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

Do you not think there might be a teeny weeny difference in how it makes a man feel to be just a man legitimately using a men-only space alongside other men like him, and to be the only man in a woman-only space where everyone else is a woman?

Even if he doesn't get a sexual thrill, he's going to be feeling mighty pleased with himself.

“don’t tarnish normal trans people with this”

“I'm not demonising an entire minority on the actions of a few.”

These are the emotionally manipulative pleas that are designed to manipulate female people into ignoring the safeguarding risk that should be equally applied to every male person for the purpose of assessing which single sex provision that male person should be accessing.

They are male.

That is all anyone should need to know.

And yet, these pleas are to create a special group of male people that those using the plea wish to have special exemption from being treated like every other male person. That, of course, contradicts strong safeguarding principles completely.

Maybe those people using these manipulative phrases simply don’t understand safeguarding at all. Or maybe they do and wish to bypass safeguarding.

Either way, the outcome is the same. Those using these phrases want female people to lower their personal boundaries to allow a group of male people to bypass those boundaries.

Isn’t that what predators want to happen? And there are people willing to do predators work for them without even thinking it through.

Just a little reminder at the time of 1992 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) legislation, the British Standards said:
‘…in a separate cubicle within a single room, e.g. in schools, offices, factories, public buildings and public conveniences, it simplifies ventilation, cleaning and, to some extent, supervision and prevention of wilful misuse, if the cubicle walls terminate above the floor as well as below the ceiling. These advantages are gained only at the expense of a certain degree of privacy.’

I wonder if the man masturbating would have done that if he knew he was being watched? Would it have prevented the wilful misuse? I don’t know. I think this experience will prevent further wilful misuse by him. It certainly enabled the women to know what was going on around them so he could be ‘supervised’. And for his sake, the toilet design is useful because if he had had a medical emergency inside the cubicle it would have been noticed and most people will have helped him. As most people are good people.

Also a reminder: only single sex toilets within a single sex environment can have door gaps (Pers comm with HSE in discussion about Document T last year).

Imagine thinking a male wanking in a female single sex changing area is normal and appropriate behaviour and that it should be accepted.

Nobody thinks this is 'normal and appropriate' though. Nobody is suggesting it should be accepted.

This sort of incident, and the hundreds and hundreds of incidents like it, tarnishes the entire trans community because the entire trans community just looks at incidents like this and shrugs “So?”

Do they? The entire trans community? Every single one of them?

Surely there's a difference between someone shrugging "So?", and someone asking not to be judged - as an individual or a community - on the actions of a minority of dangerous scumbags.

I don't think a man who has 'transitioned' should have access to a single-sex women's changing room, but I refuse to think less of the entire trans community based on incidents like this, or to make assumptions as to how they all feel about them.

but I refuse to think less of the entire trans community based on incidents like this, or to make assumptions as to how they all feel about them.

Insisting that men should have the right to access women's single sex spaces, in the full knowledge that this kind of thing is going on and nothing is being done to stop it, is pretty problematic, no?

I appreciate this is not what you support, but many in the TRA community do. It doesn't say anything positive about their consideration for women, does it?

"Nobody thinks this is 'normal and appropriate' though. Nobody is suggesting it should be accepted."

I would suggest that anyone who uses manipulative tactics such as 'NATWALT' or ' to direct female people's attention away from campaigning from excluding any male person above the age of about 8 years old contributes to normalising this behaviour. The point being that the male person should never have been allowed access to that female single sex provision in the first place.

Because that person is male and will always be male.

I think that any person who declares that any woman filming this behaviour, or declaring that it was all behind a locked door of a cubicle (as the man did himself) is indirectly or directly making a statement that it should be accepted.

Would you like to explain clearly how making a demand that any male who says they are female should access female single sex provisions is not expecting this behaviour to be normalised in female single sex provisions?

"I refuse to think less of the entire trans community based on incidents like this, or to make assumptions as to how they all feel about them."

The point is though, that it is a ridiculous claim to make from the very start that women excluding a group of male people or pointing out why we exclude them are 'tarnishing ALL trans people'.

