It was explained in very plain English that you considered threats to “decapitate terfs” as a bit of a laugh, akin to “forcing terfs to watch Mrs Browns Boys”, no? Do you think we haven’t seen this kind of post before?

So you are not honest/brave enough to list the crimes which are of public record?

But I do note your posts have moved from using female words to using words which infer that you dont know who the person is or the sex of the person and/or you are using language to distance yourself from having a connection.

And yet the "great and the good" who would have known him and been able to also google his history decided to make him a face of their movement.

Activists decided he was a photo op and therefore a poster child of their movement.

Can you please explain how and why women should pretend that his input and his being centered in their movement should be ignored and brushed to one side as not relevant and not representative of who this movement is?

Or why women must ignore that politicians choose to be an Ally to join forces the activists who choose to platform his message?

If you do actually work teaching women about risk assessment your post history clearly indicates you will have imo been doing a shity job and put them at real risk of harm.

A man who will without shame get on a public stage and "admit to wanting to beat his wife" and "ask others to beat their wives" is 99.9999999999999% of the time going to be a wifebeater at home. And the organisers who let him keep the mike and public who cheered him on are happy to blame his wife when she turns up with black eye.

Adding a lable "nutter" is just a sholder shrug of "Ooo well what can you expect she should have seen it coming and not made him do it".

With the greatest respect, you made throwaway comments about a serious issue that you didn't know enough about.

Now your posts are coming across squirming to avoid facing the implications of the position you took.

Being "deliberately facetious" or "tickled" about women's outrage is not a good look. Ridiculing women's anger is a well worn patriarchal tactic to make us feel like what affects us and what hurts us and what diminishes us (and we are half of humanity) is unimportant compared to men's Big Isues. Women have had literally lifetimes of that shit and it doesn't work any more, it just makes us more angry.

It would be more honest to admit you didn't know what, or who, you were talking about, that you are horrified to understand just what type of people are being feted and supported under the activists' banners, and before you jump in again take the time to read what trans people, even the supposedly moderate voices, believe they should be entitled to expect from society and from individual women.

Sometimes MN duplicate posts are the best ones.

👍

Just a reminder of the “character” Sarah Jane Baker is, in the words of the man he violently abducted, tortured and sexually assaulted:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12299927/amp/Man-tortured-trans-activist-brands-dangerous-violent-individual.html

Yet his community choose to platform him.

You continue to ignore that your reasonable people in your reasonable trans community made an active choice to platform him.

They placed him in their group of reasonable people.

They choose not to place him in the group Scumbag not worth the time of day.

They picked their Ally.

When the leaders choose to platform a message that war crimes are socially acceptable where do they end up on your assessment between
Reasonable person
and
Scumbag not worth the time of day?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying "take the threats seriously, but don't take the men making them seriously as representatives of the trans community"? Is that right?

Pretty much. If someone starts a speech with...

"I'm here to explain why trans women should have the legal right to use women's same sex spaces...and if you disagree with anything I have to say, my friends and I will rape and kill you"

...then I'm not going to take them or anything they have to say in that speech seriously. I will not spend my time listening to their point of view on that topic. I also won't use that experience to suggest that 'trans people' will beat you up if you disagree with them.

But a threat is a threat. It's often a crime. If someone makes what you believe to be a legitimate threat, you either do something about it or involve the police.

If not, then what about the rest of the trans community? They are not using threats - but they are not condemning them either. They are not calling SJB out. They are not saying, "Not in our name!" They are not saying, "Threatening women with rape and death isn't okay!" So do we take them seriously or not?

It's an individual's choice who they take seriously and why.

We should judge people on their own merits where possible. If someone is cheerleading someone who's views you find abhorrent, you're going to have a pretty good idea of where they stand on that given topic, but we're all different.

It's unhelpful to make blanket assumptions about entire groups of people.

Its always good when people work to dispell stereotypes, or speak out against the bad apples in their community, but I don't think anyone should feel obligated to do it, and I don't think any less of people who either don't want to give bad actors the satisfaction of an argument, those who chose to keep their views private, or those who just want to get on with their own lives. I don't think as a general rule it makes their views less valid, it's just one factor.

