reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I have experienced the consequences of abuse and believe women's private spaces should be exclusively for women. Rape victims should not have to undress in front of men. This issue is pervasive in schools and public facilities, and I will fight against it. Critics claim my language fuels transphobia, but I have supported LGBTQ rights while opposing policies that allow men in women's spaces. I've received numerous death threats for my stance, highlighting the extreme reactions from some. Many women, including those from the left, feel marginalized by these policies. It's crucial to protect women's rights without compromising safety. The hypocrisy of those who preach kindness while attacking dissenters is evident. The focus should be on protecting all women's rights, not just those of trans women.

Speaker 0, identifying as the only Black lesbian in the room, asks Senator Winner a direct question about women’s safety in female-only spaces, referencing an incident at Gold’s Gym where she was attacked in a locker room by a self-identifying trans woman with a documented history of domestic violence. She asks what Senator Winner would say to women seeking assurance that their safety will be protected from men who, under California law, can self-identify as women in women-only spaces. Speaker 1 responds that “we want everyone to be safe,” and notes that trans people exist as both men and women, saying, “if you're trans women or women.” He emphasizes the need to protect safety for all, acknowledging that trans women are part of the discussion. Speaker 0 continues, praising Senator Winner for housing bills and other actions, but asserts that “millions of women across America are being harassed and sexually assaulted in locker rooms.” She reiterates that she is a lesbian Black woman, not transphobic or homophobic, and stresses that some bills passed by Winner are dangerous for women and young children. She states she represents her community and urges protection for women in light of concerns about trans-inclusive policies. Speaker 2 interjects, urging Speaker 0 to allow Senator Winner to respond, while Speaker 0 reiterates the need for protection of women, specifying “Women. Women. Trans women are doing things. Women. Women.” She asserts that she was assaulted, adding, “They are not. They are men.” She describes the assailant as someone who “broke his wife’s jaw” requiring reconstructive surgery, and emphasizes her identity as a lesbian who is Black. She invites another Black woman to share her feelings, while also challenging the presence of others in the room. Speaker 1 reiterates the goal of protecting the safety of all women and acknowledges that “trans women are also brutalized in this country.” The conversation emphasizes a tension between protecting women’s safety and acknowledging the experiences of trans women, with Speaker 0 insisting, “We cannot be raped in the bathrooms by men that wanna say they're women. They're not women.” Speaker 2 responds by leaving, citing that the group is not protecting women, and remarks on the bills, stating she has read many of them and still finds issues “not right.” The exchange ends with Speaker 2, introducing herself as Tish Heine, and a comment about not allowing Blackness and civil rights to be used to justify laws for children to transform, followed by a remark about disparities in access to tampons versus transformation medication. The conversation also touches on broader political history, with Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 referencing political dynamics, including a note that “things were going so smoothly” before recalling an earlier moment in 2008 involving Aaron Peskin.

Transgender boys benefit from free tampons in bathrooms. Speaker 1 argues that only women menstruate, based on chromosomes. Speaker 0 counters that trans men and non-binary individuals also menstruate. Speaker 1 insists that they are women dressed as men, while Speaker 0 questions the definition of a man. They debate the distinction between sex and gender, with Speaker 0 asserting that they are different. Speaker 1 disagrees and accuses Speaker 0 of making up conclusions. Speaker 0 argues against denying someone's identity, while Speaker 1 denies being hateful. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 accusing Speaker 1 of being hateful.

This video explores the topic of gender and identity, covering various perspectives and experiences. The speakers discuss the differences between male and female, the challenges of understanding gender, and the impact of societal messages on children. They delve into the medical and psychological aspects of gender dysphoria and transitioning, as well as the controversy surrounding transgender athletes in sports. The conversation also addresses the Equality Act and the debate over public accommodations, particularly in relation to bathrooms. The video concludes with a confrontation between the interviewer and a congressman, highlighting the differing opinions and emotions surrounding the topic. Throughout the video, concerns are raised about the lack of long-term studies, potential harm caused by affirming transgender identities in children, and the blurring of lines between gender and sex. The speakers express worries about the lack of clarity in defining what it means to be a woman and the potential consequences of progressive education. The video also touches on the debate surrounding gender identity and pronouns, with criticism of the idea of individuals choosing their own pronouns and concerns about allowing biological men to compete against biological women in sports.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if biological men should be able to use women's restrooms. Speaker 1 questions the relevance to immigration. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has ever used the women's restroom, after Speaker 1 allegedly said everyone should use the other gender's bathroom today as a protest. Speaker 1 says they have not and denies advocating for men to use women's restrooms. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 regrets encouraging men to use women's restrooms and if Speaker 1 ever considered that women don't want men in their bathrooms. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 thinks it's appropriate for men to use women's restrooms because Speaker 0 believes Speaker 1 is taking rights away from underage girls.

