TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Miss Scanlon's testimony was discussed, with one speaker suggesting that barriers should have been put up in the women's locker room to address the situation. Miss Scanlon responded by stating that this acknowledgment of the need for barriers recognizes the biological differences between men and women. She questioned why they couldn't continue using the separate locker rooms for men and women if privacy and protection were acknowledged as necessary.

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.

Republicans are accused of hating gays and women, but I'd rather vote for them than a party that doesn't recognize women. While some criticize Republicans for taking away rights, they argue that the other party is doing the same by not protecting women's rights. The speaker expresses frustration with the focus on trivial issues like bathroom policies while important rights are being eroded. Ultimately, the speaker is confident in their voting choice despite the criticism.

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.

You claim to support privacy and civil rights, yet you disregard women's rights and safety. It's hypocritical to advocate for privacy while pushing for policies that force women, including survivors of sexual abuse, to undress in front of men in bathrooms and locker rooms. As a rape survivor, I find it unacceptable to be placed in such situations.

I will not apologize for trying to protect women and girls in sports. This hearing was about protecting women, and I am here to stand up for their rights. We have fought for decades to win these rights, and I will continue to protect them. I am a woman, and I will not stop roaring to protect women, because we have rights too.

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.

I don't understand why Congresswoman Mace's safety and privacy are being questioned. She's a victim with valid reasons for wanting only biological women in the women's bathroom. As a trans woman, I respect her feelings and her desire for privacy. This isn't an attack on anyone; it's about her lived experience. After learning about her story, I see her concerns as legitimate. There are gender-neutral bathrooms available, so I don't see why this is such a big issue. She simply wants safety and privacy in women's spaces. Stay tuned for more insights from an informed trans woman.

I am a woman and I use the women's restroom. No one can stop me. If you have a problem, use a different bathroom. I have the right to use the women's restroom.

I'm speaking in Sarah McBride's district tomorrow night. There's a lot of media attention on him for dressing as a woman and making a political career out of it. He takes selfies in women's bathrooms, claiming he should have access to our private spaces. I believe this is a form of sexual abuse and reflects a mental health disorder. If they want to use a bathroom, they should seek help in a mental health facility, as that is the appropriate response.

My daughters will only compete against other women in sports. We need to stop allowing biological men to change in front of young girls. Let's fix this by 2024.

We just voted for Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House. Before that, I expressed my refusal to support the rules package due to concerning language from Nancy Pelosi's Congress. The Democrats had established an office of diversity and inclusion and included gender-inclusive language that removed traditional family terms like father, mother, son, and daughter, replacing them with neutral terms. I demanded changes, and I'm pleased to announce that the language has been revised. The office of diversity and inclusion has been eliminated, and traditional family terms have been restored in the rules. Republicans are committed to upholding traditional family values, and we will ensure that biological men are not allowed in women's private spaces. We'll share the updated language for your review.

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.

If you support girls and women's equality and sports, stand up. It's unfair and unsafe for males to compete in girls' sports. Don't be afraid of being called a bigot. Fight for women's equality, privacy, fairness, and safety. Be honest, brave, and stand with us in the fight for equality.

If you advocate for a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, but ignore women who don't want men in their dressing rooms or sports, you are a hypocrite. You only care about the opinions of women who agree with you. Forcing women to accept men in their private spaces while claiming to support their bodily autonomy is oppressive and biased.

I'm going to take action regardless of what others think. Kamala has allowed dangerous criminals from various countries to enter, threatening our women and children. Anyone who permits such violence should not be in the Oval Office. My priority is to protect the people, especially women. Despite being advised that my statements are inappropriate, I will continue to speak out. It's essential to ensure the safety of our citizens, and I will do whatever it takes to protect them.

A transgender activist was asked to explain the premise of the movement, but they deflected and changed the subject. The speaker believes it is their right to ask this question because there are civil rights specifically for women, such as special bathrooms and sports leagues. They argue that if men are claiming the right to enter these spaces, either all special rights for women need to be abolished or the activists need to explain how these men are actually women. The speaker is not willing to abolish women's rights and believes most women in the country feel the same way.

Being a feminist makes me an extremist, and I embrace that. This is a response to Congresswoman McBride's presence in Congress. I refuse to accept a man in women's locker rooms. As a rape survivor with PTSD, I understand the vulnerability of women and girls in private spaces. I will actively oppose any man who tries to enter women's restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas. I will fight against this every step of the way.

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.

The speaker criticizes President Biden's Title IX rule, stating it erases the differences between men and women. Arkansas has laws protecting sex-segregated facilities and women's sports. The speaker pledges to uphold these laws and resist Biden's policies. They highlight young women fighting against gender inclusion in sports, like 5 girls in West Virginia and swimmer Riley Gaines. The speaker calls for courage in leadership to support women's rights.

If we don't speak up against this nonsense, we'll lose women's rights, sororities, and our safety. We shouldn't have to expose ourselves to perverted men or surrender to this madness. Let's find our voices, ladies, and the men who support us. Otherwise, this will be our future. We can support trans people without compromising our own well-being.

The speakers discuss men playing in women's sports, with one speaker stating some people fight to the death for men to play in women's sports, even though some of these sports are very dangerous for women. They claim some people are trying to make new laws allowing men to abuse women in sports, which doesn't make sense. One speaker mentions weightlifting records, saying a man can beat a woman by a hundred pounds, breaking records that haven't been broken in eighteen years. They claim there was a congressman fighting to the death for men to play against women in sports. The other speaker states their country is big in protecting women, and most of their cabinet are women who are great at what they do.

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.

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.

You can't erase us, Nancy. If you want to erase women, that's unacceptable. For any man who wants to enter a women's restroom, dressing room, or locker room, the answer is absolutely not.