In short: where is the line between the men women should dismiss, and the ones women should discuss with?

That's up to the individual. There's no one line for everyone. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. You might think someone's views on trans rights and the way they express them are vile, but respect their views on the environment.

You might think someone who leads a rowdy protest outside a conference is a bully and not worth listening to. Someone else might see them as being willing to fight in the trenches for what they believe.

It's up to each of us to decide where our line is.

Yet his community choose to platform him

All of them? Every single trans person in the country? The world? Was there a big get together with every trans person where they all unanimously agreed that they felt the same way about this person and that made them Queen?

Written about Baker

“Quite the character it seems!”

“I won't be fretting about someone I'd never heard of until today, I just find it funny when people feel the need to bend the truth to justify something.”

”Rallies would mean it was done more than once (or was still being done), which as far as I can see it wasn't, but happy to be corrected.”

“I'd argue it wasn't even done once, given that nobody was 'rallied' to go looking for people to punch in the face, nobody got punched in the face and a court found that it was unlikely they'd expected anyone to act on their words when clearing them of incitement to violence.”

Just a reminder for thise reading along. If some one posts something like this about a discussion about a man who has a history of kidnap, torture, attempted murder, and self cannabalism, who then threatens and intimidates women, I ponder their intention on a feminist board.

If they claim that they have been misunderstood, they might consider why this has eventuated and why people continue to point out the dismissal that is coming through in their posts. I think this post is a good reminder.

This page particularly, below:

“I'd argue it wasn't even done once, given that nobody was 'rallied' to go looking for people to punch in the face, nobody got punched in the face and a court found that it was unlikely they'd expected anyone to act on their words when clearing them of incitement to violence.”

This is clearly telling women that their concerns should be dismissed., in my book. It is in line with “ ‘she’ apologised and it was two years ago”. The tactic is to downplay the influence of this person who leads protests against women speaking in the public sphere campaigning for single sex provisions and against the medicalisation of children.

If I remember, this is also a man who has been associated with Jolyam Maugham and his family. Including supporting, if not organising, some of the teenager protests. It is an flawed position to declare that these men are not to be taken seriously in any way, whether that means their activism or their threats.

Because they are being taken seriously by others.

I suggest before you decide where your "line" is, you find out how these protesters have actually been acting. You may find the "reasonable" side of your "line" does not in reality have anyone on it - they are all over on the other side pouring bottles of piss, breaking windows and drowning out women's voices for having the insolence to say we exist and we are not remotely the same thing as whatever bundle of sexist ideas trans women project onto us and label "living as a woman"

And the young TRA “Sophia” who harassed Graham Linehan and many GC women at feminist events, and then DARVOed with a criminal prosecution because his phone got thrown by GL.

Oh, and "It's unhelpful to make blanket assumptions about entire groups of people" - you get that "blanket assumptions about entire groups of people" is literally the core belief underpinning transgender identities, right?

It is only possible for a man to believe he is "really" a woman, or vice versa, bevause he has made a blanket assumption about an entire group of people, ie women, having certain mental traits in common that all men, except trans women, do not share.

Heh. My personal line is, "Take people at their word. When they warn you, believe them."

So yes, I'm going to believe that there are TRAs out there who would happily punch me in the face even though I'm trans. I'm going to believe there are TRAs out there who think I should be dead, even though I'm trans. And I'm going to support any woman who thinks the same.

Also: I was in the trans community for a while. It's a psychologically violent place. I was literally greeted with verbal aggression: "Don't say this! Don't think that! You're wrong!" (Note: I was wrong about myself, my own experience, my own feelings!) And this aggressive insistence on only one orthodoxy continued throughout my time in there. So I am very much going to believe that a lot of those trans people would stand aside and do nothing if the violent TRAs started punching me - because they've already shown that they don't tolerate dissenting views.

Nice attempt to deflect.

Where did I limit the community to only males or females who claim a trans identity?

that a politician supporting her activism today is somehow endorsing that.

Your reasonable people.

The ones who organised the march along side the ones who attended in support.