Speaker 0 describes an incident at the WE Spa where a man enters the women's section with his penis exposed, causing fear among women and young girls. “It's not okay. Now I can't even go and put my clothes on because he's down there. Yeah. I don't feel comfortable. We don't feel uncomfortable.” The speaker emphasizes that this behavior happened in the women’s section, with the implication that a man came into an area designated for women and girls, and asserts that “his dick is out. To the campus side? Yeah. His dick is slinging left and right, and we're women in there, and young girls are there.” The speaker challenges the arrangement, stating, “And you allow that. So then you're lying.” They argue that there is a distinction between gender rights and discrimination, claiming that “We cannot discriminate against gender rights. It's not discrimination. It's an impostor. You cannot identify a impostor, someone faking to be a woman just because they feel like they wanna call themselves a woman.” There is a dismissive stance toward the idea of recognizing someone’s gender identity in this context, with a reference to being “pre board” as a test they don’t care about. Speaker 1 interjects with a repetition of “a situation,” emphasizing that there will be consequences or a response: “You gonna have a situation.” Speaker 0 responds with escalating emotion, invoking religious language: “The blood of Jesus. You're gonna have a situation. There’s going to be a situation.” They report being at the WE Spa and witnessing a man slinging his penis, expressing disbelief and stating that some women are afraid to speak up, while they themselves are determined to speak out: “I couldn’t believe what I saw. I couldn’t believe that this man, okay, and these people up here and you got some women scared to say something. Baby, I'm not scared to say a thing.” Speaker 0 asserts a strong stance against a man asserting entrance into the men’s section or a person presenting as a woman while being male, stressing concern for children and mothers present: “The blood of Jesus against this wilding out lion spirit. Sit up here. Gonna bring him to let a man come in here, slinging his penis up in here. No. No. No.” The speaker insists that somebody who identifies as a man cannot enter the women’s area, or that someone claiming to be a woman but possessing male anatomy should be challenged. The speaker ends with a warning that “these people, they about to find out though. Watch.”

The speaker asserts their right to enter women's restrooms, locker rooms, and spaces, declaring they are a woman regardless of others' opinions. They claim that figures like Oli London, Ben Shapiro, Steven Hilton, Tim Pool, "moms of bigotry," Lives of TikTok, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh, Matt Gaetz, and Nick Fuentes are powerless to prevent them. The speaker states they go where they please and, to date, no one has dared to stop them.

This speaker rails against transgender people in the women's bathroom, opening with, "This new world where these people wanna go into the women's bathroom with your guys' children, and we're gonna think that this is okay." "That's the root." They say, "You can be whoever the fuck you wanna be," then urge listeners to imagine mothers at Disneyland as "this thing comes in the women's restroom" and ask, "Are you out of your fucking mind? Are you out of your mind?" They insist, "But I'm a woman. Look. I'm wearing the dress. It's pretty hot." They ask, "do you want this person in the women's restroom? I don't, and I'm a male." They claim "society is trying to make that acceptable" and lament, "I'm sick to my stomach." The remark concludes with, "That is a grown man with a mustache telling Charlie that he wants to be called a she."

Speaker 1 expresses that the situation is traumatizing and asserts that as a woman there is a space reserved for women. She questions the right of a transgender person to be in that space, stating, "he has a penis. A full and testicle. Okay? And and I don't care what it it's a man. You got one? You're a man." She argues that if they entered the men's section based on anatomy, it would be a man, and notes that they may not like women, but that for her and many other women, they do not feel comfortable and "it's not okay." She adds, "I'm sorry to talk to Okay? So well, I yeah. Yeah. You're sorry. You should be, sweetie, and you're out of alignment, and this is not right." She implies the other person is out of alignment and suggests attention to the situation, even commenting on the other person’s personal circumstances: "it must be hard not being a real man. Try it." She urges that every woman get all of their information. Speaker 0 responds, discussing a security guard who said that this is not allowed. Speaker 1 disregards the security guard's stance, insisting she does not care what the security guard says. Speaker 0 clarifies that the security guard doesn't want to be involved, and Speaker 1 insists that the guard should not have been present or allowed in the space. The exchange centers on whether a transgender person should be in the women's space and the authorities' stance on access. The discussion highlights discomfort, boundaries, and perceived inappropriateness from the perspective of Speaker 1, while Speaker 0 defers to the security guard's position. The dialogue ends with an emphatic consolidation of their stance: "Exactly. Thank you. Exactly. No."

