An 80-year-old woman in Washington State has reportedly been banned from her local YMCA after she demanded that a transgender staff member, who was overseeing a
“YMCA’s Marketing and Communications Manager, speaking with The Post Millennial, claims Jaman wasn't banned for this incident alone, but rather "repeatedly violating the Olympic Peninsula YMCA code of conduct, specifically, using disrespectful words or gestures towards YMCA staff or others; and abusive, harassing and/or obscene language or gestures towards YMCA staff or others." Jaman reportedly has a list of previous offenses at that YMCA location, but this incident with the transgender staff member was "unforgivable and extremely harmful," according to the same communications manager. Wendy Bart, the CEO of the Olympic Peninsula YMCA, shared additional details with the Free Press. Bart claims she stands behind her employees' actions in their confrontation with Jaman, and that the 80-year-old woman told the transgender staff member "you’re going to stick your f---ing penis in those little girls," a statement Jaman denies making.”
Why is it the left feels that a right to privacy applies to abortion, but not to a woman who feels that a biologic male should not be allowed in the same locker room as her and her grand daughters? Shouldn't she have a reasonable expectation that a woman's locker room should be a penis-free zone?
I mean I guess the question is do the parents of these little girls have any problem with the transgender staff member supervising? Or if she saw anything untoward e.g. staff member touching or watching? Doesn't seem like she witnessed anything besides the staff member being in the locker room. If the parents are OK with the staff member being there and she saw nothing to report, then really this lady is just meddling in other people's business aggressively. She has her own way she feels about the transgender staff member, but she handled it like a lunatic instead of talking to the staff or to the parents of the kids.
Why is it the left feels that a right to privacy applies to abortion, but not to a woman who feels that a biologic male should not be allowed in the same locker room as her and her grand daughters? Shouldn't she have a reasonable expectation that a woman's locker room should be a penis-free zone?
Why is it the left feels that a right to privacy applies to abortion, but not to a woman who feels that a biologic male should not be allowed in the same locker room as her and her grand daughters? Shouldn't she have a reasonable expectation that a woman's locker room should be a penis-free zone?
I'll take "false equivalencies" for 1000 Alex
I'll take "Liberal Fallacies for Lack of Debating Skills" for 200 Alex
Why is it the left feels that a right to privacy applies to abortion, but not to a woman who feels that a biologic male should not be allowed in the same locker room as her and her grand daughters? Shouldn't she have a reasonable expectation that a woman's locker room should be a penis-free zone?
Many on the so-called "left" today only give lip service to supporting the right to privacy when it comes to abortion because abortion is something men benefit from.
Just as many on today's "left" say that "diversity and inclusion" means persons with testes and/or penises and male sports advantage must be allowed to engage and compete in women's and girls' sports if they demand it, many on the left today also believe female people in countries like the USA, Canada, UK and Ireland do not have - and should not have - any right to any single sex facilities or services where we can be assured of safety, privacy, dignity, comfort and freedom from "the male gaze" when were are in situations outside our homes where we are undressed, naked or semi-naked and thus especially vulnerable to male sexual predation, prying, perving, harassment and assault.
The standard view of the "left" today is that males who claim to "identify as" the opposite sex should have unfettered access to all spaces and services set up to provide female people with privacy, dignity, safety and comfort outside the home - be they locker rooms; communal toilets, showers and spa facilities; retail store fitting rooms; workplace dressing rooms and showers; rape crisis centers; homeless shelters; refuges for victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence; school dorms; sleep-away camp bunk houses; hostels; health care facilities including nursing home accommodations for elderly women; gathering spaces for lesbians; workplace lactation rooms; prisons and jails; group homes for at-risk teenagers; and care facilities, long-term residences and hospital wards for girls and women whose severe physical disabilities, learning disabilities and/or mental health illnesses make them sitting ducks for abuse.
Moreover, the standard view on the "left" today is that males should be given unfettered access to spaces where females are physically most exposed and vulnerable to untoward behaviors by males just because some males want and demand it - and based solely on males saying they now "identify as" women or girls themselves.
When actual girls and women dare to object and point out all the reasons why we are not comfortable with the new policies and dogma of male intrusion and dominance posing as inclusion and diversity, then men and some women on today's supposed "left" slag us off as right-wing bigots, haters, pearl-clutchers, prudes, TERFs, old-fashioned fuddy duddies, "old bxnts," conservative nutters and other words I can't share here.
Just watch: soon enough a LRC poster on "the left" who considers himself a brogressive paragon of virtue and forward-thinking will come along and call me a bunch of misogynistic names whilst finger-wagging that any laws, policies and social customs which provide female human beings with spaces and services that allow us to have privacy, dignity and safety outside our homes are now outmoded and hateful.
There's an old saying that's never been truer in the past than it is today in 2022: the right see women and girls as private property; the left see women and girls as public property.
The disregard for the human rights of women and girls seen on the left today - and the contempt many on the left have for us that causes them to call us newfangled names dripping with misogynylike menstruators, vagina havers, pregnancy carriers,birthing bodies, milk producers and cisters - is why so many women who have been on the left all our lives are now politically homeless. And it's why so many women are mighty pissed off too.
