I'm not laying claim to being a "wokie", especially as I'm not even sure what it means - maybe a shaved Wookie?
Once upon a time, "woke" was black community vernacular meaning awareness of racial justice issues. Someone who was "woke" was someone who was "awake" to issues of institutionalized racism and racial discrimination in society. At some point in recent years, the term was appropriated by white liberals and applied to every social justice cause under the sun. And, like everything that white liberals appropriate for themselves, it became a joke and is now mostly used with contempt by people who sneer at white liberals, more or less in the same way as "politically correct" and "social justice warrior".
Here's an Al Jazeera article on the phenomenon:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/6/24/what-is-woke-culture-and-why-has-it-become-so-toxicOf course, I agree that that people shouldn't be permitted anywhere, if it is obvious they are there for nefarious purposes - **** hanging around playgrounds/schools, KKK people with guns hanging around in black neighborhoods, an abuser hanging around his ex's house etc.
But I still get the impression, too often, that a transgendered person is assumed to have ill-intent in entering female spaces, just because they are transgendered. Do you see that too? Or does holding that opinion make me a 'wokie'?
I have to point out that you didn't even attempt to answer the question. You glanced briefly at the question before going off in a completely different direction.
First off: even if you support the notion that trans-women should be allowed to use women's single sex facilities, you have to acknowledge that self-ID on demand is a problem, and this incident illustrates why. It's an idea begging to be abused. When this incident hit the news, the Wi Spa people said "we're just following the law". And they're right. The law in California says that they're required to treat patrons according to their gender identity. If Darren the sex offender shows up and says he's a woman, they're required to treat him as such. It doesn't require the individual to even be transgender. He can claim to be female the moment he arrives at the spa or pool, hang out in the women's changing room and showers, and resume leading a normal male life as soon as he leaves, and that's all completely within the law in California. It's clearly a terrible idea, and women are not villains for protesting against such a stupid law.
Second: "too often, that a transgendered person is assumed to have ill-intent in entering female spaces, just because they are transgendered" ...how do we even know if someone's transgender? How can you tell the difference between someone who wants to enter women's spaces with ill-intent, and someone who isn't?
And also: "I agree that that people shouldn't be permitted anywhere, if it is obvious they are there for nefarious purposes" ...what actually qualifies as nefarious purposes in your book? To me it seems that for wokies that line starts at bodily assault. Wokies are content to say that since Darren Merager didn't actually physically assault anybody in the spa, no harm no foul. I reject that. The women in the spa didn't consent to be fodder for someone's exhibitionism fetish. They didn't consent to be objects of a voyeur's gaze. I hate that in 2021 women's privacy and dignity are considered so worthless that they are expected to submit to this kind of treatment without question.
-k