Prior convictions
In perhaps the clearest example of #ThisNeverHappens since Karen White, a serial sex offender has been charged with indecent assault over the Wi Spa incident.
As you may remember, in June, Wi Spa customer ‘Cubana Angel’ posted a viral video to social media from inside the Los Angeles spa in which she told a front desk employee that a man had exposed his penis in a female-only steam room to women and girls, only to be told that there was nothing staff could do because the man claimed to be transgender.
Which is the problem in a nutshell, isn’t it, as we’ve pointed out at least 7 trillion times. Men can claim to be transgender any time any place, so why wouldn’t sex offenders take advantage of the new Rule that we must never say “Like hell you are” under any circumstances?
New York Post writer Andy Ngo has revealed that Darren Agee Merager, 52, has been charged with five counts of indecent exposure over the incident. Ngo has disclosed additional details that are both shocking and entirely predictable at the same time.
It has emerged that four women and a female child have alleged that Merager was ‘partially erect’ when he exposed himself. Also, he is a tier-one registered sex offender with—among other felony convictions for sexual offences—two prior convictions of indecent exposure stemming from incidents in 2002 and 2003. In 2008, he was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender.
Incredibly, Darren is also currently facing six charges of indecent exposure over a women’s locker room incident at a swimming pool in 2018.
Now let’s ask him what his pronouns are.
Following that arrest, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department issued an internal flyer that stated: “Merager claims to identify as female so he can access women’s locker rooms and showers.”
He’d be a damn fool not to, wouldn’t he.
We keep saying this is how it works, and we keep being told we’re evil slags for saying it.
The author of the post, ripx4nutmeg, includes a bunch of screenshots of The Nation, The Independent, and other outlets saying it turned out to be a hoax and it caused anti-trans violence. Laurie Penny memorably observed that it’s rude to stare at penises in the women’s changing room.
Check out the LA Times version… *one* mention of a prior conviction buried in the article (seems he has a lot of other criminal charges too that didn’t get mentioned).
Why the fuck do activists defend people that prove them wrong?
When TRA’s would argue that the GC lie because “x never happens,” I would sometimes try to pin them down: “So you’re saying that if it did happen, it would be a problem?”
It seems like a no-brainer type question, but they’d immediately get cagey, sensing a trap, maybe. Which it often could be, if I chose to spring it. But mostly I just wanted them to think about the question and where their limits are. I wanted them to think about the concept of limits.
“No cis man would pretend to be transgender just to get access to women’s spaces because that kind of predator has toxic masculinity.” (actual argument)
If they did, would that be a problem?
“No, because you can’t blame transwomen for what isn’t their fault.”
If it was a transwoman then, would that be a problem?
“No, because it would only be a tiny, tiny minority.”
What percentage would it have to be, for you to consider it a problem?
I think a rare few TAs would pretty much sacrifice every woman to rape-by-trans in order to validate just one law-abiding transwoman, but the vast majority like to think they’ve got limits. Better they think where they draw a line, then.
Wish somebody would find that Butch Pornstache guy who butted in and tried to lecture the woman at the spa – ask him what he thinks now about how these women and kids should feel about men in their spaces.,
This is accurate. Scope shifts to population-level in order to avoid engaging with the act-level question.
Serial rapists are only a tiny minority of the population, too, but we consider them a problem. Murderers are a tiny minority of the population, but we consider them a problem. Only a tiny minority is a stupid argument, though I am sure I don’t have to say that to anyone here.
Maybe just to a tiny minority of the people here. ;-)
For this argument, yes. But “tiny minorities” cuts in both directions. We’re being asked to remake the language, and erase women at the behest of “a tiny minority.” A tiny minority that wraps itself in the title of “most oppressed ever,” while basking in the unearned, disproportionate power and influence afforded to it through the mechanism of institutional capture. A tiny minority that demands “kindness” and “inclusion,” and then viciously excludes and replaces the members of the very class that they are attempting to usurp.
iknklast:
Partly because it’s yet another example of equivocation, this time on “problem”. One can say that something is a “problem” or not based on its features. Alternatively, one could say that something is a “problem” or not based on its society-level impact. For instance, one could say that murder by cheese grater is a problem (i.e., causes unjust harm) while simultaneously say that murder by cheese grater isn’t a problem (i.e., it isn’t a pressing issue at the societal level).
Because they don’t want to give even the slightest ground by saying that a male’s exposing his semi to children is a problem, they equivocate on “problem”.
This won’t really change anything though, will it? A normal person’s “man exposing his penis to women and girls in a female only space” is a TRA’s “trans woman suffering discrimination based on the shape of her genitalia”. If TWAW, then there is absolutely argument for keeping males out of women’s spaces. That’s why the mantra is so important to them.
The only thing that surprises me about this is
That the LASD didn’t put a comma in that sentence.
I have only now got around to reading the New York Post piece. I can’t stop laughing at “The Wi Spa came under fire in June after letting a person who identified as female walk around with male genitalia.”
“Excuse me, ma’am, but if you wish to enter the women’s steam room, I’m afraid you will have to leave your penis at the door”