Planet Fitness revokes woman's membership after transgender complaint

[Bill the Cat]

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/living/feat-planet-fitness-transgender-member/index.html

A Michigan woman lost her Planet Fitness membership over the "inappropriate" manner in which she complained about a transgender woman in the locker room, a gym spokeswoman said.

Yvette Cormier's membership was not canceled for simply raising the issue, "as we welcome all feedback from our members," said McCall Gosselin, director of public relations at Planet Fitness Corporate.

Rather, it was the manner in which she expressed her concerns that club management felt was inappropriate, resulting in the cancellation, Gosselin said.

Cormier stands by her actions in a case that has drawn attention to transgender rights.

"This is all new to me. I didn't go out to specifically bash a transgender person that day. I was taken aback by the situation," Cormier told CNN. "This is about me and how I felt unsafe. I should feel safe in there."

The mother of two says she was acting out of concern for her safety and the privacy of other female gym members when she raised the issue on Saturday, February 28.



She went to the front desk after someone who looked like a "man" entered the women's locker room while she was changing.

"I wanted to know why there was a man in the women's locker room," she told CNN. "He looked like a man, and that's what stopped me in my tracks."

She said the front desk employee told her about Planet Fitness' "no-judgment" policy, which allows people to use changing room based on "their sincere, self-reported gender identity."

Unsatisfied, she said she called Planet Fitness' corporate headquarters and heard the same thing.

"That should be something they pointed out when I signed up," she said.

"If you have male parts you don't need to be in the women's locker room. I don't care what you are; I don't care if you're gay lesbian, transgender or transvestite. I am uncomfortable with you as a male in my locker room, in my restroom."

She returned to the gym Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday "to get the word out" to other women that they "let men in the women's locker room," she said.

"Every day I said 'just so you know, there's a man they allow in this locker room and they don't tell you that when you sign up,' " she said.

The next day, she found out that her membership had been canceled.

© Copyright Original Source

[Zymologist]

Clearly, she is a bigot who deserved what she got.

[Darth Executor]

Darn kids have it easy these days, all they have to do to catch a glimpse is walk into a girls changeroom and claim that they identify as a woman.

[hamster]

Transgender feelings are more important than natural boundaries adhered to by 99.9% of the population

[Teallaura]

Sadly, a woman is going to ha e to be attacked before they realize how dangerous it is. The lawsuit will be a slamdunk.

[hamster]

Most transgender people aren't interested in assaulting anyone, but still boundaries should be respected. I'm a homosexual male and if I was barred from entering male locker rooms or even bathrooms I'd understand completely.

[Meta Knight]

Planet Fitness is a terrible gym anyway. Some of them literally have a "no grunting" policy.

[hamster]

I used to have a membership at Planet Fitness.. its an okay place, but, come on, they have FREE PIZZA every Friday

[JonathanL]

Planet Fitness is a terrible gym anyway. Some of them literally have a "no grunting" policy.

Most of the time people who grunt at the gym are just being pretentious, so I can completely understand a "no grunting" policy.

[DesertBerean]

This guy fires back:

http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...n=ShareButtons

[Starlight]

An article I read about this made it clear that this was talking about a locker room and that that changing rooms are single-person locked stalls. So there is no reason any transgender person would see something they shouldn't. (Though it left me a bit unclear on why they even bother to gender-segregate the locker room itself in the first place, so maybe I'm missing something?)

Also, I'm sure we can all agree that people can be just plain annoying:

She returned to the gym Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday "to get the word out" to other women

She deliberately made a nuisance of herself. It doesn't really matter whether she was evangelizing them, campaigning for Hillary for 2016, telling them about the evils of abortion, or telling them about the Gym's small-print terms and conditions... when she's coming to the gym just to tell things to other customers who don't necessarily want to hear it rather than to use the gym herself, then she's being a nuisance and the gym has every right and obligation to kick her out.

[sylas]

Most transgender people aren't interested in assaulting anyone, but still boundaries should be respected. I'm a homosexual male and if I was barred from entering male locker rooms or even bathrooms I'd understand completely.

I have a bit of a double take at this post. I appreciate your irenic and unaggressive approach; but don't you have the example backwards? The person not accepting established boundaries, in this case, was the person who kicked up an enormous and disruptive fuss because they didn't like the boundaries that were in place.

Some places might have policies that would exclude or limit you on the basis of your orientation. Most places don't. (And I think that's good. I hope you do as well!)