What a load of malarkey!
Roe gets overturned and women lose the right to abortion in multiple states overnight, including blanket bans, and you somehow believe that women should actually be most angry about TERF issues? Are you insane?
I can promise you that women ARE pissed off right now, and almost NONE of them are pissed about the relatively rare transgender intersection with their personal lives. MANY of them are in a quite rage about the removal of abortion rights.
TERFs are a tiny minority of women, most of whom hold compassion and acceptance toward the trans among us. Having been a TERF will not age well years down the road.
Also, the REAL pervs here are those who believe that transgender females are really just male predators trying to eyeball females in the locker room. How sick, and frankly how stupid, can one be to believe that?
This is the perfect story to sum up the trans issue as it stands in 2022.
An 80 yr old woman in Washington has been swimming at the same pool for 35 years. Recently, she was stunned to hear a person with a male voice in the showers and noticed that person was staring at little girls undressing. The 80-yr old told "him" to get out.
The only person getting out was the 80-year old as the facility called the cops on her and banned her for life. When she complained there was no warning to expect people with penises in the women's shower, the facility told her there were Pride signs up everywhere as if that was an excuse.
Why is it the left feels that a right to privacy applies to abortion, but not to a woman who feels that a biologic male should not be allowed in the same locker room as her and her grand daughters? Shouldn't she have a reasonable expectation that a woman's locker room should be a penis-free zone?
Many on the so-called "left" today only give lip service to supporting the right to privacy when it comes to abortion because abortion is something men benefit from.
Just as many on today's "left" say that "diversity and inclusion" means persons with testes and/or penises and male sports advantage must be allowed to engage and compete in women's and girls' sports if they demand it, many on the left today also believe female people in countries like the USA, Canada, UK and Ireland do not have - and should not have - any right to any single sex facilities or services where we can be assured of safety, privacy, dignity, comfort and freedom from "the male gaze" when were are in situations outside our homes where we are undressed, naked or semi-naked and thus especially vulnerable to male sexual predation, prying, perving, harassment and assault.
The standard view of the "left" today is that males who claim to "identify as" the opposite sex should have unfettered access to all spaces and services set up to provide female people with privacy, dignity, safety and comfort outside the home - be they locker rooms; communal toilets, showers and spa facilities; retail store fitting rooms; workplace dressing rooms and showers; rape crisis centers; homeless shelters; refuges for victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence; school dorms; sleep-away camp bunk houses; hostels; health care facilities including nursing home accommodations for elderly women; gathering spaces for lesbians; workplace lactation rooms; prisons and jails; group homes for at-risk teenagers; and care facilities, long-term residences and hospital wards for girls and women whose severe physical disabilities, learning disabilities and/or mental health illnesses make them sitting ducks for abuse.
Moreover, the standard view on the "left" today is that males should be given unfettered access to spaces where females are physically most exposed and vulnerable to untoward behaviors by males just because some males want and demand it - and based solely on males saying they now "identify as" women or girls themselves.
When actual girls and women dare to object and point out all the reasons why we are not comfortable with the new policies and dogma of male intrusion and dominance posing as inclusion and diversity, then men and some women on today's supposed "left" slag us off as right-wing bigots, haters, pearl-clutchers, prudes, TERFs, old-fashioned fuddy duddies, "old bxnts," conservative nutters and other words I can't share here.
Just watch: soon enough a LRC poster on "the left" who considers himself a brogressive paragon of virtue and forward-thinking will come along and call me a bunch of misogynistic names whilst finger-wagging that any laws, policies and social customs which provide female human beings with spaces and services that allow us to have privacy, dignity and safety outside our homes are now outmoded and hateful.
There's an old saying that's never been truer in the past than it is today in 2022: the right see women and girls as private property; the left see women and girls as public property.
The disregard for the human rights of women and girls seen on the left today - and the contempt many on the left have for us that causes them to call us newfangled names dripping with misogynylike menstruators, vagina havers, pregnancy carriers,birthing bodies, milk producers and cisters - is why so many women who have been on the left all our lives are now politically homeless. And it's why so many women are mighty pissed off too.
I just think it’s a little weird to assume trans women are out to get you. Maybe you’re right though and like 1% of men choose to be women in some sort of backwards attempt at furthering the oppressive patriarchy or something. Maybe you know their agenda better than anyone? Never say never I guess
I'm curious. I have a question for the attorneys and law students here.
This lady has been banned for life, embarrassed, and admits to emotional distress. Does she have enough grounds to sue the Y?
If she has enough grounds to bring a lawsuit, I think she would win, especially if her attorney did a good job of jury selection and got a lot of her peers (grandmothers and senior citizens) on the jury. It would probably settle out of court.
I'm curious. I have a question for the attorneys and law students here.
This lady has been banned for life, embarrassed, and admits to emotional distress. Does she have enough grounds to sue the Y?
If she has enough grounds to bring a lawsuit, I think she would win, especially if her attorney did a good job of jury selection and got a lot of her peers (grandmothers and senior citizens) on the jury. It would probably settle out of court.
hmm prob not if that other report is true of her having caused problems before.
