Image 01 Image 03

Trans Activists Shout Down 80-year-old Woman Who Spoke Out Against Biological Male In Women’s Changing Room

Trans Activists Shout Down 80-year-old Woman Who Spoke Out Against Biological Male In Women’s Changing Room

#LetJulieSwim trends on Twitter in support

As I wrote earlier this month, “Julie Jaman, 80, was banned from Port Townsend’s Mountain View Pool after complaining about a biological male ogling young girls in the changing room. Jaman had been swimming at the pool for 35 years without incident, yet it was she who was banned and insulted by the employees and management.”

Jaman is still apparently being stalked and harassed by trans activists and their “allies.”

The look on her face as she realizes that she is being shouted down is absolutely heartbreaking.

People have had enough of this shutting down actual women in the name of men who claim they are women, and it’s bubbling up all over Twitter.

From the #LetJulieSwim hashtag:

If you see a trend here, you’re not crazy. The left is finally starting to wake up to the damage the trans “movement” is causing to our society as a whole and the LBG community in particular.

Indeed, #LBGdroptheT has been trending on and off for a couple of weeks on Twitter. They have finally figured out that the entire trans goal is to deny not just gender but biological sex, thus essentially nullifying sexual attraction of any kind.

And therein lies what seems to have really hit Jaman–who was showering and vulnerable at the time–when she saw the biological man standing around staring at little girls undressing. She said that she felt her and the children’s safety was threatened, a reasonable conclusion:

It is ironic that women who discriminate when a situation threatens their safety or their children — a message from our ancestors — are now accused of discrimination as if they have made someone else a victim.

Yet by speaking out, she is the one who was vilified, banned from swimming at the pool she had enjoyed for 35 years, and called a bigot not just by Port Townsend’s Mountain View Pool/YMCA staff and management but by the town’s elected officials. It’s completely illogical on every level, and this lunatic trend must be stopped.

It looks like the LGB community is itself finally going to jettison the evil it unintentionally unleashed. They are the only ones who can put an effective stop to it, so it’s good to see.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Gentle Grizzly | August 16, 2022 at 5:34 pm

I recall a time when men would find a pervert like this and “have a little talk”. I guess those times are past.

And, who is this employer who supports his actions? (full disclosure: I didn’t read the entire article.)

    I asked my father why there weren’t so many child abuse cases when I was growing up in the 50s. He said that there were such cases and that they “were taken care of”.

      I can tell a story of about a pervert who was found crucified to a tree with his genitalia stuffed in his mouth and on each hand when I was very young. It was the “lost summer” when none of us children were allowed out of our yards to roam our neighborhoods. My dad told me about it when grew up. Cops couldn’t catch the guy even though the neighborhood were sure who it was so…… No one knows who did it and no one cared.

    Where are the real men in this town???? There must be some because there are children.

Well, they can’t beat on children, since they are grooming them, so the elderly and maybe puppies might meet their qualifications for a challenge…

The entire Democrat party now lives in an alternate reality that is not rooted in reality. It is rooted in their neo-Marxist ideology. And they are trying to force us all to live in it.

This 80 year old lady is the latest victim and target of America’s own version of the Red Guards.

Meanwhile the ChiComs are looking on, laughing, shaking their heads, and trying to determine how to help the wholesale destruction of America along by spreading some cash around in the right places. Cash generated by the policies of the Uniparty and American corporations.

    jb4 in reply to JHogan. | August 16, 2022 at 7:00 pm

    Unfortunately, I suspect that the cash that will change this is tens of millions awarded against some organization for (predictably) getting a girl raped. All of a sudden, it will become a business decision to care about girls.

I told some of my LGB acquaintances not to allow the trans activists to hitch their wagon to the LGB movement because of where this sort of dangerous extremism from trans activists would lead. These weren’t close friends but we had known each other for several years. The same people who were pleasantly surprised at my grudging acceptance of gay marriage (all academic leftists and to them anyone who had served in the military was almost by definition suspected of fascist/reactionary tendencies) were outraged.