For a start, going by the UK census at least half of those who declare that they are transgender people with opposite sex identities are female. The group that so many people making rash declarations such as 'tarnishing all trans people' forget.

Secondly, at some point it will need to be accepted that any male person who is making a conscious choice to enter a female single sex provision does this with the intention of ignoring the lack of consent that they have to do so from the female people who need that space to be female only. This is actually a very significant act that gets dismissed and minimised.

Amongst that group of male people, there will be these who will commit such acts. That is why it is for the protection of female people that all male people over the age of 8 are subject to a blanket exclusion.

Is there one person on this thread declaring that ALL male people with transgender identities are like that? Who did that? We know that there are some male people with transgender identities who will never use the female single sex provisions.

No one tarnishes all male people based on the % who attack and harm female people. Yet, some people use this false statement of judging all trans people as some kind of weak defence as a point to convince female people to disregard strong safeguarding principles.

It seems to be a really empty and misinformed accusation to make towards female people discussing the issue. To me, it is immediately an indicator that someone is ill informed, prejudiced themselves about the women who are discussing this, or is deliberately attempting to convince female people to lower their personal boundaries making them more susceptible to harm. I am not sure if there is any other reason for someone to make the accusation.

Safeguarding involves "worst case scenario". it absolutely DOES require "tarnishing everyone with the same brush" - because in a given group with a high rate of offending, we don't know who the predators are. That's the entire point of it.

The reason we have had (for well over a century now,ffs) single sex spaces and restrictions on men in places and circumstances where women and girls may be undressed, partially dressed or otherwise vulnerable (such as prisons) is due to a number of known facts.

We KNOW that men commit 99% of sexual crimes. We KNOW that over 80% of their victims are women and girls, and we KNOW that gaining 'access' and proximity is key to that.

It is also an objective fact that "trans women" are in fact men, and it is also a fact (based on the statistics) that although a much smaller group in comparison, as a demographic "trans women" actually have a far higher rate of sex offending against women per capita than other men do.

I am unclear why anyone with a brain or a modicum of intelligence would imagine that it is therefore a good idea to stop women and girls being permitted, to continue having single sex spaces in circumstances where women and girls are undressed or vulnerable, for men who identify as "trans women" to be given free access to those spaces, or why women objecting to it so are being so viciously demonised and lied about constantly. There is no possible rationale which is not deeply misogynistic and actively opposed to the rights, dignity and safety of women and girls.

“Is there one person on this thread declaring that ALL male people with transgender identities are like that”

“That” meaning a male who will masturbate in the female single sex provision.

I wonder if any person defending male people accessing a female single sex provision when that male person knows that their presence is likely to cause at least one female person harm, could explain why female people should not view that access be an act of intimidation by that male person?

If that male person understands his presence is in a space despite female people collectively stating in public that they do not consent to him being there it is at the very least a show of power, even in defiance. How many male people are now oblivious that there might be one female in any female single sex provision they access, that does not give that male person consent?

Even a male wrapped completely in an affirmation bubble will have seen the news, on social media or in groups that their inclusion is controversial, even unlawful. Yet apparently we are to ignore this show of power over female people and female people’s boundaries.

In doing so, those male people reinforce the very reason why they should not be included in the provision in any instance.

Insisting that men should have the right to access women's single sex spaces, in the full knowledge that this kind of thing is going on and nothing is being done to stop it, is pretty problematic, no?

Broadly, yes. But while I disagree with them having this particular right, I don't like to start from a position of assuming that everyone fighting for it is primarily driven by a disregard for women's rights/safety, or an active desire to trample upon them.

And I certainly don't believe that when something like this happens, the majority of the community simply shrug it off.

But yes, telling a woman who genuinely fears for her safety in that situation that her rights don't matter is problematic.

I appreciate this is not what you support, but many in the TRA community do. It doesn't say anything positive about their consideration for women, does it?

If they're approaching it from a point of selfishness or with bad intentions, no. But again I don't believe it's fair to assume that's the default. I think it's possible that many do consider the impact on women, but come to a different conclusion.

