Sarah you are my journalistic hero! Once again you get right to the heart of the discussion in a clear and concise manner! God love Michelle for going back to the question that the activist just couldn't answer. It was a true rope-a-dope moment! I could watch that video 100 times. Thanks for all your commentary! Keep it coming!
totally agree with you. us women are fed up of having to move over and allow room for men with mental problems . Why is it always in favour of what men want, why does what we women have want not count? men's hurty feels v women's forced trauma ??
It sucks, I'm sorry. Men are just better at pushing for what we want, thanks to our metabolism and adrenal glands and lifelong encouragement by society.
But women can also do it, and do it well, as the GB Newswoman showed. And unfortunately, that's what it's going to take - more women pushing, as well as their male allies 💪🏼
Exactly. The question she kept returning to was: WHY? Why should I have to open up the female single-sex space to males? When he said, well transwomen ARE women, (false) he was hiding the ball.
The REAL issue (which he wouldn’t cop to) was transwomen's wish to associate themselves in females' most intimate spaces, so as to enjoy the thrill of enjoying ”girls together”moments in states of undress, where the bio women play supporting roles in trans women's most cherished fantasies.
(In the SF Bay Area, I have been subject to such scenarios, and the fawning of open-minded women acceding to transwomen's fantasies in this manner is utterly nauseating. It is a completely overt transaction, with every female playing their sanctimonious supporting roles.)
The real goal of transwomen pining for girls-together moments is hidden (I imagine)under the principle of “inclusion”—an abstract noun that sounds like a desirable goal, but which seemingly takes precedence over other desirable abstract goals such as female privacy, fair sports, competition, & safety.
So the question to be hammered is: WHY? In this interview it was designed to force the trans-supporter to utter the word “inclusion” although because he refused to take the bait, he was reduced to sputtering.
Most satisfying.
Force them to say “inclusion (for males),” and see how that weak-sauce justification for male inclusion stacks up against real, competing values such as females being kicked out of their own sports, or else sustaining real physical injuries due to prioritizing men's desires to be seen as women.
Yes, the beauty of Michelle's question was that it focused on HER rights as a woman. I, like Michelle, am not interested in how a male identifies or his motivations. That's not the question. The question is why should I give up my right to sex-based sports and spaces to a biological male? Trans women are women and inclusion are reasons why men want to be in women's sports. That doesn't answer the question of why I should give up my sports and spaces to men. What's in it for me as a woman? Why should I sacrifice my sex-based rights so that then, in effect, I no longer have any rights as a woman. That's a pretty big ask. Again, why should I make that sacrifice? What's in it for me as a woman?
Sarah, love this column! YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! We need to keep forcing the right questions to be presented and DEMAND an answer (for which there is not one). I found the clip and just posted it on X. Thank you!
I also just sent a strongly worded email to public radio station WAMU in Washington, to several people at NPR (where I used to work many moons ago), and to my only contact at the Washington Post. Not that any of them give a shit. The media capture on this subject is off the charts.
I've seen many trans-critical comments censored by the NYT over the years -- I've taken screenshots on the rare occasions when they're allowed to post, only to find that hours later they've been flagged to a faretheewell by trans "activists" and permanently deleted. I've called out the NYT on this more times than I can count. Again, they don't give a shit.
But I don't care. I'm not going to shut up about this topic.
I hear you. My hometown newspaper rarely is guilty of the most outrageously biased "reporting," rarely enables comments on women's rights issues that they have falsely framed as trans issues, and when they do allow comments and the inevitable common sense comments pile up, they delete them. Yes, when the NYT publishes an article dealing with men in women's sports or spaces (framed as a trans rights issue), and IF they allow comments, 9 out of 10 of those comments are not hateful, just stating facts—women's sports exist for a reason. They should be for women. AND YET, after years of this happening, the powers that be at the NYT either cannot or will not read the room
Sarah you are my journalistic hero! Once again you get right to the heart of the discussion in a clear and concise manner! God love Michelle for going back to the question that the activist just couldn't answer. It was a true rope-a-dope moment! I could watch that video 100 times. Thanks for all your commentary! Keep it coming!
totally agree with you. us women are fed up of having to move over and allow room for men with mental problems . Why is it always in favour of what men want, why does what we women have want not count? men's hurty feels v women's forced trauma ??
