Doodledog
No, nor did I (and whilst I am in the age group for WASPI, I do not identify with them - in fact I resent the way the term has become shorthand for 50s-born women.
I do, however, feel that the systemic discrimination that women of my generation (and previous ones) suffered is grounds for their getting pensions at an earlier age than men. It is not about affordability (as the current splurging if cash has shown), and I detest means-testing for all sorts of reasons.
But there has been all sorts of research. Women from 60-66/67 are on average not poor. Their disposable income is on average higher than some very old people and the majority of working people. That's because on average they have lower housing costs and, if they're not working, they're not paying National Insurance.
If women from 60-66/7 were given a lump sum, there would be a justified outcry from men and younger people, including those born on or after 1 January 1960. That's the main reason that it's my opinion that it would be unfair to give money to people who on average need it less than others.
I am well aware of the flaws in talking about averages, which is why I think those genuinely in need should be supported by the benefit system, as over 60s were to an extent before the 2011 changes.