92

129 comments

[–] zeniazenana 102 points (+102|-0)

They are twisting themselves into pretzels to excuse and defend a sex predator. I was expecting Wispa like incidents to happen, I wasn't expecting the widespread excusing of these type of crimes.

[–] Mmmm_Brains 73 points (+73|-0)

It's because not even a year ago they wouldn't have to fight this hard.Before just the word TERF or transphobia was the boogeyman and the scarlet letter you didn't want to be painted under.

People were afraid and they got their way with little effort, they're facing real opposition now and their actions are being seen by the wider populace. Like a light being shown on a flasher catching him in the act, and nobody likes what they are seeing at all. Their tolerance is getting less and less each day.

[–] mg2000 37 points (+37|-0)

true. So many friends and other people I know have talked about it in the past months and they didn‘t even attack me for my „terfy“ views... people are not having it. Especially women.

[–] NewMa 15 points (+15|-0)

This thing is going to be won on the backs of parents, normal regular citizens, who don't want their kids transed (so like, lower middle class) and don't want their children harrassed in public (Mearager).

Some Joe Schmo looks at ONE of this guy's arrests and thinks it MIGHT be a plea down and thinks he knows the life story of the dude.

If he was such an upstanding citizen, as a white male, they'd have already released him on bond, pled him down to some misdemeanor, and let him go.

[–] sconsolato [OP] 58 points (+58|-0)

They sure are!!! The fact that they denied it all so quickly was bad enough, but now that there is actual proof that this happened, and Self ID laws are being abused for a fact, and people are still trying to gaslight and bully women, and try to make us feel like we are in the wrong for making these people feel unwelcome. I'm so damn sick of it.

[–] Iridescence 52 points (+52|-0) Edited

What I don't understand is why they feel like they need to make an excuse for every self-proclaimed trans-woman that behaves badly. It's like they're trying to say that this sort of behaviour from trans people is acceptable because of their trauma or dysphoria or whatever. Why are they so encouraging of everybody who 'comes out as trans' instead of saying something like 'being trans can be a complex and easily misunderstood phenomenon and not everybody who has some of the characteristics (like cross-dressing) should be welcomed into the community' (this isn't really what I think of the scenario, but it's what I would expect from TRAs instead of defending people like this).

It's like... 'not all men' is (slightly) better than 'it's ok that the guy sexually assaulted you, don't you know how hard it is for men these days???'

[–] mg2000 37 points (+37|-0)

maybe because they themselves don’t necessarily have dysphoric reasons for transitioning and thus want to normalize everything. Agp, fetishes... everything.

[–] hard_headed_woman 19 points (+19|-0)

Ding, ding, ding!

This is the answer. They're almost all AGP, now. And they don't have to have dysphoria. Or take hormones. Or get surgery. Or even get rid of their beards. And they certainly make no attempt to hide their violent, aggressive tendencies and "act like a lady."

Whatever that is...

I think so, too. The loudest TRAs are APG, and they deny AGP exists even though it was intended by Blanchard as a rationale for why non-homosexual TIMs should be allowed to "transition". So they really only have their trans self-identification and they want it to be carte blanche.

[–] NotCis 3 points (+3|-0)

Why do they always take the positions that are utterly impossible to defend? They're so self-defeating.

[–] starwars 47 points (+47|-0)

I was expecting Wispa like incidents to happen, I wasn't expecting the widespread excusing of these type of crimes.

They excused Jonathan Yaniv and still defend his right to use the same bathrooms and locker rooms as little girls.

[–] vulvapeople 36 points (+36|-0)

I expected it. Trans is teflon, and it allows predatory men to identify into women's spaces, so, I figured, anytime a TIM harms a woman, she'd be even less believed than if she accused a regular man.

[–] Jade 9 points (+9|-0)

It’s the 2nd time I read “trans is teflon” and I have no idea what it means. “Nothing sticks to it”? Still don’t get it. 🙈

[–] Srfthrowaway 16 points (+16|-0)

It's a reference to John Gotti, a mob boss or "Don." He kept getting prosecuted and acquitted so he got the nickname "The Teflon Don" because criminal charges never stuck.

