I’ve heard that would NEVER happen.
1 Like
Yeah, I’ve heard that too. Sexual predators have too much… honor? pride?
I’m not exactly sure what magical force prevents sexual predators from taking advantage of rules that make it easier to go about sexually predating, but I’ve also been assured a number of times that it wouldn’t ever happen.
1 Like
Yeah kinda makes an argument for not allowing anyone with a penis into the women’s locker room.
1 Like
Someone who looks like you (possibly only after using prosthetic makeup) committed a crime. I assume you are okay with having your freedoms curtailed to make sure you don’t commit the same crime.
Some quotes:
Darren Agee Merager was charged Monday with five counts of indecent exposure, relating to an incident inside the Wi Spa on June 23, according to a news release issued by the Los Angeles Police Department. The next day, a viral video emerged alleging a customer had exposed their penis in front of people inside the Wi Spa.
The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment or provide a copy of the criminal complaint against Merager, whom police described as a 52-year-old Riverside County resident.
…
Police said she has a criminal history. Merager has been a registered sex offender since 2006 as a result of convictions for indecent exposure in 2002 and 2003, according to the LAPD.
And from the Post article:
But on Monday, charges of indecent exposure were discreetly filed against a serial sex offender for the Wi Spa incident, following an investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department.
Sources with knowledge of the case but not authorized to speak publicly say four women and a minor girl came forward to allege that Darren Agee Merager was partially erect in the women’s section of Wi Spa. Besides being a suspect in this case, Merager is facing multiple felony charges of indecent exposure over a separate incident in Los Angeles.
Merager, who spoke exclusively to The Post, denies the allegations and says that she is actually the victim of transphobic harassment.
…
“Everything about the Wi Spa was a bunch of garbage and lies,” Merager said in an interview. She says she is legally female in California and was in a jacuzzi in the women’s section when she was accosted by “Cubana Angel.”“She never saw me naked. I was underwater with water all the way up to my chest.” Merager denies ever being erect or around children at the spa. She says she is actually the victim of sexual harassment by transphobic women at the Wi Spa.
…
Law-enforcement sources revealed that Merager is a tier-one registered sex offender with two prior convictions of indecent exposure stemming from incidents in 2002 and 2003 in California. She declined to comment on the convictions. In 2008, she was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender.
Honestly, she sounds sympathetic to me, transwoman who is lured into female spaces by laws that saw she’s allowed there, and then gets accused of exposure…until
She also has a long criminal history in California that includes nearly a dozen felony convictions for crimes ranging from sex offenses to burglary and escape.
I suppose we’ll ultimately have testimony from other women at the spa as to whether she was standing there flaunting her penis or reclining in a hot tub. That seems like an awfully important distinction.
It’s. It’s really what drives whether this is a case of a criminal, or just a person trying to live their life. There’s signs of it being the first one, but no final evidence.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that it’s a criminal. Some of the convictions aren’t even tangentially related to transgenderism, so someone who’s committed what we probably all agree “should be” treated as crimes.
Whether it’s a criminal just trying to live their life or a sexual predator who is taking advantage of the rules to get their jollies is a different question.
Also at issue is what rights convicted criminals should have in locker rooms (Same as everyone else? Less?), whether the rules should be the same for sexually based offenses vs non-sexually based offenses, and whether this particular person’s sexually based offenses were truly justified or all a big misunderstanding.
Take transgenderism out of it for a minute. Should a man convicted of raping boys who’s served his time be permitted in a male locker room? Obviously if he wasn’t an ex-con there would be no question. I’m not sure that, given his criminal record, he should be allowed in the men’s locker room.
And he has other restrictions, certainly. He can’t get a job as a PE teacher at the local junior high, for example. I’m not sure Uber or Lyft would let him drive for them.
What if his crime was sexual assault? Regular assault? Breaking & entering? Graffiti?
How do you balance society’s rights with convicted criminals who may not be completely rehabilitated? Where should the line be?
2 Likes
I seem to have missed the point where all areas became unisex, and males were allowed into female naked places whenever they want?
Alternatively, I might not understand whatever you’re trying to say.
“An argument for not allowing anyone with a penis into the women’s bathroom” based on the crime of one individual means that you are restricting the freedoms (whether those freedoms are currently legally protected or not) of a group of people to make sure that they don’t do the same thing.
I assume that if someone is in favour of that for other groups of people, then they should also be in favour of having their own freedoms curtailed for crimes someone like them (or pretending to be like them) commit.
Feel free to exclude all females from spaces where males are naked on the basis of one misbehaving vulva-haver. I’m perfectly fine with that.
Otherwise, it rather sounds like you think that any man who wishes should be entitled to look at naked women, whether they want them to or not… and that those men should be entitled to expose their male genitalia to women, regardless of whether those women consent to it or not.
1 Like
Well it seems that in CA if a woman goes into an area where women get naked amongst themselves, they are consenting to being exposed to the male genitalia of transwomen.
1 Like
IFYP.
1 Like
To be equivalent to my example, it would be all the males excluded from space, not the females.
As far as what I think, I don’t think any man should be entitled to look at naked women in restrooms and expose their genitals there. I think that any cis gendered person doing this should be arrested. However, I don’t think that trans women should be stopped from using the restrooms due to the crimes of these others that often have very little to do with them.
I think your correction is equivalent to saying that going outside you have no choice in whether you will be exposed to the male genitalia of transwomen any and all male-bodied persons, up to and including cis-gendered registered sex offenders due to the existence of streakers.
Huh? Streaking is illegal in most places.
I don’t believe there is any law preventing a cis-gendered male registered sex offender from going into a women’s locker room and stripping down and enjoying the view. At least, not in CA. The spa/gym isn’t allowed to question his gender identity.
The article linked in the other thread in a now-deleted post pointed out that unless a man is literally shouting “I identify as male” at the exact moment he is in there, he cannot be prevented from going in the women’s locker room.
1 Like
I’m not familiar with the full details on this case but I thought that the person in question was charged with a crime and the case hadn’t been decided yet.
My preference would be to find a way of defining the law so that trans women would not be adversely affected and yet people could still be charged with crimes for inappropriate behaviour.
He can’t be immediately identified as male, but apparently he can be prosecuted after the fact, seeing as charges seem to have been filled against this person.
I assume that whether her legal identity is female, and whether she commonly identifies as female will come up in the trial. If it turns out her neighbors and coworkers all think she’s a woman or a man is likely to come up in evidence.
A woman i know slightly, in my mother’s generation, was upset that dorms had become co-ed. How do you keep out sexual predators, she asked. She had been assaulted in college by her freshman roommate, a lesbian, who…i forget the exact details, but fondled her in the bathtub, i think. I replied that sexually assaulting your dorm-mates was not considered acceptable, male or female. And it’s behavior that matters, not sex or gender.
That’s why i think it’s going to be important what this woman was doing in the spa. If, as she claims, she was lounging in a hot tub, (and has a history of publicly identifying as female) then i hope this case is dismissed as transphobia. If it turns out that the person was prominently displaying her penis, not just disrobing to do spa stuff, (or is really a cis man) then i expect the prosecution will succeed.
How is this proved?
1 Like
I hope that the outcomes of the case are as you describe.
I’d go with this.