Amy is upset because a man in the women's restroom made her uncomfortable, but she is being asked to leave instead of him. She questions why only trans rights are being prioritized over women's rights at Angel City Brewery. Another person suggests making the man leave instead. The situation escalates as Amy refuses to leave, feeling that women's rights are being ignored. The conversation becomes tense as the focus shifts to the brewery's stance on trans rights versus women's rights.

Mister Speaker, powerful anecdotes cannot stand for the consent of another. If women feel unsafe, we should listen. Accommodating a small segment shouldn't supersede women's concerns. The consent of one person doesn't equal another's comfort in bathrooms, sports, or prisons. Nuanced conversations about respect and humanity are possible. Policies protecting women's spaces aren't transphobic. Some liberals agree but fear speaking up due to party orthodoxy silencing women. Both transgender individuals and women fear violence and disrespect. HB 148 allows localities and businesses to define sex for specific policies and isn't a "Nazi movement." Municipalities, private gyms, and prisons should, in limited cases, separate people based on biological sex. Consider the alternative viewpoint without resorting to labels like "bigot" or "transphobe" when questioning women's spaces. Representative asks if comparing bathroom policies to Jim Crow laws is fair, referencing white-passing African Americans. Representative responds that race and Jim Crow are significantly different than sex and women's private spaces.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about going to a sports group and potentially being made uncomfortable. Speaker 1 argues that trans women are women and face the same risks of rape as cisgender women. Speaker 2 agrees and emphasizes that there should be no differentiation. Speaker 0 clarifies that they are not scared, but they just want to be able to go to the sports group without any issues. Speaker 1 suggests that Speaker 0 educate themselves on the topic, as there are many support groups available. Speaker 0 expresses frustration with being told they have to educate themselves.

The speakers are discussing the idea that transgender women do not exist. One person argues that if something racist was written on a door, it would be understood why it shouldn't be there, but the concept of transgender women is different. The other person tries to explain that not all people are born with the same gender identity, but the first person insists that a man can never be a woman. They both acknowledge a big gap in understanding between them.

I want to understand your views on transgenderism. Well, historically, the body is tied to who you are. Transgender ideology is a form of Gnosticism that says your body doesn't matter. This is false, leading to the deprivation of women's rights, rapes, and the loss of sports competitions and scholarships. It also causes anxiety, depression, and suicide. Those rape cases are from cis men. As a Black trans woman, I'm not a threat. It's harmful to weaponize rhetoric against trans people. We exist, even if you deny it. If my child came out as trans, I'd tell them the truth: they're not really the gender they identify as. You'll reduce this to genitalia. Those bathroom rapes aren't committed by trans women, but cis men. There's no such thing as a trans woman. I'm looking at one right now. You don't have any talking points. In 2018 there were two rapes in bathrooms and one in Wisconsin, one in Georgia, but by cis men. The translady doth protest too much, me thinks.

Men who identify as women are taking opportunities from actual women in sports and media. This trend is seen in the best female athletes being men, men representing female products, and a man being named woman of the year. This deception is being challenged by women and men who oppose it, as it threatens society, family values, and women's rights. The speaker emphasizes the importance of addressing this issue before it causes irreversible harm.

Trans women are women, but the speaker disagrees. They argue that nobody confronts the speaker's opinion and questions why anyone would want to be close to a trans woman. The speaker insults the trans woman, saying she doesn't look or act like a woman. The trans woman defends herself, stating that many people accept and support her. The conversation becomes heated, and the speaker asks the trans woman to leave their store. The trans woman mentions that some people find the situation hurtful, but the speaker dismisses their feelings, claiming not to care at their age. They mention their service in Vietnam as a reason for their indifference.

The speaker discusses the issue of including trans women in the category of women. They argue that not including trans women is transphobic and offensive. The speaker believes that trans people exist and should be recognized as the gender they identify with. They express concern that excluding trans women erases their experiences and perpetuates harmful ideas. The conversation becomes heated as the speaker challenges the other person's beliefs and urges them to educate themselves on the topic. The discussion touches on the issue of rape, highlighting that trans women are also vulnerable to sexual violence.

Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1 remains politically neutral while handing out materials in support of transgenderism. Speaker 1 denies being political and claims to be a community liaison officer for the LGBT community. Speaker 0 argues that allowing transgender individuals into women's spaces is an issue. Speaker 1 refuses to engage in the discussion and states they will not answer further questions.