I couldn’t make them understand that while most people are unwilling to politically die on the hill of opposing gay marriage because, at root, it was a choice between consenting adults to get married; that these same nonchalant people would fight like hell when the trans activists inevitably came after their children.

I would wager they are finally coming to understand in the wake of the VA Gov race, the potential for practical elimination of women’s sports and now invasion of locker rooms at public pools and gyms used by elderly ladies and children. I hope so, because if they choose to maintain their alliance with trans activists they will be tarred with the same brush and face the same pushback of the pendulum very hard in the opposite direction.

    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to CommoChief. | August 16, 2022 at 9:45 pm

    Pretend gay marriage is a sick joke that is used, primarily, to debase and destroy the notion of marriage.

    A gay couple (or threesome or foursome or whatever) cannot create a family of their own. It is an impossibility. Marriage is about family, not just whatever group of people want to live in the same house. By the left’s standard for marriage a single person could claim to be “married”. A single guy (or girl) can have a kid the same exact way that any number of gays can. But we all know that to call a single person “married” is ridiculous and crazy. Same for gays. But they get to destroy the notion of marriage for everyone in demanding people acceptance the mockery pretend gay marriage.

    I liked it better when gays looked down on normal people and called us “breeders” in some attempt at vitriol.

      It was also completely unnecessary. By the time of Obergefell, I think every state either already had or was on the way to having reasonable accomodation for nontraditional relationships via civil unions, legally equivalent to marriage. But of course that wasn’t enough for them.

        ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to drednicolson. | August 16, 2022 at 10:58 pm

        I have to tell you, I have since soured on civil unions, too. There is no reason for them. Gays have no right to any treatment different than friends who decide to live together might get. Marriage is for families. Civil unions are poor, underhanded ways of allowing marriages when there is none. If gays could have civil unions, then two friends who decide to live together should have the same opportunity. And single people should also have available something along the same lines for health care benefits (allowing to pick a fiend to be on their coverage, etc.), tax advantages, and the like. But no one really wants anything stupid like that, so marriage should stay as it was and has traditionally been – a man and a woman who generally have kids together. That is the family that forms the foundation of a stable society and that is the family that I want subsidized. Nothing else. And no one else is entitled to any of this.

        Hell, if the concept of marriage is to be expanded then the first expansion should have been the traditional polygamy, which has actually existed in just about every society (and still exists in many) and for which there is clear reasoning and purpose. But a bunch of gay guys who want to play house …. that is not a marriage. I leave lesbians out of this because nobody really cares what lesbians do and pretty much everyone likes to see lipstick lesbians rolling around (which really ticks the gay guys off to no end).

        So, I would even stop all the civil union stuff, if I could. If gays want to be together then they have to do it on their own dime, just as groups of friends have to do.

          Why should two people off the same gender who are having or claim to be having sexual relations have legal privileges over two people of the same gender who want to live together and comingle finances while being celibate and not pretending otherwise?

          If two asexual women want to adopt a baby together, why should they be pressured to pretend to be lesbians?

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | August 17, 2022 at 12:47 am

      “ Pretend gay marriage is a sick joke that is used, primarily, to debase and destroy the notion of marriage.”

      I feel the same about easy divorce.

      Wrong. Marriage is about licenses and taxes and forms and bureaucracy. Therefore, ANY combination can constitute licenses and taxes and forms and bureaucracy…


      You seem to be arguing that Marriage is or should be restricted to those couples who wish to legalize their union for the purpose of family formation and procreation. I don’t believe you have thought that through. Here are some examples of marriages that wouldn’t be allowed into either come into existence or continue existing under your requirements.

      Surveys indicate that roughly 25% of marriages are sexless; no sexual activity in the past 12 months or longer.

      Marriages where the woman is 35 +. That women has geriatric pregnancy risk, assuming she can overcome the fact that becoming pregnant at that age is far more difficult than at 18.

      Marriages where one or both members suffer from infertility due to genetics, past injury or medical condition causing infertility.

      Given that the marriages under the circumstances I listed above either can not or most likely will not result in offspring do you support refusing a marriage license initially for people in these circumstances? Would you support mandatory revocation of marriage licenses for those who find themselves in marriages with one or more of those circumstances?