(Eventually they did though.)

[–] vulvapeople 1 points (+1|-0)

That is basically what it means. TIMs get protection from accusations and light punishments for crimes even most other men don't get. Women are also much more forgiving of bad behavior by TIMs compared to other men, so it often takes a lot just for an accusation to be made.

[–] IronicWolf 11 points (+11|-0)

Really, how far down the rabbit hole do you need to be to think ‘it’s not criminals’ fault the police caught them doing something against the law. It’s the police’s fault for noticing and society’s fault for thinking that breaking the law is bad’

Load more (1 comment)
[–] sconsolato [OP] 81 points (+81|-0) Edited

For anyone who cannot view the thread:

They are basically now saying that the Wi Spa Trans was never actually a predator, and never exposed himself to anyone. The charges that were made against him in the past were because he was homeless and working as a prostitute and he took a "lesser" charge of indecent exposure instead of the prostitution charge to stay out of trouble, but he was never actually a predator. They are now using this as a narrative for pity, saying that marginalized groups rarely see fair treatment in the criminal justice system, which is absolutely true, but this is not an example of those injustices.

It just makes very little sense to me, because a petty prostitution charge would never be seen as "more harsh" than a sex crime that would mandate lifetime sex offender registration. I (and I imagine most people) would take the prostitution misdemeanor and work to get the record expunged. Not to mention that these were several charges, not just a one time thing.

Is this not adding up for anyone else?

[–] spacykate 63 points (+63|-0)

I think they're going on the general lack of knowledge about how the criminal justice system works, plus propaganda by MRAs that you can be put on the sex offender list over something nonsensical.

[–] Cats4Science 12 points (+12|-0)

They absolutely don’t know the criminal justice system and are making ridiculous statements - like when he plead to indecent exposure he didn’t know he would be on the registry because it was a new law. This might have weight if Megan’s Law (the registry) was passed after the offense and was retroactive. But they even say that is not the case.

The reason this argument holds no weight is 1) Megan’s Law was passed in 1996; and, 2) the registry requirement is literally a part of an offenders sentence. It’s not a fine-print clause that takes people by surprise. If it was a plea deal, where he agrees with the sentencing and requirements in lieu of risking trial, he would be aware that he has to register prior to pleading guilty.

But they wanna do back flips.

[–] [Deleted] 53 points (+53|-0) Edited

The comments under @lisaquestions ‘investigative’ (read: wildly speculative) post are even more unhinged and sickening. TIMs saying five women plus a GIRL conspired with evangelical church to wrongly accuse this man after getting ahold of his criminal record to make trans people look bad and take away their rights. Alleging this man was never there in the first place, or if he was, Cubana Angel and the others lay in wait at the spa for him to come in so they could set him up. Just baseless, deranged, wildly misogynistic, genuinely terrifying accusations. It feels like there just isn’t a low these men won’t sink to in their attempt to silence gaslight discredit and abuse women and it’s so scary

[–] hedy 41 points (+41|-0)

Not to mention that these were several charges, not just a one time thing.

I am supposed to believe that he repeatedly was offered and took the not actually lesser charge of indecent exposure over prostitution? By different officers at different times? All conspiring to make sure the typical white man doing whatever tf he wants was extra marginalized?

Why would I believe that over the obvious conclusion that he's a fucking sexual predator?

[–] Galko 14 points (+14|-0)

I am supposed to believe that he repeatedly was offered and took the not actually lesser charge of indecent exposure over prostitution? By different officers at different times?

Just to make your argument more air tight, it's not the officers charging the guy, it's the prosecution who sets, changes, and can offer plea deals. If all his crimes happened in the same area, there's a slim possibility he could have faced the same prosecution team over and over again. However to add to that, the judge cannot accept a plea deal that's strictly worse for the defendant, that's codified in law throughout the USA. So we're back at he can't possibly take the harsher crime. He's a predator and there's no hiding it.