You say you would accept and understand if you were banned. That's generous; seriously. The question I'm begging to ask -- would you accept and understand a place that decided you would REMAIN welcome, and would rather enforce their established boundaries against being disruptive? That's what happened here. Isn't PlanetFitness due some understanding as well, for their boundaries against disruption of other members, and expectation of how members should manage any complaints?

To get a comparable situation, you have to consider a place where you are welcome, and not banned; and then one individual cannot accept this, and disrupts the establishment to try and change their welcoming and inclusive boundaries in order to exclude you.

Cheers -- sylas

[Teallaura]

I have a bit of a double take at this post. I appreciate your irenic and unaggressive approach; but don't you have the example backwards? The person not accepting established boundaries, in this case, was the person who kicked up an enormous and disruptive fuss because they didn't like the boundaries that were in place.

Some places might have policies that would exclude or limit you on the basis of your orientation. Most places don't. (And I think that's good. I hope you do as well!)

You say you would accept and understand if you were banned. That's generous; seriously. The question I'm begging to ask -- would you accept and understand a place that decided you would REMAIN welcome, and would rather enforce their established boundaries against being disruptive? That's what happened here. Isn't PlanetFitness due some understanding as well, for their boundaries against disruption of other members, and expectation of how members should manage any complaints?

To get a comparable situation, you have to consider a place where you are welcome, and not banned; and then one individual cannot accept this, and disrupts the establishment to try and change their welcoming and inclusive boundaries in order to exclude you.

Cheers -- sylas

Actually, Hammy didn't address the main concern - that an opportunistic rapist will take advantage of the easy access to women when they are vulerable. Planet Fitness is putting their politics ahead of their female member's safety.

[sylas]

Actually, Hammy didn't address the main concern - that an opportunistic rapist will take advantage of the easy access to women when they are vulerable. Planet Fitness is putting their politics ahead of their female member's safety.

I've heard this claim before, and think it is without foundation. But on the other hand I am not a woman myself, and I think you have every right to maintain your own safety, and your own feeling of being safe.

Hence I'll start by simply agreeing that Hammy didn't address that issue. What I found a tad odd was that he spoke of accepting people who would exclude him, based on his sexuality; where the issue here is whether a company should be permitted to be ACCEPTING of trans individuals.

The homosexual issue is perhaps easier. It's generous of Hammy to be accepting of people who would exclude him. I presume he'd also be accepting of companies or organizations that would welcome him and make an effort to establish an environment in which HE felt safe and accepted.

Now let's look at the case of transgender individuals. So what of a company who makes an effort to establish an environment in which transgender individuals are safe and accepted? Or a company that enforces their own chosen boundaries against disruption of other members by a disgruntled individual who returns daily to stir up some issue that have with that policy?

Is that a reasonable stance for a company to make? Should we permit such companies to exist? You don't have to give them your business, of course; that is entirely your choice. But is it appropriate to be tolerant of THEIR choice to adopt policies accepting and welcoming of trans individuals?

If there was a credible case that this really did make women less safe -- perhaps not. But I don't think there's the slightest evidence for that, frankly. Concerns about men pretending to be women to take advantage of transgender tolerant organizations in order to engage in assault or other abuse appear to be entirely made up. No matter what policy is in place for trans individuals; men can already dress up and pretend to be women -- and this difference is not ambiguous. Such folks DON'T qualify as identifying as women. This difference between pretense and genuine self-identification would be easy to show if an actual instance came up.

So honestly, I don't think there's the slightest basis for saying PlanetFitness is putting their politics ahead of their female member's safety. The policies in place are -- according to all available evidence I have seen -- ones that work best for the safety of all members. I repeat, however; you are not a bad person if you choose to avoid anywhere with this kind of policy. You are entirely within your rights to keep yourself safe and feeling safe as best you possibly can.

So the question is... when it comes to accepting boundaries. Can we accept a company that adopts policies and boundaries against disruption to members by a disgruntled individual returning daily to stir up the matter? It seems to me that this becomes a safety issue also.

Cheers -- sylas

[Zymologist]

Women outnumber transgendered people. If women are made uncomfortable in their bathroom by the presence of a transgender male, why do the feelings and comfort of the women not matter? Why do the feelings of a few (an extreme minority) take precedence over the feelings of a large percentage of the population?

Perhaps some of the ladies can help me out here. Are you, any of you, or any women you know (any at all), comfortable with this?