Lorvic back on track

A few days ago I tore into Lydia Lorvic for a pro SSM column that was an opinion piece without the solid backing she claimed it had. She's back with a better effort, this time about an idiot who wants to be able to use the local Ladies Only Fitness Club. Oh- and he's a man. Lorvic compares the man wanting access to the women only gym to the big fru fru this summer over a Vancouver Golf Club's having a bar that did not allow women. She correctly concludes that women cannot have it both ways. If they insist on attacking the golf club, they must accept this man into their fitness gym. I think sending the trouble makers packing is the best solution in both cases. If men want to create a place where they are free of women, that's fine so long as the women have the same right, to create a club with no admittance to men. People who don't like voluntary sex segregation can choose not to visit such establishments and to tell others why they shouldn't either. Pickets and legislation are way over the top. Like SSM, the issue of voluntary gender segregation is about treating different things differently. I also want to point out that if men are different from women, an assumption underlying Lorvic's take on gender segregation, it follows that a SSM is of a different nature than a traditional marriage. If that is so, then treating it as such is no different and no more offensive than a women's only gym.