One participant insists that it’s unacceptable for a man to enter the women’s section and expose his penis to women and young girls, arguing that WE Spa condones such behavior. They question, “Is that what you’re saying? Like I asked. It’s he’s he could stay there. He could stay there?” They assert a sexual orientation claim, stating, “Sexual orientation. What sexual orientation? I see a dick. Sexual orientation. It lets me know he’s a man,” and repeatedly declare, “He he is a man. He is a man. He is not no female. He is not a female.” They emphasize that “Girls down there, other women who are highly offended for what they just saw, and you did nothing, absolutely nothing. In fact, you sided with him.” They accuse WE Spa of being “an agreement with men that just say they are a woman and they can go down there with their penis and get into the women’s section,” asking, “Is that what you’re saying? What law?” They note that “They pulled everything back. So women can go into the men’s with their breasts,” and state they won’t return, saying, “Everything needs money. Yeah. Get your money back. Every everything. You got a man with his penis talking about he’s a woman. He ain’t no woman.” They question whether the person is transgender, asserting, “Are you talking to that I’m transgender? There’s no such thing as transgender. He has a dick. Shut the fuck up. Okay? He has penis hanging out.” They add, “He and your daddy.” They conclude they are a woman who knows how to stand up for their rights, insisting, “As a woman, I have a right to feel comfortable without a man exposing himself.” They reiterate, “No. He’s not a transgender. He has a penis just like…” The other participant briefly attempts to calm the situation, saying, “You don’t so it’s okay. I just wanna be clear with you. It’s okay.” They acknowledge, “Okay?,” and the discussion ends with the first participant asserting their stance against the presence of a man with a penis in the women’s area.

Transgender boys benefit from free tampons in bathrooms. Speaker 1 argues that only women menstruate, based on chromosomes. Speaker 0 counters that trans men and non-binary individuals also menstruate. Speaker 1 insists that they are women dressed as men, while Speaker 0 questions the definition of a man. They debate the distinction between sex and gender, with Speaker 0 emphasizing that gender is about identity. Speaker 1 claims that those who disagree are labeled as hateful, but denies harboring hate. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being hateful towards transgender men. The conversation ends unresolved.

The speaker describes the shock of discovering a biological man in their locker room without prior notice. They approached an official who explained that the locker rooms had been made unisex to accommodate this situation. The speaker highlights the violation of privacy and safety for women and girls, questioning the message it sends to them. They express concern about their rights being dismissed in order to protect a small population. The overall sentiment among those in the locker room was a feeling of being disregarded.

Mister Speaker, powerful anecdotes of one person cannot stand for the consent of another. If women feel unsafe, we should listen. Accommodating a small segment of the population shouldn't override women's concerns. The consent of one person doesn't mean another is comfortable with transgender women in bathrooms, sports, or prisons. These conversations can be nuanced; policies protecting women's spaces aren't transphobic. Some liberals agree but are silenced by the Democratic Party's orthodoxy. People fear violence and disrespect from both sides. HB one forty eight allows localities and businesses to define sex for specific policies and isn't a Nazi movement. Calling the other side Nazis doesn't help genuine questions about women's spaces. Municipalities, private gyms, and prisons should be able to separate people based on biological sex in limited circumstances. Consider the alternative side without calling them bigots or transphobes for questioning women's spaces. Representative asks if comparing bathroom bans to Jim Crow laws is fair, referencing white-passing African Americans avoiding discrimination. Speaker responds that race and Jim Crow are significantly different than sex and women's private spaces.

The speaker argues against the idea of self-identifying with different genders, stating that pronouns cannot be chosen like adjectives. They question the definition of womanhood and challenge the concept of trans women being considered women without a clear definition. Another speaker suggests that womanhood is an umbrella term for those who identify as women, but struggles to provide a concrete definition. The conversation delves into the complexities of gender identity and the appropriation of womanhood.

A woman confronts We Spa staff, alleging a man with a penis was allowed in the women's section, exposing himself to women and young girls. She questions if We Spa condones this, implying they prioritize a man's claim of being a woman over the comfort and safety of female patrons. She asserts that "transgender" is not a valid concept, stating the individual is simply a man with a penis. She argues that women would not be allowed in the men's section with their breasts exposed. She demands refunds for all the women present, stating the situation is traumatizing and a violation of women's rights to feel safe and comfortable. She claims security acknowledged this was not allowed, and suggests predators may exploit such policies.

Speaker 0 asks, "What is a woman?" Speaker 1 says they are unsure how to answer the question. Speaker 0 states that a woman is an adult human female and that men cannot become women. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1's party of violence and erasing women, further claiming they don't respect women. Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 a bigot, misogynist, and sexist.