Because, being seen to BeKind to, and DoGood to, a self selected minority, causes a switch in liberals' brains to operate that creates amnesia on the facts of life, and physical laws of the universe.
That XY cannot become XX.
That 97% of all violent/sexual offences & behaviour is the domain of XY.
That despite the lobby saying XY can be XX, the XY cosplaying as XX are by definition in the 97%, not the 3%.
That the XX have a thumping radar for risk honed over millions of years by evolution that cannot be simply switched off.
That the collateral damage on few speech, natural justice, social mores, civilizational norms, are incalculably damaging as well.
A good example being in Brighton and elsewhere, teachers, heads, the education authority, proudly liberal parents, left liberal elites, seeing nothing untoward at all in letting boys in the same school changing rooms as girls.
The whole ideology is like acid released at the centre of society leaking outwards, burning everything in it's path.

I would suggest that anyone who uses manipulative tactics such as 'NATWALT' or ' to direct female people's attention away from campaigning from excluding any male person above the age of about 8 years old contributes to normalising this behaviour.

You think that contributes to normalising public masturbation?

The point being that the male person should never have been allowed access to that female single sex provision in the first place.

Because that person is male and will always be male.

Right, agreed. But you said, and I responded to...

Imagine thinking a male wanking in a female single sex changing area is normal and appropriate behaviour and that it should be accepted.

Nobody thinks that a male wanking in a female single sex changing area is normal and appropriate behaviour, or that it should be accepted. Nobody has suggested this.

I think that any person who declares that any woman filming this behaviour, or declaring that it was all behind a locked door of a cubicle (as the man did himself) is indirectly or directly making a statement that it should be accepted.

I mean, I think it's safe to discount the rambling of the disturbed person who just got caught doing it 😅

Would you like to explain clearly how making a demand that any male who says they are female should access female single sex provisions is not expecting this behaviour to be normalised in female single sex provisions?

I fail to see the link between the two, tbh. Unless you're suggesting that they're all serial public masturbators?

What alternative conclusion do you think they come to then?

Broadly, yes. But while I disagree with them having this particular right, I don't like to start from a position of assuming that everyone fighting for it is primarily driven by a disregard for women's rights/safety, or an active desire to trample upon them.

I can see what you mean, but honestly, as soon as someone says 'let's not worry about what sex someone is when using single-sex spaces', at the very very best they'd have to have never bothered to consider the risk to women, and would also have been asked the question. So to continue fighting for only mixed-sex spaces would normally mean they have considered the risks but concluded they didn't exist or were acceptable collateral.

I dont "tarnish" all men with the thought that they are potential sexual predators either - I don't think my husband a risk and consider him a "normal" man but I still wouldn't send him into a swimming pool changing room to supervise a group of girls changing for a pool party. I wish people would understand that safeguarding rules and policies are based on potential risk conferred by being BIOLOGICALLY MALE, it's not based on someone being trans.

Imagine a world where adults could trans to being kids.
They feel immature, they're unhappy being grown up.
Why can't society just accept them as kids.
All they want is to play with other kids, in playgrounds, soft play centre.
Join the scouts or guides, go back to school, nursery even.
They're no danger, it's both bigoted to say they're not kids, and phobic to believe they're a risk.
It didn't matter what their date of birth/passport says, what matters is what's in their minds and hearts.
Of course, 99.9% of violent and sexual crime is carried out by adults, that stat carries on for the cohort if they were ever allowed into kids spaces.
They're 10,000% stronger than young kids, the cohort in kids spaces don't suddenly lose that strength
And the fallout to society would be in the same areas as those objecting to transgender in women's spaces.
This isn't so fantastical...I truly believe if women hadn't fought back with everything at their disposal, and pushed the trans narrative backwards, Self ID had seamlessly captured the West, right now the push to trans-age activism would be making waves.

Do you consider the general exclusion of men from women's spaces because of the behaviour of some to be tarring all men with the same brush? If not, why do you feel differently when it's specificially the behaviour of some men who claim to be women being discussed?

I don't like to start from a position of assuming that everyone fighting for it is primarily driven by a disregard for women's rights/safety, or an active desire to trample upon them.

I'm trans, in another European country. When I joined the trans community, there was exactly zero consideration as to whether women agreed to have transwomen use their facilities. It was just "the done thing", so much so that doctors required "using the opposite sex's toilets" as proof that a trans person was sufficiently determined to transition and could be given the green light for hormones and surgeries.