[–] sconsolato [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

It makes so little sense that I'm actually a bit worried for the people who believe it.

[–] Turtlefuzz Flairy Godmother 28 points (+28|-0)

It just makes very little sense to me, because a petty prostitution charge would never be seen as "more harsh" than a sex crime that would mandate lifetime sex offender registration.

I'm not a lawyer, but a quick look at the CA penal codes say that indecent exposure mandates the criminal register for the sex offender record.

Soliciting/engaging in prostitution does not.

So you are right on the money.

[–] Yemaya 70 points (+70|-0)

First he didn’t exist, now he’s a uwu poor victimized trans woman who was just trying to get by.

[–] Lysiena 74 points (+74|-0)

The Narcissist's Prayer never fails:

That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.

[–] Ozomene 11 points (+11|-0)

So are we are the “not my fault” bit now? Until more details are revealed.

[–] Every-Man-His-Own-Football 10 points (+10|-0) Edited

The first defense TRAs trotted out was that he's a bonafide trans laydee, who was in his right to be there, exposing his penis to women and girls. Only after TRAs noticed this line of argument wasn't going too well did they switch to claiming the sex pest didn't even exist.

[–] NotCis 7 points (+7|-0)

If poverty and hardship caused sex crimes, then women would commit sex crimes at higher rates than men. Doesn't happen.

[–] winterghost 50 points (+50|-0)

"actually he was homeless, so that means he can walk around with his half-hard dick on display" REALLY? is their line going to be turning this man into a martyr for some evil terven conspiracy?

[–] NoThankYou 20 points (+20|-0)

Arguing this with a transactivist yesterday I had them eventually concede that there should be some 'cis women only' spaces. But then they doubled down on the women-only nude area of this spa not being such a place because apparently the spa is 'trans-friendly', which I suppose means that men can waggle their dicks around anywhere with impunity.

Except, what about these indecent exposure charges then, I said, and the women there getting upset about being flashed. So they fell back on all these claims about what a poor, marginalised person he is, treated so unfairly. Like, what a way to deflect from the actual issue.

It just seems so bizarre and misguided that they're all rallying around this man to make a point about trans inclusion, as they're actively harming their own cause by doing so.

apparently the spa is 'trans-friendly', which I suppose means that men can waggle their dicks around anywhere with impunity.

Yep, the spa is mandated by California law to allow TIMs into the women's nude section based on gender self-ID.

[–] Jellyfishes 3 points (+3|-0)

some 'cis women only' spaces.

Let me guess, the only acceptable "cis woman"-only spaces are related to porn sites.

[–] ladybrainhaver 47 points (+47|-0)

Impressive mental gymnastics here. They will literally defend sexual predators before admitting that self-ID is dangerous for women.

[–] starwars 42 points (+42|-0)

They know it's dangerous but TRAs view violence and sexual assault against women as an inevitable part of women's lives, or as they usually describe it "people being mean to other people".
They're not at all upset that women and girls were sexually assaulted by this man. They're upset that women are putting up a fight instead of laying down like a doormat.

[–] bellatrixbells 41 points (+41|-0)

None of this matters, "Meryl".

Anyone with a dick is a predator if they enter female only spaces for any reason that isn't an emergency or related to their work specifically because he is knowledgeably intruding into non consenting women's privacy.

Period.

The fact that this man is a sex offender is just an aggravating factor.

Stay the fuck out. Going to a spa is not a need or a right, it's a luxury. And no, spas have no right to deny entry to anyone who can pay their fare like anyone else. That's true : however, getting to choose which single sex space you use is not a right, nor is it a luxury, it's a violation. Females using a single sex space have not consented to dicks, and neither you nor the spa should have a right to circumvent this lack of consent, so either use facilities for dick owners or don't go to a spa.

Otherwise fuck off.

