I seem to remember some bright spark in an article announcing that using disabled facilities was 'stigmatising' (being disabled obviously being such a shameful thing and all 🙄).
They hadn't thought that one through, but it was only yet another thing grabbed for on the spot to try and make everyone agree the only important users of a women's space was obviously the men. And no alternatives that actually considered the needs of women could be possible.
But yes. Rubbish that the one accessible facility that disabled people fought for to be able to use society is being commandeered for a more powerful group as the quick and easy option.
Can't help thinking - isn't it interesting how when it's a conflict between women and men's needs, and disabled and men's needs, (using needs here in a fairly loose sense because it's arguable, but even in the case of equal needs existing), it's always, always the men who are prioritised. Everyone else can be freely subordinated and disadvantaged, but not men.
Wonder why that is?
And why all this 'rahhhh we're inclusive and kind' never notices or cares about the parties being actually oppressed and disadvantaged?