Today, still, in my country, there's zero discussion as to which toilets trans people should use and why: transwomen are to use the women's, and transmen the men's. It's just "how it is". I had to come here on MN to realise that there should be a discussion.

So no, everyone fighting for the inclusion of transwomen in women's spaces may not be primarily driven by an active disregard for women's rights and safety - but a passive, non-examined one? Absolutely.

I think it's possible that many do consider the impact on women, but come to a different conclusion.

Such as "it used to be fine" - yes, when nobody bothered to ask women for their opinion in the first place.

While it's interesting to see what sexist justifications people think up, the same two things will be true about any justification they try to make:

Firstly, that they believe at least on some level that what makes women different from men is not our bodies but something in how we think, feel or dress.

And secondly, that what the men want is more important than what the women want.

“You think that contributes to normalising public masturbation?”

Yes.

“Nobody thinks that a male wanking in a female single sex changing area is normal and appropriate behaviour, or that it should be accepted. Nobody has suggested this”

You don’t believe the man wanking in the video thought it appropriate behaviour?

“I mean, I think it's safe to discount the rambling of the disturbed person who just got caught doing it”

Oh. I see. You have dismissed his opinion so apparently that doesn’t count and you wish to make an absolute blanket statement that is immediately provably untrue.

“I fail to see the link between the two, tbh. Unless you're suggesting that they're all serial public masturbators?”

Yes. I see that you dismiss the views of those people behaving this way and you are keen to double down in defend your views with absolutist language. So, I can see why you fail to see any link if you twist it in such a way.

The point remains, despite your disbelief, that people are dismissing that this is an inevitable outcome in allowing any male person to access a female single sex provision (over the age of 8 yrs old). If they diminish it as ‘only a few as apples, you should allow the good ones in’ or ‘if it happens behind a locked cubicle who is harmed, or female people should not be providing video evidence to a behaviour some people consistently dismiss, the outcome is that these events will continue.

Added to that, if people feel they cannot exclude these male people and the behaviour continues, it is a logical conclusion that those who support this inclusion think that women should accept this behaviour pattern. Otherwise, those people now supporting the inclusion of these male people would have understood that to protect female people from this behaviour pattern, all male people above 8 years old needed and should in the future to be excluded. If they willfully dismiss the behaviour pattern, they allow the pattern to continue.

Broadly, yes. But while I disagree with them having this particular right, I don't like to start from a position of assuming that everyone fighting for it is primarily driven by a disregard for women's rights/safety, or an active desire to trample upon them.

What exactly do you think these individuals are fighting for?

Their fighting objective is to have males in what should be female only spaces.

When the aim of their activism is to force women into mixed sex spaces how exactly is this not disregarding womens rights to their single sex spaces?

How is it not disregarding womens safety?

Please lay out the logic of what the you think would happen when they sucessfully create the situation of a male being allowed by management and/or by law to enter what should be a female only space?

is primarily driven by a disregard for women's rights/safety, or an active desire to trample upon them.

Because this ^ statement is reading as they dont actually need to recognise half the human race being worth recognising at all.

If they're approaching it from a point of selfishness or with bad intentions, no. But again I don't believe it's fair to assume that's the default. I think it's possible that many do consider the impact on women, but come to a different conclusion.

Can you outline what different conclusion is reached when their default option is known to be harmful to women?

Nobody is demonising the whole trans community - nobody thinks this guy has anything in common with a vulnerable teenage girl in a binder, other than he is taking the protections meant for her and using her in his community as a human shield.

This is a male behaviour, it's not demonising a subset of men to point out why men should not be in female spaces, he's proving why. The idea he should be in with the women and dysphoric teenage girls in with the men just shows that people have dropped sensible, evidence based ideas on who is really at risk to pander to a group of men claiming to be (some of whom get off on it).

No, you’re arguing that all male perverts should be allowed in, until proven problematic and perhaps even then, lest we offend an innocent few.

And that any woman using a camera to record what occurs is worse than the invaders insisting on entry, despite there being alternative options readily and deliberately available.

But you do you. Our priorities are obviously different.