Communities v corners
Slate’s trans guru Evan Urquhart had to correct a sleazy piece she wrote for Slate in July about the Wi spa exhibitionist.
Update, Sept. 2, 2021: The New York Post reports that on Aug. 30, “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.” The accused, Darren Agee Merager, denied the allegations in an interview with the Post, but indicated that she plans to turn herself in to authorities.
“She” is a man – a man who preys on women.
Urquhart tells us in the July piece that the police were treating the Wi spa incident as a hoax.
Soon after the video began to go viral in transphobic corners of the internet, members of the trans community began to raise questions about it…
Not trans people, you notice, but “members of the trans community,” as if they’re all members of a club. “Victims of the trans cult” would be more accurate.
I’ve figured out one of the things that irks me so much about this situation.
I remember not so long ago when nice liberals used to say “believe women.”
In this case, they didn’t. A woman said that a man was exposing himself to everybody in the women’s section, and nice liberals went full-on supercilious wokebro on her.
These glorious heroes of the oppressed, the trans, did even worse.
What happened to “believe women?”
And what happened to being opposed to racism, being opposed to classism, being opposed to sexism? Because the woman who made the video is a person of color who sports what would readily be identified in America as a lower-class accent.
Look at that pale, mustachioed rich dude invalidating her complaint in the video. That’s the person the nice liberals believed. Not her.
TRA’s could say that these charges of indecent exposure and the previous convictions from a similar incident are examples of harassment of transwomen. This Merager person claims to have been in a hot tub and not parading around with a semi-erect penis.
However, the reports mention other “sex offenses” as in:
“She (sic) 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.”
What were these “sex offenses”? Knowledge about those would go a long way to establishing just how much of a predator this person is. This could peak a lot more people.
Remember when Evan was still calling herself a lesbian, and commented here? She opined that if gender identity wasn’t innate, all women would just identify as men to avoid discrimination.
Heh, are you kidding? Of course I remember – she’s the one who wrote that shitty piece about me for Slate. Naturally I have a low opinion of her! (But she was intelligent and interesting back then. Now, not so much.)
Police filed charges discreetly – those damn sneaks!
Yes I seem to remember TRAs accusing the uploader of the video of staging a hoax with a male accomplice, with zero supporting evidence. If it happened at all, which was also offered as an explanation with zero evidence.
___
That was thrown out when they objected to the attempts to redefine what a woman was. The shrewish bitches.
Believe women is still very much in effect I think, so long as it can get a “problematic” person chucked under a bus. Just doesn’t apply when gender goblins are involved.
Down the memory hole with Schrodinger’s rapist.
… and “the online abuse of women is a bad thing.”
Something I will never understand is how people put ideological commitments ahead of a commitment to truth. Oh, I can understand it in the sense that I can describe its cause, manifestation, and function, and I can do that at great length from multiple perspectives. What I can’t do is put myself in their place and genuinely empathize, to feel what they feel as they suborn the evidence of their senses and all that they have learned and inferred to doctrinal or dogmatic demands. No matter how I force its submission, my mind rebels.
BKiSA, it doesn’t apply when that problematic person is a white male Republican, especially if he is nominated for the Supreme Court. And, in honor of Clarence Thomas, I will note that it doesn’t apply for black male Republicans nominated to the Supreme Court, either.
I guess it’s just yet more evidence that the reasoning is almost entirely expedient. When talking about something we’re against, we refer to problematics and privilege and power. When talking about something we’re for, all those things can get fucked.
Reminds me of the religious attitude toward scientific evidence vis-a-vis the historicity of the Bible or the existence of God. Or the classic: “When your original Hebrew agrees with my King James, it’s correct. When your original Hebrew disagrees with my King James, it’s incorrect.”
Amazingly (not amazingly) some people are using this incident as proof that self-ID totally works.
You see, the women in the spa noticed that the guy wasn’t a real trans person, reported it and the police acted! Which means self-ID is totally fine!
I’m not going to do the obvious thing and point out either the many layers of faulty reasoning or the bleak logical conclusion.
Lady M’s reference to Shroedinger’s Rapist reminds me that the Wi Spa incident appears to be a case of Shroedinger’s Trans Person. Any male-bodied person in a women’s space exists in a state of quantum indeterminacy until their criminal history and subjective intent is known, at which point the waveform collapses and we can declare that they are a True Trans Woman (and therefore a Woman), or Not a True Trans Woman (and therefore a Man).
Of course, just as many men howled in outrage at the thought that many women regard all men as possible rapists, we have those howling in outrage at the thought that someone who claims to be trans could be regarded as a possible Man.