*There is no interest within this political movement for the wellbeing of female women and while they are passionate about inclusion and inclusivity, it is their own inclusion that they are passionate about; not the inclusion of all other women. The argument is that sex differences are irrelevant among women; however one group of women's needs get met at the expense of the other, and the other group of women can subordinate themselves and obey or do without services in punishment. And you can split that group of women into male and female.
It is an inability to tolerate other women having their needs met or being permitted accessibility. Even when their own accessibility and priority and greater importance has been thoroughly affirmed and provided for. It is dog in the manger. It is selfish. It is intolerant. It is discriminatory. And it's entirely sex based and sexist in its thinking, which really throws a lot of confusion on the idea of mixing sex in women's spaces because sex isn't a defining thing.*
I agree. The more worrying thing is that we live in a society which accepts this. There will always be some people who are narcissistic because of psychopathy or trauma (or both), so there will always be people who consider that the only needs whose matter are theirs. However the fact that society has so readily accepted this is clear evidence of the disparity and misogyny which women have to live with. I.e. the very erosion of protected spaces for women is evidence of the need for it. Sarah, so sorry to hear of the abuse you've suffered both at the hands of specific men and then at the hands of this corrupt system. Thank you for standing up for women.