80 year old woman banned from pool for standing up for little girls

No. From that post, I think we can safely assume that they will not.

Because they fully believe that people cannot correctly identify a person's sex through observing body cues such as skeleton, hip alignment and the corresponding knee alignment, and skull shape and facial structure.

It is all dismissed with a 'what should a woman look like'. I think that type of argument can be considered determined ignorance at this point.

Well let's hope that if you see a male in the female changing rooms staring at little girls while they undress you will do something, eh Bobby?

They do generally seem to be quiet these days. Come on @DadJoke, what’s your take on this?

I find it interesting that we have posters who are so determined to ignore that female people have a high likelihood of correctly identifying the sex of a male person, that they will use examples where female people have correctly identified the sex of a male person as an opportunity to shame them.

We have seen it in sports regularly. Where some posters have doubled down to shame others when those other posters have actually correctly identified a male person's sex class.

It is not 'what a woman should look like.'

It is that a female person does not have male body cues that humans perceive very easily and usually accurately. But apparently, this is a forgotten skill or one to be dismissed because to correctly identify the sex of a male person requires judging the person's body cues. And this is apparently not kind or acceptable.

So female people should just lower their boundaries and not react to someone they can correct identify as being a male person in a female single sex space, because to some people, that is 'gross' and 'weird' and apparently inappropriate.

You clearly don't know that females are hardwired since caveman era for our survival, to spot a male, right?

What a win for all women, I've been inspired! Next time I'm in the changing room I'm going to go round asking everyone there in the changing room whether they have a penis. Of course I'll need proof from anybody who says no or else what would be the point in asking? 🤢

Apologies that would be gross and weird, as a regular terf I'll actually just be asking the people who don't conform to my sense of what a woman should look like.

Bloody hell, I'm glad to hear that. And that she persevered. Tells you all you need to know about her defence of women.

Thank goodness.

And yes, reading a few of the first comments on this thread shows us how far we've come.

Although we should never have had to place defend it in the first place. But even transactivists cannot deny the tidal wave of paedophiles and perverts attracted to this ideology

It is remarkable that she had to do this. But what a win for girls and women that she did!!

Yes this story gets me every time. Definitely one for peaking. But apparently Ys in California are rife with this stuff. Women and girls no longer have places to change in many of them as men have taken over their change rooms. It seems women there are living with this in whatever ways they can. Either self excluding or accepting lack of privacy from men when getting changed as inevitable.

Thank you for sharing this - I'm still just as angry reading back the start of the thread and all the usual TRA arguments.

Looking forward to our resident scolders explaining why this is all wrong and actually it's Julie's fault for being an awful bigot.

Thank you for bringing the good news, Helleofabore, and well done to this brave and resilient woman who had to wait for three years to get justice.

Julie Jamon update.

https://x.com/liberty_ctr/status/1940094527517466964?s=46

Julie has won a court case to lift her ban from the centre! Well done Julie!

There seems a pattern forming consistently. Women winning court cases to enact change is wasted effort though. We should not be in this situation. But at least it is getting clearer and clearer.

Also standing in area where naked women are showering. Why would anybody think it was acceptable for a male person to be in such an area?

What is the argument? Males are free to stand and stare at little girls changing? It's bigoted to question why a male is staring at children?

I think most of us recognise the dynamic, here.

Interesting. Of the "you're all bigots " posters I don't think one has presented a convincing argument as to why the presence of this male so close to young kids changing, is acceptable.

They obviously were not flashing their genitals or it would not have been necessary for this woman to ask what their genitals were.

The only answer to this is, 'so what?'

It doesn't matter at all whether this person was 'flashing their genitals'.

This was a male supervising small girls getting changed in a female changing room.

If they were 'flashing their genitals', would that make it clearer for you that it is a problem? Or can the privacy, and dignity of small girls to not be watched by someone from the opposite sex be enough?

They obviously were not flashing their genitals or it would not have been necessary for this woman to ask what their genitals were.

Julie gave another interview to Glinner:

(Sorry, not watched it yet, so can't comment!)

I’m returning to thread to wholeheartedly recommend Meghan Murphy’s long interview with Julie on her Feminist Current podcast. Julie is terrific, so clearsighted and resolute. She discusses the local police’s failure to intervene at the protest and her 1-2-1 conversation with the chief of police about it. It’s worth a listen. They picked the woman when they threw her out of the pool. She comes across as savvy and highly principled. She’s not letting it drop.

And to answer a snarky point upthread about it being a private facility, Julie explains on the podcast it is owned by the local school board, leased to YMCA by the local council and managed by YMCA. So, a local community amenity built with taxpayer money which is now unusable by Julie, a local resident. There is no alternative in the area.

Men want women to have even less protection from predatory and dangerous men than we already have. It's not hard to work out why.

You are advocating for a very dangerous world with no protection for women and girls.

This, as they say, appears to be a feature, not a bug.

Indeed.

WHY are you lot so damn KEEN for men to be allowed into women's spaces?

I expect DadJoke is just delighted he will be able to wander around the womens changing rooms unchallenged.

I would just like to know WHY?
WHY are you lot so damn KEEN for men to be allowed into women's spaces?
What's in it for the women and girls?

And what's in it for YOU?

There are people who pop up on these threads in almost a tag-team fashion to argue for the inclusion of men in women's spaces, but they never give an ACTUAL reason why they need to be there.

WHY do these men need to be in women's spaces, and why are you arguing for that? For a world where women and girls will instantly be made more vulnerable and at risk JUST BY THE INCLUSION OF A MALE IN THEIR SPACE AND THE MASSIVE LOOPHOLE THAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING that now allows predators of ANY description into these spaces, simply by virtue of declaring themselves "trans".
WHY is the privacy and dignity and simple wish of women and girls to dress/change in private away from men, not enough for you?
Why does a man's "right" to use that space override THEIR privacy?

I have NEVER seen you stand up for the females in these scenarios, only for the feelings of the male.

And I don't care what lovely swimsuit he was wearing.
Any little girls that gets raped or assaulted because of the laws YOU are advocating will be the collateral damage from "inclusion".

But hey, as long as the man in this scenario gets validation, inclusion, and his ego stroked, who gives a fuck right?

Agree, @PeriodBro

The other school of (non) safeguarding is: but it’s only ONE man doing this, so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt that he has only good intentions.