      Would you be willing to impose your traditional view of marriage to divorce laws as well? Not allowing divorce outside of narrow traditional grounds; infidelity, abuse and lack of intimacy (sex)?

      I wrestled with the ‘it’s a mockery’ issue. I came to realize that not every marriage is all we would like it to be and society doesn’t stop those nor end them. If two consenting adults wish to formally legalize their relationship as a marriage it doesn’t cheapen or degrade my own marriage. Only I can do that.

        ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to CommoChief. | August 17, 2022 at 12:13 pm

        You make law for the vast general cases, not to take every single exception into account. I have certainly thought through everything you’ve mentioned – and more – and had lengthy discussions about all that for many years.

        You make the law on the general and usual case – which is a man and a woman making a family. Other cases where a man and a woman get married but don’t make a family come along with that. Big whoop. So two 90 year olds get married and everyone knows that they aren’t going to have kids. So what? You don’t change the basic definition of marriage (which has been with most cultures since almost forever) just for that. You allow for the exceptions. You could make the same arguments about any law that cites an age, as if every single person is exactly the same in some respects by their ages. Of course not, but you pick a general age and make the law around that. If you have problems with that then you have serious problems with our Founders and the Constitution.

        What you do not do is make a mockery of the whole idea of marriage just to satisfy some abnormal section of society who want to feel normal as they do exceedingly abnormal things. Gays and pretend gay marriage can never be normal … because for any society that that were true for would quickly perish on its own.

        Marriage is about family, exceptions notwithstanding.

        ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to CommoChief. | August 17, 2022 at 12:36 pm

        I would add that infertility has traditionally been grounds for a divorce and you would be hard-pressed to find any normal people who disagree with that. In Biblical times you didn’t have to divorce but could take on a concubine if the wife appeared unable to bear children.

        But almost never, in the history of the world and even in societies that celebrated homosexuality and other sexual perversions, was pretend gay marriage ever any sort of thing. The only time you get even close to that would be with the Sacred Band of Thebes, but that’s an infinitesimal piece.

        Societies have always known that procreation is necessary for their continuation and that has been the foundation of much of their cultures. It is only a suicidal society that fights against procreation. We have been doing that with the insane abortion policies (up to now) and the pretend gay marriage is an even heavier attack on society and normal (i.e. sane) culture.


          You chose to raise procreation as your primary objection to homosexual marriage. When I point out the flaws and internal inconsistencies of your overly broad argument you attempt to minimize those as ‘exceptions’. You then go so far as to undermine your original argument, marriage is for procreation, by accepting exceptions in every case. Well every case except for that of homosexuality.

          This seems to indicate that your true argument isn’t about the restriction of marriage, as a general rule, for the purpose of procreation but rather about excluding the exception(s) to that general rule which you disfavor; namely homosexuality.

          That’s just fine with me and I hope everyone else. The US is still a mostly free country and you are entitled to form, hold and express your true opinion. It is unnecessary to invoke red herring arguments as to the necessity of traditional procreation for the continuation of our species. Though, even those red herring arguments are becoming obsolete; test tube babies, sperm banks and frozen eggs are a reality, while artificial wombs are not so distant as to be unthinkable.

      Like it’s any of your business what two consenting adults do. You presume to define the word “marriage” for everyone? That’s real crust, man, big brassy ones in my book.

Only 2 women stood up amd
By the 80 y/o.

Can’t imagine
Growing up
And a grown Ass man yelling at my grandmothers face like that,
And yet here we are…

We would have a come to Jesus moment

    henrybowman in reply to gonzotx. | August 17, 2022 at 12:10 am

    “And a grown Ass man yelling at my grandmothers face like that,
    We would have a come to Jesus moment”


    “This was the most aggressive man.” (see photo)

    There is no revelation but South Park, and Trey Parker is its prophet.

Subotai Bahadur | August 16, 2022 at 9:17 pm

Long ago [while I was still wearing a badge] we pondered retiring to Port Angeles, which is just west of Port Townsend one the north shore of the Olympic Peninsula. I am really glad we did not. First, they are now so far to the Left that I could not stand it. Second, I have a tendency to protect children from abuse, energetically. And that is the kind of case that a Washington DA would prosecute.

