Woman Goes Off After Seeing A Transgender Man Exposing Himself In Front Of Little Girls At A Spa

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: infolurker
Get used to this ladies. This is what our nation is turning into. In this case a man decided to go to the ladies only Spa and expose himself to the women and little girls. This used to be illegal and would land you on a registry. Now any man can claim he is "transgender" and enjoy access.

An entertaining watch as a "man" tries to explain to the women how unfair they are for complaining... LOL

Watch the video.
Look up the actual California law.
Not that difficult.

But hey, defend the one who sexually abused a child.

The question you're being asked but are refusing to answer is what was the nature of the exposure?

Did they jump out from behind the lockers and waive it in the girl's face, or did the kid catch a glimpse of some nob as they got changed in a communal area.

Context matters.

Was the exposure deliberate or accidental, did they know that the kid was there, are we talking a flasher or a wardrobe malfunction?

I posted the video.

California law is not subjective on this.
Sorry you people don't seem to understand this.
It is criminal activity.

Where this sort of thing involves children of any gender, my forgiveness meter zeroes out.

That is a molester. Period, end of discussion. In all likelihood, he's a predator. This will not have been the first time he's done it, nor, unless something happens, will it be the last. Eventually, he'll do something far worse, if he hasn't already.

Were those kids mine, death would soon find this person.

Nope, not nice. Nope, don't care. I'd take that damage to my soul.

a reply to: BrokenCircles who knows what you call them . It’s whatever they want to “identity as”. What if I had a male anatomy and “identify as a dog”. Would it be ok for me to romp around the street naked sticking my dick in all the females dogs? Can I stretch one leg out , balls exposed to urinate on a fire hydrant?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Your incredible misinterpretation of my points of discussion that lead you to even make an accusation like that tell me that any further discussion with you on this topic and likely any other would bring no positive results for either of us. That is of course not taking into account that you might just get your jollies from calling people ''pedo''. What a thrill for you huh?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Maybe I missed it, are you condemning the man who exposed his junk to little girls?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Cue the semantic gymnastics.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: DBCowboy

Cue the semantic gymnastics.

Honestly, when is it ever appropriate to expose male genitalia to little girls?

a reply to: DBCowboy

After it’s been cut off as an act of vengeance.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I have posted quite a few replies in this thread that explain my observations on this topic that, yes, you may have missed. What I have attempted to do throughout is call into question the whole narrative presented by that simple video,

We have that video and the claims made by that seemingly irate woman. We have the information that this spa has three types of involvement, male, female, and coed. We do not know where this women and her children were. We do not have video of the event that she claims was ''exposing''. We have none of that.

Judging and condemning on one piece of evidence may be fine by your standards but not by mine.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: DBCowboy

Cue the semantic gymnastics.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: DBCowboy

I have posted quite a few replies in this thread that explain my observations on this topic that, yes, you may have missed. What I have attempted to do throughout is call into question the whole narrative presented by that simple video,

We have that video and the claims made by that seemingly irate woman. We have the information that this spa has three types of involvement, male, female, and coed. We do not know where this women and her children were. We do not have video of the event that she claims was ''exposing''. We have none of that.

Judging and condemning on one piece of evidence may be fine by your standards but not by mine.

So you won't condemn a man exposing his penis to little girls.

'Kay.

An even bigger problem is the soiboi with the misfits tattoo. He even smugly tells the woman she’s being a dick.
It’s fascinating to me that he doesn’t even stop to think twice about shaming and mansplaining to her why she’s not a victim.

If you can’t see that this is a cult then you are in said cult.

We never stop to think “maybe these people are defending criminals because they’re also criminals”.

Evil only exists because we allow it to.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: DBCowboy

Cue the semantic gymnastics.

Honestly, when is it ever appropriate to expose male genitalia to little girls?

It is not.
They would like to make it so.
They are sick.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Judging and condemning on one piece of evidence may be fine by your standards but not by mine.

Uh
You do know there is this invention called post history?
You condemned the bad orange man repeatedly with NO actual evidence.

Try harder.

a reply to: DBCowboy

As usual, your strong desire to be judge and jury exceeds your capacity to evaluate the facts presented to you.

Here is the most recent example of your rush to judgment.

You asked, and let me quote you here

are you condemning the man who exposed his junk to little girls?

I believe that was you who asked that specific question. I then did my best to reply to that question which I pointed out did not warrant a judgment of ''yes or no'' as you requested.

You then replied above with this final judgment

So you won't condemn a man exposing his penis to little girls.

So you condemn me for not answering a question that

YOU DID NOT EVEN ASK

a reply to: shooterbrody

Oh please, you have to bring him into it? We had and continue to have as evidence way more than four years of that fools comic impersonation of ''Great Leader'' to evaluate him by. By contrast, all we have of this incident is one ranting woman's video.

Good lord! One could write a "prophetic book" on this BS!
I already read it, a couple times, .... I know how it ends.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Did they allow this person in or did this person enter on the presumption that female only meant transperson too and all transpeople, not just fully transitioned ones?

But the female only spa meant only physically female, and not just feeling female?

Right, we do not know either the motive or the presumptions or even the real possibility of accidental exposure of these children to the genitals of the opposite sex.

To your second point I agree completely. Physically female is one thing. Feeling female is quite another. If the process has been completed and all the ''nasties'' removed or added accordingly then we have a female. As I see it, having a Johnson with tits is still a male

a reply to: murphy22

Yeah, kinda makes me wish I had not posted after you. But now I will just have to leave and at least end my own involvement. Thanks.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Mutilating your penis makes you a woman?

Okey dokey then.