How to tell everyone you don't know what assault looks like without saying you don't know what assault looks like.
He tried to take her back pack, then he grabbed her by the arm. That is assault, she defended herself by ending the confrontation quickly.
Common assault, not assault with intent to injure, by your description. NZ law does require proportional response, which it seems your daughter may not be on the happy side of. But again, I'm asking you to tell the story consistently, in one version. If you are going to mention it every few pages, you should be able to give the same version, not 5 or 6 different ones.
Also, he was a man in the women's restroom.
Yes, which was perfectly legal, I take it? You describe your daughters as being in their early 40s. The Human Rights Act of 1993 was enacted over thirty years ago. So unless your daughters were 10 (or younger?) in your recounting, those transpeople were allowed to be where they were under your laws.
Claiming to be a TIM doesn't make him immune from a kick in the nuts when he tries to assault a woman.
Agreed. I just acknowledge the criminality of it, and don't try to blame someone else.
Spoken like a true Transgender Activist...framing an assault on a woman as the woman being mean to a poor tranny flower . Showing your true colours now aren't you!
I'm recounting your own version. I don't think you stopped to consider what you were typing. Your older daughter harassed a transperson who was allowed to be where they were. She was armed with an illegal weapon when she did so, and used it, then fled (or stayed and chatted with management and police, depending on which version you are telling).
As I have said before, no-one cares what the laws are in your tiny neck of the backwoods. They don't apply here.
Yes, I just said that. Oh, and 'tiny neck of the backwoods'? LOL! My US State has nearly double the population and nearly triple the GDP of your whole ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ country, and is shouldered between NYC and Philly. One of us is tiny and in the backwoods, for sure. But at least you are punching up.
Your framing of this is so twisted, I'm surprised you can even post this with a straight face.
It was a who was somewhere he had no right to be.
Are you saying this happened prior to 1993, then? Because as you're telling it, the transperson had both the legal right to be there, and was in compliance with the management's policy. Only your illegally armed daughter who harrased the transperson and provoked a confrontation was in the wrong.
This man only claimed to be trans AFTER being challenged for being a man in the women's changing room. My daughter (rightly IMO) perceived his response as just an excuse for being there.
Oh, a new version! What's this one, #7? Now they weren't trans at all, but opportunistic criminals. Which is odd, because earlier you said:
... my daughters, both of whom were aggressively accosted by transwomen...
... both of my daughters (in their early 40's both of whom have been confronted by verbally nasty and aggressive transwomen in women's safe spaces) ...
But in this new version, they weren't even transwomen at all!
...and then when he committed an ASSUALT against another woman, my daughter acted in defence of that woman. (yes, like you, we have laws that allow defence of another).
Ours allow defense to stop an attack, and no more. By your recounting, the transwomen (or regular guys, I'm not sure which version you are on at the moment) were not attacking or threatening to do so. A shove or 'attempted grab' is schoolyard bull ◊◊◊◊, and does not warrant assault with intent to injure, and certainly not with illegal concealed weapons.
Now, as is usual with you, you have ignored who and what I was responding to the content of my posts about the assults, and snipped out the context. You do this a lot!!
No. You brought up the ever changing daughter attacks again, and I asked you to clarify so that they made sense in any context. I only chose that one because it was the most recent version, although you have given a new one now, where they weren't even transwomen. Except for the versions where they were. It's "confusing".
This gave the post the neccessary context that it was about the dangers of selfID. You snipped this bit out in order to allow you to framce it as an attack by women on a couple of poor, defenseless snowflakes. You make me want to puke!
Oh, it was about the dangers of selfID?Gee, seems like you would have mentioned that the guys were not trans, but opportunistically exploiting the selfID provision. Slipped your mind, did it? Or did you just make that one up yesterday?
These men you are so despserate to defend gave NO outward appearance of being anything other than males being in a place where they had no right to be, who then played the "I'm trans" card when challenged for it. THAT is the danger that women face when selfID happens.
Except when you say they are transwomen when you want to portray transwomen as dangerous criminals.