Subotai Bahadur

Gnashing of teeth…

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | August 16, 2022 at 9:40 pm

Trans Activists Shout Down 80-year-old Woman Who Spoke Out Against Biological Male In Women’s Changing Room

Not “Biological Male”. Just “Male”.

Just using the term “biological male” in order to describe a male is giving in to the idiocy of the left.

E Howard Hunt | August 16, 2022 at 10:05 pm

LGBTQIA- Lascivious Guys Burgling Turds Quartered In Asses

That’s how I always remember it. I wouldn’t want to offend anyone by saying it in the wrong order.

I cannot find the name of the guy ogling the pre-teens nor of his supposedly supportive employer. Is this available somewhere?


A local blog, The Port Townsend Free Press, discovered that the biological male in question goes by the name Clementine Adams, a first-year college student and employee of the YMCA.

Antifundamentalist | August 17, 2022 at 9:31 am

I honestly don’t care who you go to bed with. I don’t really care what bathroom you use, as long as you don’t bother me (I’ve taken my small child into the “wrong’ bathroom in a pinch a time or two, so who am I to judge?) and keep the stall door closed. I do believe that your life partner should be legally recognized as your next of kin over your biological kin if that’s what you wish (domestic partnership/marriage/whatever you want to call it). I don’t even care if you hold hands or kiss in public (I can avert my eyes just like I do with anything else I don’t want to look at) just keep it pg or get a room, please, just like everyone else should for the sake of courtesy.
Where I draw the line though is depriving others of “safe spaces” – No One should have to worry about being confronted with a penis in a women-only locker room or dorm. It is sexual harrassment at best and nothing less than misogyny.

Will not
Outbreed us!

    ecreegan in reply to shrinkDave. | August 17, 2022 at 12:17 pm

    No, that’s why their conquest of the educational system is so important. The Left doesn’t have kids, they steal yours.

      gibbie in reply to ecreegan. | August 17, 2022 at 2:18 pm

      It’s amazing how many non-leftists fail to understand this. Perhaps it’s because it requires time, effort, and money to take ones children out of the government schools.

        CommoChief in reply to gibbie. | August 17, 2022 at 9:52 pm

        AZ is setting the standard for school choice via adequate funding for the education of the student no longer tied to govt schools. Some will and some won’t take advantage of the opportunity. Just as some won’t put in the effort to lose a few extra pounds others definitely will.

Trans/neo/quasi/pseudo genders in the transgender spectrum parade for social progress… one step forward, two steps backward.

That said, first, they came for baby, then male, then female, and NOW (pun intended) granny, too. At least its not a revue for planned parent/hood.

“ Pretend gay marriage is a sick joke that is used, primarily, to debase and destroy the notion of marriage.”

I feel the same about easy divorce.

Even more about the latter. Boys and girls should reach the age of maturity, reconcile, then marry. Perhaps civil unions to avoid conflation of social spaces.

If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

According to the Bible, homosexual sex is a sin. But I see a bunch of (non-gay) pride in these comments.

Podcast # 195: Meet the 80-Year-Old Feminist Who Got Banned From the YMCA for Protesting Male Bodies in the Women’s Locker Room

The Patriarchy has a serious issue with male entitlement.

So a man who calls himself a woman is entitled to enter into all the woman’s private spaces – including the toilets???

How so?

Where does this “entitlement” come from?

If a man demands the right to derogate from a woman’s FUNDAMENTAL, INALIENABLE Human RIGHTS, including her

– Right to Life, and
– Right not to be given cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and
– Right to Privacy

the BURDEN of PROOF lies with the man to PROVE he has the legal, lawful, ethical and moral RIGHT to derogate.

The Rule of Law does NOT provide him with this Right to derogate from a woman’s fundamental, inalienable human rights.

The Patriarchy is under the Rule of Law and no-one is above the law as we are all equal under the Rule of Law.

Understand this please.

Thank you.

Anna de Buisseret
U.K. lawyer