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

I considered Rules Nine, Fifteen, and Sixteen look relevant, but they don't quite match.

It's Thirteen: Angry women are crazy. Angry men have trouble expressing themselves.

SJB didn't really mean "if you see a TERF, punch them in the face", even though he later looped it through a loudspeaker at a LWS event. The activists didn't really mean for people to "decapitate TERFs" when they held up those placards in Scotland, and those Green politicians didn't mean to pose in front of them. They are just having trouble expressing themselves. (Yes, some of those people are female, but they have allied themselves with violent men, so are spreading those men's message.)

I've not flagged Thirteen on FWR before.

I think it was Fred Wallace that played the message via loudspeaker at LWS not SJB

Ah, thanks for that.

SJB still meant to say it, and FW meant to loop it.

Okay so I retract my earlier comment because this comment is revealing.

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

I am fairly sure that I understand this position is to be understood as that of ‘the reasonable person’. Because, you know, it’s not good to make assumptions. And I suspect that the counterpart is that we are all being unreasonable because it appears that we are making blanket assumptions about entire groups of trans women being violent and aggressive. Perhaps ignoring that these comments are a thread about a trans woman masturbating in a woman’s changing room.

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

Though it’s not clear what’s meant by ‘line’, to me, such a claim doesn’t hold well for this particular issue. Each individual may well decide where their line is in relation to attending a protest or not. However, as it’s been stated before, just because one person decides that they’re fine sharing a bathroom with a trans woman and they're equally fine letting other women share a prison, hospital ward, rape counselling session or domestic refuge with a trans woman, its not an issue resolvable by everyone individually deciding where their line is. That just won’t work.

Which is why the Supreme Court clarified the law on this matter and they’ve told us where the line is. No men / trans women in female spaces.

It's just so weird to me that this thread has taken a turn like this where commentators are minimising a man masturbating in a women's single sex space.

It does make me worry about what goes through these commentator's heads. We had a serial masturbator where I used to work at a heritage place back when I was a very young student who would either go into the women's or the disabled loos to do his business. Loudly. One of the (mainly young and female) staff members including me sometimes were made to go and shout loudly for him to leave whilst another member of staff prevented people coming into the cafe and/or the toilets until he'd left. The police were called on several occasions and he was "spoken to" and allowed to quietly leave.

Creepy as fuck and it's stayed with me, 20+ years later. Families with very young children frequented this cafe as it was part of the heritage site. He used to wear a pillow on his bum (strapped on underneath his kilt which would make it jut out) and sometimes something to look like he had a baby. Probably also a pillow but it was more like a baby bump. First time I was exposed to AGP although of course nobody called it that, not even the police. It's been one of their greatest achievements I think (not that I'm happy about it) to get the politicians and police etc on board with their perverted antics.

This man in the female changing rooms in this story should have been arrested and locked up for a long time. It won't happen because of course...

I am currently writing a report to the Building Safety Regulator. I am writing about the real-life consequences of different designs in non-domestic toilet cubicle and rooms.

I spent yesterday afternoon discussing the incidents involving many younger people who have died in the U.K. in toilets in the last few years. In many cases there’s a possibility they could have been saved if people close by had been aware they had collapsed. People have been left for hours and even days in toilets in very public places.

The way to prevent deaths is by having a floor-door gap. Immediately a subsequent user can see enough to raise the alarm to make sure the occupant is rescued in time. But also see if there is misuse. Just like the gap that showed this man was misusing this cubicle. It’s safeguarding.

A reminder that in this country perfectly safe single sex toilets in a single sex environment have been changed to private, mixed sex toilets. Toilet go private because mixed sex designs have to have privacy because of male behaviour. The behaviour inside the private cubicles is hidden from view but it gets worse.

Also a reminder that the women’s toilets at the Hippodrome had a decent floor-door gap that is not allowed in a mixed sex environment. They have to be resistant to sound too. If a woman had fallen against the door you would have a chance of seeing her for her to be rescued in time. Same with the men’s if that has the same design.

Tomorrow I may have time to start writing about many of the cases of children and women who have been abused in toilet cubicles/rooms, and the designs and locations. All the perpetrators are male.

If anyone thinks men and women are safer in the same toilet and changing room spaces, they are very wrong.

Also he’s often lurking around in the background, and he and Freda are BFFs.

Along with Sophia Brooks

I am fairly sure that I understand this position is to be understood as that of ‘the reasonable person’. Because, you know, it’s not good to make assumptions. And I suspect that the counterpart is that we are all being unreasonable because it appears that we are making blanket assumptions about entire groups of trans women being violent and aggressive.

I was responding directly to the question I'd quoted.

Generally I think anybody who bases their opinion of any group/community/nationality/whatever on the actions/opinions/goals of a subsection of that group is ignorant at best and something much more unpleasant at worst.

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

Though it’s not clear what’s meant by ‘line’, to me, such a claim doesn’t hold well for this particular issue.

Again, this was a direct response to somebody asking me where we should draw the line on a specific issue. It wasn't in reference to the subject of this thread or anything else.

YY.

"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.

I made that statement for no other reason than to highlight the absurdity of the suggestion that because an activist has spoken at rallies, they're somehow representative of, or endorsed by, the average member of their community, or their community as a whole.

It's a ludicrous claim, but any attempt to point that out was met with "But the community platformed him! They didn't ask him to leave!"

Asking people to believe that any one person (let alone someone we all apparently agree is an extremist) absolutely represents an entire section of society, just because they've been given a platform, is wild.

@Kimura do you believe men who identify as tran should be allowed in women’s spaces?

You have complained repeatedly on this thread that people misinterpret your words, you then keep making statements that you then say were deliberately absurd and not to be taken seriously.