[–] [Deleted] 22 points (+22|-0)

There’s a swimwear-mandatory mixed-sex area in the spa that everyone conveniently forgets about when accusing women of trying to violently ban this brave transwoman from the spa. He could have gone in the mixed sex area but no, he had to wave his dick around in front of girls

[–] bellatrixbells 2 points (+2|-0)

Absolutely right. This guy wanted to be naked in front of nonconsenting women and girls despite there being other options. Says a lot about him in any case.

[–] Inannani 7 points (+7|-0)

I need to hear this on a regular basis, it's so easy to forget, that we aren't being unreasonable for trying to establish boundaries.

[–] bellatrixbells 2 points (+2|-0)

Really. We're concerned about making an airtight case, but that makes us lose the basic : we don't need to justify ourselves for saying no to men.

[–] MinervaM 34 points (+34|-0)

It really demonstrates the "pronouns are rohypnol" argument.

  • she was homeless, she was working as a prostitute
  • he was homeless, he was working as a prostitute

When you use that she pronoun it does conjure up the idea of someone physically vulnerable, which Meager is not.

[–] MinervaM 41 points (+41|-0)

Also interesting how they are using the term prostitute to suggest vulnerability rather than the sanitizing term sex worker.

Women are sex workers, trans women are prostitutes

[–] Omina_Sentenziosa 10 points (+10|-0)

Prostitution is something bad only when it' s beneficial for them or when they need it to insult someone they don' t like.

[–] Yemaya 28 points (+28|-0)

It’s even more ridiculous when you look at his mugshot. He is so obviously male, he was not even making an attempt. Not that it would matter but it’s just ridiculous to see his hulk looking ass and then trying to make a narrative that he was a innocent vulnerable prostitute. He hasn’t even changed his name. But I guess TRAs would argue he was too homeless and poor to transition uwu

I read somewhere he is 6’2 and 200 lbs and to be in a spa with nude women with an erection. It really makes me sick that they are making him out to be the victim and not the women who were mostly like way more smaller than him.

[–] MinervaM 17 points (+17|-0)

One look at the mug shot really destroys the word painted illusion

[–] OneStarWolf 32 points (+32|-0)

Pathetic cherry picking by disingenuous TRAs. The dude is a repeat sex predator and thief 😴

[–] sconsolato [OP] 16 points (+16|-0)

A thief too? I missed that part!!

[–] BogHag 6 points (+6|-0)

Yeah, he stole like, art, wine, and a fancy car or some shit. As the homeless are wont to do.

[–] Emmeline 32 points (+32|-0)

Someone points out the “semi-erect penis” part of the allegations, to which is replied “often arousal reactions are not conscious or deliberate, and so far no one else who was there has come forward to confirm this narrative that’s somehow everywhere despite no actual evidence.” No, just the four women and a girl, and we can’t believe those evil transphobes, of course.

[–] ifelifelse 27 points (+27|-0) Edited

Kind of reminds me of places like Saudi Arabia where you need two women to even add up to the testimony of one man. Same misogyny, different place. Here not even four women and a minor child add up to the testimony of a (deranged!) man (with a criminal record!). at least this is just the “court of public opinion” and not our actual criminal justice system but….

[–] Gini 28 points (+28|-0) Edited

How does a poor homeless man have money to go to a spa? I'm not even homeless and i don't have the money for it.

How do burglaries, stolen vehicles and indecent exposure fit in the "poor homeless and harmless trans person" narrative?

Also LOL at them now thinking 4 Christian women and one child had a stake out at the spa and waited to enter it until a TIM was there. Went inside. Paid to enter. Got naked knowing there is a naked man in there. And then proceeded to "fake" freak out and film only the front desk.

Seriously what are they smoking because i never want to get near it.

Archive tweet https://archive.md/eQPOQ Lol at that linked thread https://archive.md/4PVrb

[–] Researcher1536 6 points (+6|-0)

These people love when other people are robbed, especially if the victim is wealthy, but would call the cops in .03 seconds if they were themselves victims of a robbery.

[–] Jellyfishes 3 points (+3|-0)

They would call the cops to arrest women who post things they disagree with online if they could.

Load more (26 comments)