Karma? How about a false equivalence? Suggest you go over the data and points presented by Sousa about the dangers of men in women's toilets and locker rooms. Perhaps also research, or even simply ask yourself, why feminists may have wanted access to men's locker rooms: Was it, as Sousa's data demonstrate for men (including trans-identifying), to commit voyeurism, expose themselves, reaffirm claims that they were actually men, or to sexually assault men and boys? Doubt it.
Using the word ‘bathroom’ when we actually mean ‘toilet’ is still jarring for me. It has spread from North America to the rest of the world. It’s actually privacy for using a toilet that is the issue for women and girls around the world. Men in changing rooms are still not accessing a ‘bathroom’ as such. Sorry for being pedantic, but historically women have fought for single sex toilets in schools, workplaces, etc. bathroom to me means a room with a bath or shower, or both. We don’t usually need those, we need toilets.😀
Yes, I hear you. And thank you for the comment. I welcome women being "pedantic." Or being however they choose when they are passionate about the cause of women and girls! I appreciate it!
I love this! But one historical thing you should be aware of, Amy, is that the best term to use is "suffragists," not "suffragettes." This was something I learned in a presentation about the fight for women's voting rights in the US. the activists called themselves "suffragists," but their opponents coined the term "suffragettes," using the feminine diminutive suffix to mock them.
While I as a father girls myself and 100% against this non-sense of allowing males to claim they are women to access women's spaces and participate in women's sports I can't help but ponder if this is not in some way karma. How so?
IN the 80s and 90's the women's movement was demanding access to traditionally male only species INCLUDING locker rooms. A female sportscaster sued to gain access to the men's locker room so this is a fair comparison.
If its wrong for men to be doing this today, then why was it not wrong for women to do this in the before?
I don't think that a very few female sportscasters accessing interviews with the biggest and strongest men--professional sports players is the same as vulnerable women and girls being accessed by thousands of men who claim they are trans. The threat and vulnerability are much different.
When has there been thousands of men pretending to be women in a woman's locker room? From all I've seen and read its typically 1, occasionally 2 where as my example with the football men's locker room and the female sports caster their Is normally dozens of men to the one female at least at the beginning of everyone hitting the locker room.
As for safety how is one woman in a locker room of football players "safe"? I mean I doubt she'd get beat up or assaulted as long as the men's locker room is full but what of its just one or 2 guys who believe they can do whatever they want with a women? That's not far fetched to imagine considering the number of pro athletes who have assaulted women outside the locker room.
So the double standard with this is OK? That's not "equality". Women have for decades been demanding equality. Saying it's OK for women to be in means locker room but not for men to be in a woman's locker room is NOT equality. I am still against this trans garbage but I do find it very hypocritical to argue its Ok for one but not the other.
I still don't think your analogy is valid. The women sportscasters demanded the same access to interview the athletes as their male counterparts had. The sport franchises could have created a different process for after-game interviews, like making the reporters wait until the athletes came into an interview room. The women sportscasters were protected by the fact that they were on camera; they weren't randomly stepping into just any men's locker room. They weren't claiming to BE men and therefore entitled to go in there any time they wanted, the way today's "trans women" are.
It's not a double standard, because the men calling themselves trans women and demanding access to women's locker rooms ARE claiming to be women, and they're not there to do a job. If they were wanting to interview women athletes after a game, that would be a parallel situation. I don't know what the WNBA does about male reporters interviewing their athletes, but equality would be having the same access to interview those athletes as their women colleagues do. It would not be having access at all times, nor would it be claiming to be women.
KARMA - destiny or fate, following as effect from cause. Thee "cause" being in the 80s and 90s women demanded access to male only spaces including locker rooms. The effect being years later the inverse occurs wit the exception that the men entering females spaces and locker rooms pretend to be women.
That very much fits the definition of Karma. Again I am not in agreement with them doing this but I find it very hypocritical that women refuse to acknowledge that neither sexy should be accessing the other sex's spaces that are supposed to be for that sex only. Its not just this either.
Women, young women. often will use the men's restroom at events like concerts of a fair; I've witnessed it several times. Their doing that That seems to be A-OK but if a man just accidentally entered the wrong restroom he could face dealing with the law where as no women using a men's rest room would ever face the same penalty.
Men typically aren't bothered and don't care about women engaging in this hypocritical behavior because were more laid back but since women have been demanding equality for decades, but don't want that to be applicable everywhere is very much hypocritical.
And I do have a life of a 21 year marriage (only 1 marriage) wit 2 wonderful daughters that I would o whatever I needed to protect them from insane men who pretend to be women but I also can see the hypocrisy in this, the double-standard that can be found in many other things aside from locker rooms and bathrooms.
Karma? How about a false equivalence? Suggest you go over the data and points presented by Sousa about the dangers of men in women's toilets and locker rooms. Perhaps also research, or even simply ask yourself, why feminists may have wanted access to men's locker rooms: Was it, as Sousa's data demonstrate for men (including trans-identifying), to commit voyeurism, expose themselves, reaffirm claims that they were actually men, or to sexually assault men and boys? Doubt it.
