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

WTAF!

So now men can make threats towards women and if they are from a specific subgroup people should not take those threats seriously?

fuck.

I didn't say that threats shouldn't be taken seriously, please don't misquote me.

I asked if you'd consider someone threatening to rape or murder you for simply disagreeing with them a serious person, representative of their entire community.

To be clear, by 'considering them a serious person' I was referring to whether their threats to rape/kill gave you the impression that they were somebody to be taken seriously, there to make meaningful, good faith arguments in support of their cause, or that they were idiots/scumbags looking to cause upset/aggro and not worth the time of day?

I thought I'd qualified that in the following paragraphs, but I apologize if I wasn't clear. My bad.

there is something disconnected in being told that obviously people aren’t condoning these threats

I just had a quick look and all four of the politicians pictured with that 'Decapitate TERFS' sign immediately condemned it when the images were posted and claimed they didn't know it was being held up behind them when the pictures were taken.

Whether all four of them saw it and had the same monumental lapse in judgement, or whether it was held up behind them without their knowledge, you cannot seriously suggest that their official position - as politicians - is that they endorse the decapitation of TERFS.

I don't know who Baker is, but I've had a quick read up and watched the video and yeah, extremely stupid/potentially dangerous thing to say. I don't think it's fair to say that she's out there 'rallying people to punch TERFS' based on one unrepeated, apologised for comment from two years ago, or that a politician supporting her activism today is somehow endorsing that.

The point is though, none of these trans activists that attend these rallies with all these horrible signs ever call them out or even condemn them in the media.

Using 'preferred pronouns' for a violent criminal, such as Baker.

'Rapist's Hill' demonstration alert.

Almost nowhere. In my country, I've found one (1) tiny collective of trans people against transitioning children. Every single other association is pro-transitioning children, pro-transwomen in women's spaces, and so on.

I was talking specifically about people another poster mentioned who made threats of violence, rape and murder against people who opposed their views on single sex space access, not people with pro trans views.

The "extremists" are not extremists at all, nor are they bad faith actors. They are absolutely representative of the trans community, because the trans community chucks out anyone who disagrees.

As above - anyone threatening rape or murder over an ideological disagreement is very much a bad faith actor.

Am I remembering correctly that the guy with the decapitate all TERFs placed was later convicted of murder?

There was some confusion over whether that was the same person or not. IIRC, they were not the same person.

@Kimura they were somebody to be taken seriously, there to make meaningful, good faith arguments in support of their cause,

Are you aware of any meaningful good faith arguments in support of TWAW? I’ve never heard or read any.

I read a lot of pro-trans websites, so it’s not for want of looking.

To paraphrase, perhaps it’s that the meaningful arguments aren’t made in good faith, and the good faith arguments simply aren’t meaningful.

All the pictures of these 'rallies' I've seen with signs calling for violence look like they'd struggle to put on a game of five-a-side with their numbers, so I'd expect them all to be on the same page.

But you're right - trans activists who don't share those views should absolutely be rejecting calls for violence of any kind. But there's also the argument that by acknowledging the signs, especially at a rally, you're giving them the confrontation and attention they so desperately crave.

Suggesting that someone should be guillotined is a patently unserious statement - where do we draw the line? TERFS Should Be Tarred & Feathered? TERFS Should Be Shot into Space? TERFS Should Be Made To Watch Mrs Brown's Boys On Repeat?

Are you aware of any meaningful good faith arguments in support of TWAW? I’ve never heard or read any.

I wasn't suggesting there are. My point was that - no matter the topic - someone's who responds to your difference of opinion by threatening to rape you clearly shouldn't be taken seriously.

Do you count MPs and other politicians as not divvies on twitter?

Not for the purpose of that specific statement but often, yes 😜

There are numerous who claimed that no males with a trans identity that would use womens spaces for nefarious reasons

I'd be genuinely interested is reading any of those claims if you have a link or a name I can search. I think it'd be a bizarre claim for anyone to make, let alone a politician, given they usually go out of their way to avoid speaking in absolutes.

Some of the TRAs threatening rape and violence have been platformed and supported by politicians.

As above. We're they not questioned on it?

I think that’s silly. If someone is threatening to rape me they absolutely should be taken seriously, and punished appropriately for threatening to rape me. We do not, or at least should not, overlook threats of violence in a democratic society.

I think it's more than silly. It's horrific. Imagine telling women not to take rape threats seriously? 🙄

You could start with Nicola Sturgeon. The below is from AI, but honestly it's such a common argument.

'Nicola Sturgeon has consistently argued that the primary threat to women's safety comes from predatory men, rather than trans women. She has dismissed the idea that predatory men would use gender recognition laws as a significant way to access women-only spaces, noting that such men do not need legal certificates to commit attacks.'

So a woman stating biological fact on twitter -in a way that jars a man's personal internal life - is an arrestable crime, but threatening to rape and kill people should be ignored as a childish and attention seeking thing unworthy of reaction?

