Democrats Do Not Speak for All Women — a clear, candid take on why national elites can’t presume to represent every woman’s view on safety, privacy, and public spaces.

For a long time now, the Left has pushed forward policies with heavy-handed enforcement while quietly ignoring the laws and limits they dislike. They rarely advocate for outright repeal, preferring instead to change enforcement and the institutions that carry out laws. That approach lets them advance cultural priorities without confronting the friction that comes from broad public opinion.

One example is how some Democrats claim they speak for all women on sensitive issues like locker rooms. Ally Sammarco publicly shrugged off women’s discomfort and framed the debate as one where no boundaries need defending. That claim sidelines women who feel unsafe or violated by policies that permit unfettered access to intimate spaces.

“As a woman who uses locker rooms, I couldn’t care less if a transwoman was in the locker room too. I probably wouldn’t even notice, and they are more likely interested in men, anyway,” Sammarco wrote.

The data does not universally back the idea that most trans-identified people are only interested in other men. In a 2015 survey of “transwomen” (men), most of them said they were either attracted to women or bisexual (~47 percent) while only 19 percent said they were attracted to men. That split matters when policy treats all identities as identical in motive and behavior.

https://x.com/Ally_Sammarco/status/2080302067508293660?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Some activists insist there is no meaningful difference between a man in a women’s locker room and a lesbian sharing space with other women, but real-world incidents tell a different story. Reports from gyms and public facilities show predators exploiting broad interpretations of identity to gain access to private spaces. Those examples make the abstract debate painfully concrete.

At one gym, a man who had the legal right to enter the women’s locker room was later caught masturbating in that space, an event described in reports as “caught masturbating.” Policies that prioritize identity over safety meant women’s complaints did not automatically trigger removal. In other cases, individuals have used trans-inclusive rules to film or harass women without immediate consequences.

There are criminal episodes too. Richard Cox in Virginia reportedly kept children’s swim schedules on his phone to target female changing areas and exposed himself to women and girls. In California, Tremaine Carroll identified as a woman despite not undergoing hormone therapy or presenting as female and was placed in a women’s prison where he raped three inmates. This, for reference, is what Richard Cox and Tremaine Carroll look like, by the way.

As a practical matter, policies that treat identification alone as the criterion for access create predictable avenues for predators. Women who voice unease are dismissed as intolerant or accused of bigotry, even when their concerns are rooted in documented incidents. The result is a chilling posture: either accept the risk or be labeled cruel for wanting basic privacy and safety.

I would like to see someone who champions open-access locker rooms share that space with the people accused of these offenses and tell me they feel comfortable. Most candid people would admit the discomfort is real, not imagined. Pretending that discomfort doesn’t exist will not protect anyone; it just reallocates the burden onto the people who least want it.

These policies, promoted by some Democrats as enlightened and inclusive, have enabled predators to harm women and girls both here and abroad. Labeling dissenters as backward or hateful shuts down necessary debate about safety protocols, screening, and literal physical privacy. Women should not be painted as intolerant for demanding spaces where they can change, shower, and be free from exposure.

I am a woman, and I am not comfortable, nor do I consent to men sharing my locker room. I do not have to accept the mentally ill delusions of men who are often sexually deviant, mainly misogynistic, and usually perverted, and I do not have to get naked in front of them in some act of tolerance virtue signaling so Sammarco and her ilk can feel good about themselves. And I know I’m not alone. This is an 80-20 issue at a minimum. Sammarco is free to change in front of men if she chooses. She is not free to tell me, or the rest of us women, that we have to do the same.

Not long ago, some of the same voices told us to “believe all women” and treated ordinary male behavior as inherently threatening. Now those voices insist we must accept men into private women’s spaces or else be guilty of transphobia. That contradiction should trouble anyone who cares about consistent standards of justice and protection for women. Spare me.