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

[Misstache]

This poor woman dedicated her life to defending women and girls. She heard a male voice while in the shower at her local pool, looked out and saw a TW changing near 4 or 5 little girls while staring at them. She stepped in, asked if the TW had a penis, and got banned and the pool staff threatened to call police on her. They lied and said she said all kinds of profane things. This is so disgusting. I feel so bad for her.

reduxx.info/senior-woman-banned-from-local-pool-after-expressing-concern-over-male-in-womens-washroom/

Normal, wholesome people react quickly to stop the danger when it comes to children. It's a natural, good & normal response. Any other reaction is wrong, evil, abnormal, disgusting and enables the abuse of children.

“I’m not sure I understand the suggestion that trans women transition in order to get access to women’s changing rooms and therefore undressed children… surely there are just as many children changing in the male changing rooms with their dads/other male family members.”

Really?

Most men, on spotting another person staring at their children in the context of a changing room, would pretty aggressively challenge wtf that other person thought they were up to.

The type of men who like to stare at children in changing rooms aren’t stupid - they know it’s a much riskier prospect to be doing it in the male section. So give them an opportunity to ‘transition’ (particularly if ALL that now takes is clicking their heels three times and declaring they’re Trans) and they’ll take it.

For absolutely no effort or inconvenience to themselves, they suddenly have access to children with gatekeepers who are less aggressive, usually physically weaker and who are socially conditioned not to question / to ‘be kind’. And on top of that, they’ll have the centre’s management around to back them up and call the objecting women ‘transphobic’ should they be called out.

The most important job of any society is to protect its children. Everyone knows this.

Sadly, not everyone Floisme.

Yes I think I agree. If it hadn't been for posters such as Didimum, this thread might have run its course after just a few pages because, when all is said and done, there are only a limited number ways of saying ,'What the fuck have I just read?'

Instead we've already passed the 250 mark, and with every post, the thread is bumped back to the top of the page and more people see it. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is the most important thing.

So I hope you come back Didimum, and continue the conversation, especially once you've had time to read up on the Wi Spa. You too drakeandjosh, JenniferBarkley and GoodJanetBadJanet, keep going and help get the story in the public eye. Have the final word if you so wish - win win.

Indeed!

Quite likely there will be such texts - but not in the way you envision. As much as we look back in disgust at the treatment of LGBT people with section 28 in the 80s and 90s.

Interesting that more men see this conflict clearer than women, and I'm not sure why.

Because men have inside experience of what (some) men and teenage boys are really like, I suspect, LK1972?

In a police call report obtained by the Port Townsend Free Press, Titterness said that Jaman "had an emotional response to a strange male being in the bathroom and helping a young girl take off her bathing suit."

From the article. Titterness is the police officer who spoke to Jaman. So according to him Clementine was not just "supervising".

Because men have inside experience of what (some) men and teenage boys are really like, I suspect, LK1972?

Yes, exactly.

And they aren't gaslighted to beeeeekind from toddler age.

If this is accurate, are we all still on board with "be kind" and happy to let our daughters be partially clothed or naked in a place where a TW (biological male) is "helping" them get changed out of their bathing suits?

Still happy everyone who is defending this?

No doubt he was just being helpful.

Shame on me for thinking otherwise.

In what way is his first hand experience of how the majority of men act an opinion?

The police records say that Jaman reported seeing the male in the woman’s swimsuit “helping a young girl take off her bathing suit.” That would have required some physical contact. In comments to the article Jaman says, however, she did not see any physical contact, but saw the male in the woman’s bathing suit looking at 4-5 young girls pulling down their swimsuits. The use of the word “touching” in the original posting of this article was based on the police report of the interview with Jaman. That word has been deleted at Jaman’s insistence. To her credit, she wants the story reported as accurately as she can recall events.]

Apparently Jaman did not say she saw any contact. Still creepy though.