How does that work then? Because it is a fact that there has been multiple sustained two tier policing based on political beliefs and not on law - under both the Tories and Labour, the entire political establishment has given up on law and equality as principles and values - and the response to excusing the behaviours so very often exhibited by activists, downplaying them, harassing the women who point this out and complain and attempting to paint them as overreacting, pearl clutching, just as bad, having caused it, failing to understand enough as if somehow you can 'educate' someone into accepting bloody awful behaviour, it's just another attempt to try and excuse the inequality.

Activists, almost entirely men, have peed everywhere, set off smoke bombs, kettled, carried out planned vandalism, carried out planned assaults and cheered on those who did, and repeatedly, so repeatedly it's become mundane, shown non stop active performative threats of sexual violence and murder. Kerb stomping and baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire ffs, this is extreme pathology, disturbed stuff that healthy people never have in their heads. But apparently this is all ok, and its women saying wtaf that are the issue?

Paraphilias. Interesting things. They cluster. And they escalate as confidence builds. Confidence builds through lack of consequences. But at this point I think one day one of these nuts will actually hurt someone seriously, badly, and there will still be a herd of truly stupid people, politicians and police among them, insisting women must shut up and look the other way.

Sturgeon tried to create 'rapist gender', in an attempt to erase and hide reality.

The primary threat to women's safety comes from predatory men, and some predatory men are those with trans identities. This is a fact. There is also, in fact, a lot of evidence to suggest that men with trans identities may in fact be sexual predators in much higher numbers in the population than men without trans identities, and that's evidence straight from the MoJ.

But like the fact that men do not turn into women, it's not something that this quasireligion likes and it fucks about with words endlessly in the hope of enforcing women's submission to this very small subgroup of men's desires. They seem to have this peculiar belief that words create reality and if you hide the words and erase the words and burble a lot of word salad to hide information inside words then everything they don't like goes away. Magical thinking, almost, as you see in very small children. Again it's not a sign of health and functionality. Or as we've seen in Sturgeon's case, always associated with the most trustworthy and integrity filled people.

We shouldn't take rape threats seriously?

Female politicians would beg to differ. Jess Phillips has said that she once received 600 rape threats in one single day. Many female MPs have had to increase security measures at work and at home. They quite rightly take this kind of threat very seriously indeed.

Maybe @Kimura was trying to say that the accompanying views of people who issue rape threats shouldn't be taken seriously. As in - "if you don't give me free chocolate I'll rape you" - we take the rape threat seriously but not the demand for free chocolate.

That argument rather fails when the demand accompanied by the rape threat is for the one making the violent threat to be admitted to spaces where women's safety from violent assault is diminished.

Secondly - we already know that "let us men into women's toilets, we're women really" is not an argument that should be taken seriously from anyone at all. It doesn't grow imprimatur and gravitas just because it's accompanied by a cup of tea and a biscuit instead of a placard threatening violence. It's stupidity no matter whether it's said with a smile or the shake of a fist.

Those politicians had to apologise because they were caught out.

They were there. They could clearly see signs such as this and they didn’t leave, they had photos taken there.

I believe they all still continue to support male people in female single sex provisions. So, it is entirely relevant to point out their behaviour in relation to your point. They continue to support male people in female single sex provisions even though they saw for themselves the threats against women by the very men demanding access to female provisions.

I wouldn't say that - When I think of exaggerated, I think of JK Rowling tweeting 'Its happened again" with that story of the guy who was arrested taking pictures in a women's public toilet.

Male sex offender accessed what should be a female single sex space to sex offend against women.

Explain what difference it makes to the women subjected to the sexual offence or to the women who have used the service in the past and are now worried that they may have been subjected to an undetected sexual crime if a male sex offender claims to be trans or not?

Explain what the difference it makes to the service provider if they have never allowed any adult male into the women only area if the male sex offender claims to be male or not?

Explain what the difference it makes to the service provider if they have actually allowed some adult male into the women only area if the male sex offender claims to be male or not?

Is all of your umbrage is based on moving a subset of male people out of the "men" group into their own special "somehow not like other other men"?

Plus on JKR and SM were the individuals choosing to upload/post images of adult sex acts at accounts on twitter who posted their childrens art pictures from a childs story book competition engaged in harmful acts?

Was that individal choosing to upload the images engaged in cyberflashing /non-contact sex abuse against real people?

Was the account holder subjected to actual abuse?

Was the JKR and the Publishing House employee who were looking at these accounts subjected to actual abuse?

Was the child whos artwork was targeted subject to real life non-contact child sex abuse?

How about the other children who were looking at other childens artwork?

If you were on a jury would you agree that any harm was done to any of the various individuals who were targeted or even that the uploader was engaged in cyberflashing?

If the upload was not cyberflashing was it a valid form of political activism?

Would you agree that an objective was to exert coercive control over JKR and the children who engaged with the storybook and others who would view the childrens art?

Can you see identify any activists who went on record calling out the act for what is was or calling for the police to investigate the actions and press charges?