Using the word ‘bathroom’ when we actually mean ‘toilet’ is still jarring for me. It has spread from North America to the rest of the world. It’s actually privacy for using a toilet that is the issue for women and girls around the world. Men in changing rooms are still not accessing a ‘bathroom’ as such. Sorry for being pedantic, but historically women have fought for single sex toilets in schools, workplaces, etc. bathroom to me means a room with a bath or shower, or both. We don’t usually need those, we need toilets.😀
Yes, I hear you. And thank you for the comment. I welcome women being "pedantic." Or being however they choose when they are passionate about the cause of women and girls! I appreciate it!
I love this! But one historical thing you should be aware of, Amy, is that the best term to use is "suffragists," not "suffragettes." This was something I learned in a presentation about the fight for women's voting rights in the US. the activists called themselves "suffragists," but their opponents coined the term "suffragettes," using the feminine diminutive suffix to mock them.
Ahhhh…. thank you so much! I appreciate the note!
In the UK, women campaigning for the vote embraced the word suffragette and it's now the commonest descriptor (yes, early opponents used as slur):
https://www.britannica.com/video/difference-suffragist-suffragette/-259238
Interesting. Maybe this is something that over 100 years later it really doesn't matter; that both terms are equally OK for modern audiences.
Great article: typo noted.
"In many places this change has taken place with no pubic commentary, debate, or due process."
While I as a father girls myself and 100% against this non-sense of allowing males to claim they are women to access women's spaces and participate in women's sports I can't help but ponder if this is not in some way karma. How so?
IN the 80s and 90's the women's movement was demanding access to traditionally male only species INCLUDING locker rooms. A female sportscaster sued to gain access to the men's locker room so this is a fair comparison.
If its wrong for men to be doing this today, then why was it not wrong for women to do this in the before?
I don't think that a very few female sportscasters accessing interviews with the biggest and strongest men--professional sports players is the same as vulnerable women and girls being accessed by thousands of men who claim they are trans. The threat and vulnerability are much different.
When has there been thousands of men pretending to be women in a woman's locker room? From all I've seen and read its typically 1, occasionally 2 where as my example with the football men's locker room and the female sports caster their Is normally dozens of men to the one female at least at the beginning of everyone hitting the locker room.
As for safety how is one woman in a locker room of football players "safe"? I mean I doubt she'd get beat up or assaulted as long as the men's locker room is full but what of its just one or 2 guys who believe they can do whatever they want with a women? That's not far fetched to imagine considering the number of pro athletes who have assaulted women outside the locker room.
So the double standard with this is OK? That's not "equality". Women have for decades been demanding equality. Saying it's OK for women to be in means locker room but not for men to be in a woman's locker room is NOT equality. I am still against this trans garbage but I do find it very hypocritical to argue its Ok for one but not the other.
I still don't think your analogy is valid. The women sportscasters demanded the same access to interview the athletes as their male counterparts had. The sport franchises could have created a different process for after-game interviews, like making the reporters wait until the athletes came into an interview room. The women sportscasters were protected by the fact that they were on camera; they weren't randomly stepping into just any men's locker room. They weren't claiming to BE men and therefore entitled to go in there any time they wanted, the way today's "trans women" are.
It's not a double standard, because the men calling themselves trans women and demanding access to women's locker rooms ARE claiming to be women, and they're not there to do a job. If they were wanting to interview women athletes after a game, that would be a parallel situation. I don't know what the WNBA does about male reporters interviewing their athletes, but equality would be having the same access to interview those athletes as their women colleagues do. It would not be having access at all times, nor would it be claiming to be women.
Absolutely not the same. Karma has nothing to do with men’s access to women’s spaces. Get a grip
KARMA - destiny or fate, following as effect from cause. Thee "cause" being in the 80s and 90s women demanded access to male only spaces including locker rooms. The effect being years later the inverse occurs wit the exception that the men entering females spaces and locker rooms pretend to be women.
That very much fits the definition of Karma. Again I am not in agreement with them doing this but I find it very hypocritical that women refuse to acknowledge that neither sexy should be accessing the other sex's spaces that are supposed to be for that sex only. Its not just this either.
Women, young women. often will use the men's restroom at events like concerts of a fair; I've witnessed it several times. Their doing that That seems to be A-OK but if a man just accidentally entered the wrong restroom he could face dealing with the law where as no women using a men's rest room would ever face the same penalty.
Men typically aren't bothered and don't care about women engaging in this hypocritical behavior because were more laid back but since women have been demanding equality for decades, but don't want that to be applicable everywhere is very much hypocritical.
And I do have a life of a 21 year marriage (only 1 marriage) wit 2 wonderful daughters that I would o whatever I needed to protect them from insane men who pretend to be women but I also can see the hypocrisy in this, the double-standard that can be found in many other things aside from locker rooms and bathrooms.