The ones who are trying to make politicians pass laws to remove and prevent single sex spaces.

The ones who are sitting on the side lines watching and waiting for that to happen

The ones who are using single sex spaces set up for the other sex

The allies who join in clapped or turned a blind eye.

The elected politicians who are happy to be an Ally.

That reasonable community.

The community choose to platform him.

You continue to ignore that your reasonable people in your reasonable trans community made an active choice to platform him.

They placed him in their group of reasonable people.

They choose not to place him in the group Scumbag not worth the time of day.

They picked their Ally.

When the leaders choose to platform a message that war crimes are socially acceptable where do they end up on your assessment between
Reasonable person
and
Scumbag not worth the time?

We hear about the coercive control of the 'community' quite a bit from detransitioners. It must be a head fuck.

We already have had incidents of violence by male people with transgender identities, at too many women's events, if one with influence is making calls for violence they are to be taken seriously, and their actions and the influence of their actions should never be dismissed.

Even if it doesn't directly result in violence against women, it is heightening the emotional responses of someone who potentially will. Someone who has no boundaries and cannot recognise that they are in no way justified for their response.

Quite. I'm lucky that I was older, so I didn't need much support, but it must be really hard for the young ones in there.

Also, the sex imbalance doesn't help at all. Loads of older males and younger females is the perfect road to a massive and aggressive (in true male fashion) power imbalance. I already felt it back then; I can only imagine how it's grown by now.

Anyone remember this?

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/12042021-uks-longest-serving-transgender-prisoner-to-run-for-richmond-park-mp

Of course not. Yet, he is given a platform, and not condemned.

"All of them? Every single trans person in the country? The world? Was there a big get together with every trans person where they all unanimously agreed that they felt the same way about this person and that made them Queen?"

I think this approach 'All of them?' has been part of an absolutist theme on this thread and the only reason I can think of continuing to use it after so many pages of having to clarify stances is that it is being used as a discrediting tactics.

It is also a distraction tactic. However, it is also dishonest.

This quote above was posted in response to :

"Yet his community choose to platform him" posted by AnSolas.

The person choosing an absolutist interpretation of that statement then sought to discredit it by trying to position it as being a false one. Yet, Baker's 'community' have chosen to platform him at rallies. They have allowed him to speak. They have not asked him to leave.

'his community' is the rally organisers and those who support him. It is misrepresenting AnSolas's point about his immediate community by widening the scope to include every single person with a transgender identity in the world.

It also does show that there is actually a huge gulf where an organised counter campaign group organised by people with transgender identities for people with transgender identities who disagree fundamentally with Stonewall etc could be. I have quite a few thoughts on why it doesn't exist, but it doesn't.

So, therefore, it can be also said that there has been no distancing from Baker, or any of his own efforts, from people with transgender identities who do have influence over the discourse politically and publicly. Of course, that doesn't mean that every single person with a transgender identity in the world supports him. That would be a ludicrous statement about any person.

The absolutist theme has been running through this thread from the earlier pages. Where claims about people tarnishing all people with transgender identities based on the topic of the thread, a man with a transgender identity masturbating in a gym changing room. Whereas that claim doesn't even stand up to minimal scrutiny due to half those with those identities being female.

There has been a whole lot of effort on this thread to distract from the topic, or to dismiss the actions of this man as being irrelevant enough to be inconsequential. I think it is a good example of those distractive efforts.

This fallacious broadening out of the scope of the discussion is overgeneralisation to create the catastrophising, as well as the minimising cognitive distortion effects.

Just to add, this may be done intentionally or not intentionally. But it is about the outcome of discrediting the point without arguing from an evidenced position none the less.

The thing that comes through loud and clear from The Righteous apologist (apart from that they are veh veh clever and anyone who doesn't agree with them is just stupid and silly) is:

Everything boils down to what the Actual Real Person, i.e. the male human, has going on inside his head - or rather, what he says is going on inside his head. The permissible reactions, feelings, thoughts and fears of the Partially-Sentient Support Bipeds must be based on aforesaid Actual Real Person's stated head-canon.