In politics, time moves differently. Weeks can be light-years and things change in the blink of an eye. But what doesn't change is history, and memory.
I, for one, remember the very real craze on the Left about consent. Or 'enthusiastic consent' -- this insistence that consent was the end all, be all of every sexual encounter and was a requirement for every step of an intimate experience (one that could be revoked at any time, even after the fact). Failing to get ongoing, enthusiastic consent or getting consent from a woman who'd had too much to drink wasn't enough and -- if you were a man -- you were likely to be accused of sexual assault or rape.
Not only that, the Left portrayed all men as potential rapists and even the harmless act of asking a woman on a date could -- by their twisted logic -- constitute sexual harrassment.
#MeToo, 'No means no', and all that.
But how quickly the Left has moved on from enthusiastic consent and 'no means no' to demanding women acquiesce to men in their private spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms. Failure to allow men into those spaces makes you a bigot and TERF now.
Nancy Mace is waging a battle for privacy on Capitol Hill, demanding a rule that would restrict use of bathrooms to the biological gender: men use the men's room, women the women's room. This is in response to the election of Tim (Sarah) McBride, the first 'trans woman' to go to Congress. McBride is a man and Mace does not want him using the women's bathroom.
That's a reasonable rule. Mace -- like the majority of most Americans -- opposes men using the women's bathroom simply because they say they're women.
The Left are melting down over it, of course. Why? Because 'enthusiastic consent' and the #MeToo movement were not organic ideologies, they were political ploys.
Which is why a man like Wajahat Ali feels he can ask women like me to justify our opposition to men in our bathrooms:
For all those who are terrified of trans people and believe this is more important than any other issue, can you please let me know just once when a trans person harmed you? One personal, specific story please.
— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) November 19, 2024
On one hand, I get this mentality. That's largely how the Left legislates: X issue hurt Y group, therefore we have to pass more laws (and give ourselves more power) to (not) address the issue. They scream that someone's 'lived experience' is paramount, superseding the rights and freedoms of the majority of Americans while bucking common sense.
We see it most notably with gun control. Some violent criminal shoots innocent schoolchildren, and the Left demand they get to use that tragedy to strip law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights (and ignoring the many people who use guns for self-defense).
'If it saves one life!' and all that.
But if Ali insists on proof, here he goes:
No woman or girl should have to share female spaces with males, no matter how they identify. Our rights matter. pic.twitter.com/5sMOfJIqna
— ♀️Jennifer Gingrich ✡️ (@fem_mb) November 19, 2024
I do not, for the life of me, understand why guys like Ali have such a vested interest in letting other men -- delusional men who think they're women -- expose themselves to me in a bathroom or locker room. Especially after the Left, of which Ali is a member, spent years telling us men are 'toxic' and will rape us if given the opportunity.
I can understand why many (not all, but many) 'trans women' clamor so hard for access: they get a level of sexual gratification and power from entering women-only spaces.
But Ali? He just thinks women like me should be subjugated to the whims and will of delusional men. Men who -- as the above graphic illustrates -- have used access to women's spaces to harm women.
What Ali is saying is this: before I can have an opinion on men in my safe spaces, I have to be victimized by one first. That's some twisted thinking.
And it's not how this should work. I do not have to justify my opposition to men in my bathroom to anyone, least of all a man like Wajahat Ali. This notion that I must somehow be personally harmed by a trans person before I can object to seeing a penis in my locker room is absurd on its face.
I get to say no right now because I want to say no. Because I am not comfortable with a man -- who is physically stronger than I am -- sharing a space where I am vulnerable and often naked.
That's the only reason I need: I say no, and I do not consent.
Remember when that meant something to the Left?
