Or police don’t report it as it is no longer a crime in several states. I mean, why would they?
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,021
In which state is exposing yourself in a public bathroom no longer a crime?
What is your definition of exposure? No, you won’t answer that. Can you at least concede that entact transwomen can legally walk around naked in women’s change rooms in a number of states?
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,021
Oh, let's say something like "the intentional, public display of one's genitals or other private body parts in a manner likely to offend or alarm others."
What thought process led you to the belief I wouldn't answer that?
I can agree it's true. I can't really concede it, since I never said otherwise. Can you concede that when you're talking bathrooms, it isn't remotely true?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
How people treat them (or use them) them is irrelevant. What IS relevant is how they are ALLOWED to use them.
Any male who uses the magic passphrase "I am a woman" is ALLOWED to just walk right in.
You were arguing earlier that there is no law forbidding males to access women's bathrooms. Now you are arguing there is
Which is it? Make up your mind
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The Wi Spa guy did exatly that... and the law ended up on his side?
Not a thought process, an observation... in this case, you have form!
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,021
You might want to look up de facto.
I'm not sure how you think this works. There's no wizard guarding the door.
There is a subset of males not expressly permitted to use the ladies' room. In practice, whether a crime is committed depends on your intentions, and how you respond to being trespassed.
If you accidentally walk into the women's room, for example, no crime has occurred.
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,021
The statutory definition will apply in specific jurisdictions. California's requires that the exposure be done for the purpose of sexual gratification.
That couldn't be shown, so it was the correct decision on the merits.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Back to the actual topic instead of all the bull-◊◊◊◊ nitpicking and posturing being indulged in by the trans-allies.
The arrest of Graham Linehan is likely about to backfire spectacularly on that grubby little teenage trouble-maker "Sophie" Brooks (a transgender identified man) and his vile supporting act "Lyndsey" Watson (another transgender identified man a.k.a Alex Horwood) who kicked up all this fuss because they were triggered by some hurty words Graham wrote on Twitter/X in April...... of LAST year.
archive.is
Good, and its about time! Once this goes through, no longer will scummy trans activists be able to go bleating to the cops about some hurty posts on social media in order to get them to do their dirty work. Their overreach is finally beginning to backfire on them ... ain't Karma a bitch!!
Maybe now the Police can get back doig the job - Policing streets instead of tweets. They can start addressing the car thefts, the burglaries, the shoplifting the car/bike jacking (all of which are rife in the UK's inner cities) and the rape grooming gangs that the UK government have been denying where a real thing for years, until finally this year, after huge pressure for the non-captured media, admitted they were "wrong" about (lying about more like).
The arrest of Graham Linehan is likely about to backfire spectacularly on that grubby little teenage trouble-maker "Sophie" Brooks (a transgender identified man) and his vile supporting act "Lyndsey" Watson (another transgender identified man a.k.a Alex Horwood) who kicked up all this fuss because they were triggered by some hurty words Graham wrote on Twitter/X in April...... of LAST year.
Change law so we can stop policing tweets, demands Met chief
archived 8 Sep 2025 07:53:43 UTC
Britain’s most senior police officer is to present the new Home Secretary with proposed law changes “within weeks” aimed at stopping officers from policing tweets, the Telegraph can disclose. Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Met Police, is proposing a shake-up of legislation that would give officers greater discretion to use “common sense” when deciding whether to record and investigate complaints about comments on social media.
He wants Shabana Mahmood, the new Home Secretary, to change the rules so police officers are not required to record or investigate complaints when there is no evidence the suspect intended real-world harm.
The changes could also significantly reduce the requirement for police to record and attend non-crime hate incidents, which have included cases such as a nine-year-old calling a primary school classmate a “retard”.
Good, and its about time! Once this goes through, no longer will scummy trans activists be able to go bleating to the cops about some hurty posts on social media in order to get them to do their dirty work. Their overreach is finally beginning to backfire on them ... ain't Karma a bitch!!
Maybe now the Police can get back doig the job - Policing streets instead of tweets. They can start addressing the car thefts, the burglaries, the shoplifting the car/bike jacking (all of which are rife in the UK's inner cities) and the rape grooming gangs that the UK government have been denying where a real thing for years, until finally this year, after huge pressure for the non-captured media, admitted they were "wrong" about (lying about more like).
Last edited:
You cannot decree that this thread has to be restricted to bathrooms. It might be convenient for you, but I don’t give a ◊◊◊◊.
Is that a real attempt to get an answer from women, or more mansplaining?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
As usual, addressing the arguer because you failed at addressing the argument... and resorting to ad-hominem attacks - the first and last refuge of the desperate.
Rolfe
Adult human female
The actual answer of course is, because he is somewhere he ought not to be, and if he's never challenged he'll go on doing it, so somebody needs to put on her big girl pants and say something.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,797
Some people absolutely do.
No there isn't. Any male is permitted to use them, by law. The law imposes a very minor condition on such use (you have to "identify" as a woman), but that is a condition which any male could satisfy, if they chose to do so. Hence, unisex with extra steps, the extra step being to choose to "identify" as a woman.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,797
Do you you see why that definition doesn't protect women from unwanted exposure if males can enter their bathrooms?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
How would you characterize this subset? Seems to me that anyone can opt out of it at any time, under the social conventions of gender ontology and under the antidiscrimination laws written atop them.
Thermal
August Member
You keep saying this, and it's simply not true. A cop, for instance, can at any time refuse to accept what he considers a deceptive excuse, for literally anything. For his reasoning, a NJ driver's license indicates gender, as does their other available public records the officer might have access to (arrest records, Firearm card, etc). From this alone, the cop can easily say that the has probable cause to believe the suspect is giving him false information. The prison system does this quite openly; they can say they don't believe (or don't even care) that a prisoner is trans.
The 'magic words' you guys rely on are imaginary. Police (and anyone else) can respond with the customary NJ response of '◊◊◊◊ off', and treat you like exactly what they perceive you as, by the reasonable person standard.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
They could do that, but what would the courts say about it? Not seeing anything in the relevant antidiscrimination law about licenses or any other official documentation being necessary or even indicative.
Thermal
August Member
You don't present an argument, so I just cheer the ongoing Poe performance and request an encore of your Greatest Hits.
See? Now you repeat Rolfe's earlier flub of not understanding logical fallacies.
Playing along: The informal logical fallacies rely on the structure of 'your argument is wrong because of <fallacious reasoning X>', in this case an ad hom. But that's not what i did. I simply mocked you, freestanding, for an argument which was entirely deserving of mockery.
The dimwitted among us think mockery/insult is an ad hom. It's not. That you incorporate it into your Poe performance is just artistry.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,797
Are you aware that in New Jersey anyone can freely change the gender on their license to male, female, or even "X" whenever they want?
These are just extra steps, but anyone can take them.
We were talking about bathrooms. Stricter rules on prisons are well and good, but they don't apply to bathrooms.