If you are finding people are not responding to your posts in the way you intended and you are finding you are are accusing people of misinterpretation over and over, maybe you should stop assuming the issue is the other people.

For instance, from your points about Baker, you were obviously ill informed, (didn’t you admit you only looked in wikipedia?). Yet you made statements from that poorly informed position and you are still defending your position about him.

If you make absurd remarks and find people take your words as being your position, please stop accusing people of then misinterpreting your other posts and aim for presenting a coherent and consistent argument.

Isn't that exactly what giving a platform to someone is for? "Go and tell them what we think/want!" If SJB doesn't represent TRAs, then why are they giving him a platform to begin with?? Why do they march behind him? Why do they take the pain of crafting placards that agree with him? Why do they post threats online along the lines of what he says?

You want to see him as separate from the rest of the TRAs, but he's not. He's just the one who dares to say out loud what most of them only think or dare to say only online.

Nope you are running a no true Scotsman play.

The marches were organised by your reasonable people

They invited their reasonable people speakers.

The reasonable people turned up to listen

The reasonable people politicians turned up and allied themselves to these "right side of history" reasonable people.

But suddenly when you remove the reasonable people lable from the speaker you ignore the fact that your reasonable people picked him to be a representative.

You are stuck.

If you admit that you have to reexamine your placement of the reasonable lable on that community who are happy to center (your lable) scumbag not worth the time of day.

You then end up with a whole bunch of people who you have said should be deplatformed because they allow the sucmbag say the quiet part of their activism out loud.

Its a childlike argument to try deflect your obligation to examine your labling.

You are like the individuals and politicial who sees the scumbag message of violence and fails to address the message and reach for sound bites "its just one individual" or "must be ignored because its not a reasonable persons message" or "he is not average" or "his is not really part of the community he just poped up out of nowhere and gained access to the mike" or "he said sorry"

It is easy option as then there is no requirement to address the violent political activism or recognise that any policital action places these violent men into what should be women only single sex spaces.

And once that ^ fact is spoke out loud the individual supporting the political activism has to take ownership of the fact that they on a personal level are willing to place violent men into what should be women only single sex spaces and are willing to have women harmed.

So you play no true Scotsman to deflect having to address how many people you are kicking out of your reasonable people group.

Ok then I’ll bite. They’re a pervert and performing a lewd act in a public place. Against the law (in UK anyway). He is in a tiny, tiny minority and it got called out. Police should have been called though.

Yup. And if TRAs hadn’t insisted than men belong in female spaces he wouldn’t have been there would he? The thing is, we’re told often that men would never pretend to be trans to enter women’s spaces, so by this logic, this is a trans identified male and just confirms that no males, even if they claim to be women, should be in female spaces ever. Don’t you agree?

You were supposed to defend him, not condemn him 😉

So it's a great thing that the SC ruling has closed down any assumption that perverts like him should have access to women's spaces, right?

What was the rally/campaign that had one of the organising parties secretly planning to have Baker lead it and then it got out and there was condemnation from some but a rush of support for ‘poor Sarah Jane’ was it something like a march for Sarah Everard?

I think it was some recentish “women’s” march.

Sometimes I think we need to have pinned conditional statements on our posts so that this cycle of ‘not all men are like that’ and ‘not all men with transgender identities are like that’ posts stops.

Here is mine :

When we talk about safeguarding all female people, of course all male people above the age of about 8 years old are treated as one group. Because a small % of that large group are harmful to female people, this means that all those male people are treated as being the same risk profile. This is uncontroversial. Also, please note that the existence of female people with transgender identities also means that I do not treat ‘all’ people with transgender identities as if they are at risk of harming female people, only the male people.

Maybe that then would cut through all these ‘stop treating all male people with transgender identities’ or ‘stop treating all trans people’ censuring type posts.

If you are finding people are not responding to your posts in the way you intended and you are finding you are are accusing people of misinterpretation over and over, maybe you should stop assuming the issue is the other people.

The problem is, a couple of people, despite clarification, continued to claim that I had said certain things that I objectively did not say, and anyone reading those claims was given an extremely misleading (and offensive) impression of where I stood on the matter. How is that my issue?

Even if the original comment had been completely unclear (which it wasn't), once I've gone to the lengths of clarifying it beyond any reasonable doubt, multiple times, quite plainly stating "This is what I mean, this is what I believe" only to have one person reply "No you don't"...then I'm sorry, but that's absolutely a 'them' issue.

For instance, from your points about Baker, you were obviously ill informed, (didn’t you admit you only looked in wikipedia?). Yet you made statements from that poorly informed position and you are still defending your position about him.

I had never heard of Baker before a poster described them as someone who rallies people to punch TERFs in the face.

I expected to find someone with a bunch of convictions for inciting violence, leading violent assaults on 'TERFs', etc. Instead I found someone who'd said something very stupid, once, two years ago, trying to be edgy for a crowd rather than actually gathering a mob to go punching people. That a judge didn't believe they intended anyone to actually carry out an attack and cleared them. That they haven't been charged or convicted of it since.

I agreed with the poster that they'd said something out of order, but said that I thought their description of 'someone who rallies people to punch TERFs' was a bit of a stretch. That's it. And yes, I stand by it.

My other 'position' was that they seemed like a scumbag and an idiot and I certainly wouldn't be interested in listening to anything they had to say based on what I'd read. I stand by that too.

I'm not sure what was poorly informed about either of those 'positions'.

That is not all you have said about Baker and it is dishonest to try to claim it is

Did you miss the bit where his criminal history was known?

Well known and easy to google?

What is Bakers criminal history?

Are you honest enough to post up the detail of what you found during your research?