Because there were a whole group who were happy to be seen to rushed to blame her for being the victim of that sex crime.

She knew exactly what she was doing by framing it as yet another instance of a man accessing a women's space in order to commit sex offences by claiming to be trans, even though that wasn't the case at all.
She got the reaction she wanted and never corrected the misinformation.

'Its happened again"

A newspaper report of the male who was arrested taking pictures of women who had not given permission to the male to take any picture of them in a women's public toilet.

She knew exactly what she was doing by framing it as yet another instance of a man accessing a women's space in order to commit sex offences by claiming to be trans,

'Its happened again"

And an attached link of
A male who was arrested taking pictures in a women's public toilet

Show me the link JKR makes?

Can it be that it is you?

You making the link between JKR objecting to some males been given access to what should be female only toilets and you assume that the sex crime is only about subset of male people out of the whole male group which you have extracted into their own special "somehow not like other other men"?

Can you show me exactly what misinformation she provided which needed to be corrected?

Why would JKR says 'it's happened again' if the argument hadn't been frequently made that 'it never happens'?

Why are there so many threads on here titled 'the thing that never happens has happened again'?

Who are we arguing against if everyone agrees that some predatory men will obviously use this loophole?

Why is Labour continuing to drag their feet if they are fully in agreement on this?

'It has happened again'

Well, it wasn't the first time that this happened, so in reality, it did actually happen again.

NB - unless the postmodernists have changed the meaning of the words 'it', 'has', 'happened' and 'again' without letting us know.

Why the hell should a literal wanker be dealt with quietly? To spare his feelings? As for "the male person banned from the female toilets in future," I don't understand you. You've already said that men should stay out of the women's, so he should already be banned from there, not just "in future." On the other hand, it might make sense to ban him from the premises entirely.

i can't find the screenshot but I can confirm what you said - his name is Sophie something, he's an academic, and he likes wearing 1950s style big skirts with lots of petticoats underneath. He said that if there was an increase in the number of sexual assaults of women by allowing men to self-ID into women's spaces that would be acceptable as a cost.

Banning from the entire premises would be entirely reasonable considering he was committing a sexual offense.

The whole attempt to make this particular demographic into some VIP group exempt from everything and permitted to use women and children freely with the women and children prevented as much as possible from having a voice or resisting, including use of police, is .... about as mad as our current entire political class and this decade really.

But I won't be enabling it. Or using language that disguises and hides and enables and works against women and children in the interests of men, who behave in ways that no decent man in my acquaintence would ever dream of behaving. Regardless of their sexuality, race, creed or gender choices. No decent man.

I asked if you'd consider someone threatening to rape or murder you for simply disagreeing with them a serious person, representative of their entire community.

Why would I not consider the individual as a serious person or as a person who is a representative of their entire community when the individual is invited on to a public platform by the community and introduced as a representative?

Can you explain why I would be expected to ignore the fact that the community have decided to platform the individual and therefore his message?

To be clear, by 'considering them a serious person' I was referring to whether their threats to rape/kill gave you the impression that they were somebody to be taken seriously, there to make meaningful, good faith arguments in support of their cause, or that they were idiots/scumbags looking to cause upset/aggro and not worth the time of day?

Why do I have to believe that the man making threats to rape and/or kill women has to make "good faith" arguments?

Violence works and threats of harm work when used by activists for political motives.

What is the base line of TWAW?

What good faith argument can be made to make me accept that the thousands of years of of social interactions based on human reproduction and the modern scientific method of sex classification is wrong and that men can become women?

What is your baseline for moving an individual from meaningfuly engaged in "polite/kind" political activism to scumbag making rape/death threats?

What level of agression gets a green light and orange light or a red light?

Threat of punching me?
Threat of me loosing my job/livelyhood?
Threat of me loosing the right of political representation?
Threats to fine me if I refuse to be sexually harrassed or sexualy assaulted?

Which politician and public figures should I class as idiots or scumbags for the situation in Canada where women who refused to be sexually assaulted faced State imposed fines?

How many of them are trying to amend the legislation to prevent women from ending up in the same situation?

How about the NHS position that I as a female employee can be forced to get undressed in the same room as a male member of staff or that I am bullying him by objecting to be expected to be in the room while he undresses.

Is that demand sexual harrassment?
Is it non-contact sexual abuse?

Or is my objection an arrestable offense?
A sackable offense?

Whether all four of them saw it and had the same monumental lapse in judgement, or whether it was held up behind them without their knowledge, you cannot seriously suggest that their official position - as politicians - is that they endorse the decapitation of TERFS

I am to believe that none of the four nor their handlers and supporters had seen the sign at the event?

Have any of the four filed a police report of the public order offence?

Where is their plea to the offenders to present themselves to to the police or for help from the general public to supply information to the police.

you cannot seriously suggest that their official position - as politicians - is that they endorse the decapitation of TERFS

What is their official position when it is known that allowing male people into what should be a women only single sex space will result in the rape and death of women?