I'm just wondering aloud here. When will we decide that women are regular citizens, instead of treating female shooters as though they are a separate class of citizen? I understand that there is a perception that women need their own, separate training classes and all that, so they feel comfortable. Is that condescending to women or am I missing something? At what point, or under what circumstances, will we be treating female shooters the same as we treat male shooters (within the sport I mean)?
Maybe it's a dumb question. Maybe men can't help but see a woman as something special and maybe that attitude is bound to find its way into our chosen sport. Maybe some women are so accustomed to being treated differently that they expect it without a lot of thought.
Maybe the question is simply premature. Any female shooters want to comment on that? Do you believe you need separate training or separate categories in a competition, and if so, why? Should there be guns made for girls, and others for the boys and if so, why" Marketing strategies are beyond the scope of the question. Hell, maybe it's all about marketing, in which case, never mind.
I could understand if shooting involved some heavy lifting, but even then we've all seen some women who can out-lift some men. So you want different weight classes, like in wrestling?
Here's another. How long is it going to be before the various races of humans are treated the same in general, in the media, and in the courts? I understand personal preferences, but that's quite different. I'm talking socially, politically and legally. When will I be able to tell a black guy he's being a fool without being accused of racism, or tell a Mexican woman she's wrong without her getting in my face on some racial or sex-related tangent? When will we be able to disagree without changing the subject as a form of crutch? I really am getting sick and damned tired of this, so I am herein putting my foot down. Knock off the race and sex defenses. Some people are using it as a tool and I'm not buying it. Not at all, and I'm getting right back in your face if you try it with me so don't even start.
When, or under what exact specified circumstances, will the gun-restriction advocates declare their work done, pack up their tents, and get jobs? Any time you hear one of them guffaw over the assertion that they won't quit until all guns are banned, your immediate response must be, "OK, then tell me precisely when or under what circumstances you will stop, declare victory, and find something else to do, 'cause what I see is that any time you get a win, you're right on to calling for another restriction. This has been happening for over 70 years, so, you know, we have a pretty undeniable track record here. Go ahead. Lay out the circumstances. I have all day."
Staying on the title subject;
A problem with saying, "this far and no farther" is you've already established that a) you're willing to give ground, and/or that b) you've accepted or granted your opponent's basic premise(s). Some things are properly subject to compromise (such as where to go for lunch, assuming you want the company) and others are not (such as basic rights). When it comes to basic rights, the response it not, "this far and no farther". Properly, the response is zero tolerance, same as it would be for a robber or a rapist. If someone violates your basic rights, they are criminal and it is not incumbent upon you to prove your magnanimity by compromising with them. You fight to win, then you fight for compensation and restitution, then you fight for justice, assuming your opponent is still breathing. Few if any in Congress, for example, seem to have a clue how that might happen with regard to their violations of our basic rights.