Add new comment

I am taking a stance that is congruous with the coalition active around all this on the streets of L.A., which is or was, broadly speaking, "leftist" and/or composed mostly of leftists. That's just... what's happening here. I think my philosophical perspective is pretty different from a lot of other people you'd find on that side, though. A lot of them probably did take a position in this that was more easily "falsiable", because they were invested in the truth that what happened on Wi Spa was definitely a hoax or whatever.

Anyway, regarding this really sick and fucked up incident, obviously I'd have said "exposed her johnson", not what you said, lol

In your example, of the rhetoric I'm doing versus your "exposed [her] fully erect penis to women AND little girls”, like, again, I sort of don't buy into this whole "exposure" thing philosophically when it comes to an area where it is expected and/or normal that people have their clothes off, I am not committed to the truth that anything was "fully erect", and while it's good rhetorical strategy to bring up The Children, kids don't care about merely seeing girldick. They're not going to be upset, or psychologically scarred, or whatever, until their parents tell them that they need to be.

As I've said, I'm open to the possibility that the person who sparked all this had uncool intentions. Perhaps she was doing something genuinely alarming, like talking up prepubescent girls while meatspinning. Anything is possible. I am concerned about the previous convictions; I cannot help but be. A lot of people on the rightist side, though, would take issue with any pre-op (or honestly, post-op too) trans woman in the women's section of any spa, including one, like Wi Spa, that has an explicitly trans-exclusive policy. They would define any such person as a flasher, a molester, etc. as a matter of course - pretty much anything they can get to stick. And... that's bad, and I'm against it