Because EVERYONE, apart from those that follow the ideology, are always wrong.
ACTUAL men with first hand intimate knowledge of how other men think are wrong.
The actual woman who was there and reacted to the scene in front of her was wrong.
Other women who hear about this and are rightly concerned about safeguarding of children are wrong.
People with common sense that know a male has no place in a safe space where partially clothed or naked females are, are wrong.
Even when presented with evidence that women and girls have been deliberately targeted in similar situations, the evidence is wrong.

Unless you are a slave to TWAW, have no shits to give about the safety and dignity of women and girls, and think that validating a man's "feelz" trumps safeguarding of children, then YOU ARE WRONG.

Dh is far more scathing and suspicious of other men than any woman I know times 10. He always assumes the worst of other men that he doesn’t know and eye rolls at the utter naïveté of my our female “TWAW be kind” family members.

Really Mishy.

Did you actually read what I wrote in context?

I usually read all before posting but i can't keep this in for another two pages so...

A woman in her 80, so lots of experience of "life".

A woman in her 80s, who set up and ran refugees for decades, so lots of experience of men who are doing something they shouldn't be doing and the ways in which they might go about it.

That woman whilst showering hears a male voice and looks out to see whatever she saw, just knows!

She bloody knew something was off and she acted on that "feeling". The TRA s shout so bloody loud about bloody feelings,! her feeling was that there was a man in the women's changing area obviously up to no good with regards the little girls in there. And she acted accordingly. Good on her.

For years certain men have been using whatever means they can in order to get close to little children unchecked. The modern era had started to make this really difficult for them. So if some people honestly think no perverted man who likes to look at or fiddle with little children wouldn't see the whole TWAW as a perfect in are fucking deluded.

And just one man using the cover of TWAW to abuse children is one too many and therefore sorry but no man should be allowed in regardless of how he feels!

Yes, I agree. Maybe we should listen to men, on this, as they'd know this one better (but may not be actually completely comfortable revealing the details).

Yes @MishyJDI , we will definitely look back at protecting women's single-sex spaces in this country with horror, because we will all think that 80-yr old was a bigot, like you do.

We all additionally will be very happy with presence of naked males where we're naked, because that is totally fine, no issue whatsoever, it's all just prudery and pearl-clutching.

These males are just as much a women as the female kind, in fact your sex has nothing to do with your body and if you identify as a woman your sex is, and always was, female.

Is that your full prediction or did I get bits wrong?

I actually hope we will be much more inclusive than that @LK1972 !

I am envisioning full acceptance and with all spaces exclusively for AFAB and AMAB - and all genders in those categories welcome 🤗 .

'So the flag and Pride posters were the ‘sign’ that males were allowed access to that area that should be safe for females' - yes @Helleofabore, that is how I interpreted YMCA management response, as reported in the article.

Again, do we want that association/interpretation to be acceptable in UK?

As a bisexual mother of 3 non-straight children I would disagree.

So you mean no sex segregation at all?

Sorry, re-reading your post I think I misinterpreted your meaning

No worries at all @LK1972 , I am just trying to use inclusive language and really show my full acceptance of transpeople and all forms of gender.

as long as you are AFAB, I think a huge gender diversity should be welcome in every single space!!

The T had not been attached to the LGB in 1988 but there was then, as now, another group of people attempting to ride the coat tails of the gay rights movement. That group of people also tried to push boundaries, particularly with children and to groom adults to think of that boundary pushing as progressive. It wasn't progressive then and it isn't now. Section 28 was an over reaction but if the LGBT community does not call out this boundary pushing then they run the risk of being tainted by the aims of a group that most of society is happy to stigmatise. As much as section 28 was abhorrent I can see how it happened and how something similar could happen again.

Just in case it's not clear I'm talking about paedophiles co-opting the struggle of LGBT people. Let's stop pretending it is somehow discriminatory to object to an adult male watching little girls get undressed, it's not, it's safeguarding.