It sucks, I'm sorry. Men are just better at pushing for what we want, thanks to our metabolism and adrenal glands and lifelong encouragement by society.
But women can also do it, and do it well, as the GB Newswoman showed. And unfortunately, that's what it's going to take - more women pushing, as well as their male allies 💪🏼
Wow. That was awesome. She just did NOT let up.
Nice job, Sarah. I'm going to file this under "How to Write a Great Article in Spite of Egregious Miscarriages of Journalism."
Exactly. The question she kept returning to was: WHY? Why should I have to open up the female single-sex space to males? When he said, well transwomen ARE women, (false) he was hiding the ball.
The REAL issue (which he wouldn’t cop to) was transwomen's wish to associate themselves in females' most intimate spaces, so as to enjoy the thrill of enjoying ”girls together”moments in states of undress, where the bio women play supporting roles in trans women's most cherished fantasies.
(In the SF Bay Area, I have been subject to such scenarios, and the fawning of open-minded women acceding to transwomen's fantasies in this manner is utterly nauseating. It is a completely overt transaction, with every female playing their sanctimonious supporting roles.)
The real goal of transwomen pining for girls-together moments is hidden (I imagine)under the principle of “inclusion”—an abstract noun that sounds like a desirable goal, but which seemingly takes precedence over other desirable abstract goals such as female privacy, fair sports, competition, & safety.
So the question to be hammered is: WHY? In this interview it was designed to force the trans-supporter to utter the word “inclusion” although because he refused to take the bait, he was reduced to sputtering.
Most satisfying.
Force them to say “inclusion (for males),” and see how that weak-sauce justification for male inclusion stacks up against real, competing values such as females being kicked out of their own sports, or else sustaining real physical injuries due to prioritizing men's desires to be seen as women.
Yes, the beauty of Michelle's question was that it focused on HER rights as a woman. I, like Michelle, am not interested in how a male identifies or his motivations. That's not the question. The question is why should I give up my right to sex-based sports and spaces to a biological male? Trans women are women and inclusion are reasons why men want to be in women's sports. That doesn't answer the question of why I should give up my sports and spaces to men. What's in it for me as a woman? Why should I sacrifice my sex-based rights so that then, in effect, I no longer have any rights as a woman. That's a pretty big ask. Again, why should I make that sacrifice? What's in it for me as a woman?
Well if you're going to be difficult, you might not be invited to the Team Kindness potluck, is all I'm saying. ;)
F*@* that anyway. It was all just fruitcake
Sarah, love this column! YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! We need to keep forcing the right questions to be presented and DEMAND an answer (for which there is not one). I found the clip and just posted it on X. Thank you!
Brilliant and spot on, as always, Sarah. And thanks for sharing this gem of a video! It made my day.
Say “we have to respect” one more goddamn time!
🎤 💥 Yes! This was so awkward and devine to watch.
Oh she’s brilliant!
Mic drop.
This is so great! Thank you!
I also just sent a strongly worded email to public radio station WAMU in Washington, to several people at NPR (where I used to work many moons ago), and to my only contact at the Washington Post. Not that any of them give a shit. The media capture on this subject is off the charts.
I've seen many trans-critical comments censored by the NYT over the years -- I've taken screenshots on the rare occasions when they're allowed to post, only to find that hours later they've been flagged to a faretheewell by trans "activists" and permanently deleted. I've called out the NYT on this more times than I can count. Again, they don't give a shit.
But I don't care. I'm not going to shut up about this topic.
I hear you. My hometown newspaper rarely is guilty of the most outrageously biased "reporting," rarely enables comments on women's rights issues that they have falsely framed as trans issues, and when they do allow comments and the inevitable common sense comments pile up, they delete them. Yes, when the NYT publishes an article dealing with men in women's sports or spaces (framed as a trans rights issue), and IF they allow comments, 9 out of 10 of those comments are not hateful, just stating facts—women's sports exist for a reason. They should be for women. AND YET, after years of this happening, the powers that be at the NYT either cannot or will not read the room