Planet Fitness revokes woman's membership after transgender complaint

[LeaC]

Because trans trumps womyn.

In other news a 'trans woman' launches a protest against being forced to use toilets meant for his sex, calling it "disgusting" and "dangerous".

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4511[/ATTACH]

The interesting thing about this "protest" is that despite the fact that this transgender individual is seen here taking pictures of men using the toilet(how is that EVER acceptable?) there has been no violence or outcry. One of the men he encountered tried to ask him out, as I recall, and that was the worst of it.


The entire argument is absurd. Women have good reason to fear a man who is dressing in women's attire, as it is the number one paraphilia among serial killers and sexual predators. Assaults and peeping in women's bathrooms are quite common, and often the perpetrator is wearing "women's clothing". (I could provide examples if anyone's interested, just don't have the time right now)

The man in question at Planet Fitness was not even a member of the gym, but had only visited once before to leave his bag in the women's locker room. So what we have here is a case of a woman spotting a man she didn't know in a private room designated for women. She complains about it to management, is told to ignore her own safety for the sake of not hurting the feelings of an obvious male who is 'fully intact'. She then warns other members about this policy, and her own membership is terminated.

As far as whether private facilities would solve the problem, it's my understanding(though not positive about this) that private facilities were available at Planet Fitness, but this person deliberately chose to ignore them in favor of the women's room. So no, that wouldn't settle the debate, and most of the "activists" are not asking for private facilities anyway.

Needless to say, I'm completely disgusted by this particular case, and the way the woman- who was frightened for her safety and that of the other women- has been treated by the liberal media. This male had no business being anywhere near women's locker rooms, and yet, he is the innocent victim, according to the left? Complete insanity.

[seasanctuary]

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.

Would you feel the same way if access were limited to trans women while cis men were reliably being excluded as always?

[Bill the Cat]

Would you feel the same way if access were limited to trans women while cis men were reliably being excluded as always?

say-what.jpg

[seasanctuary]

I'm trying to find out if the only concern is that random dude can walk in and not be challenged, or if that's cited as a complaint but people would still be complaining about transgender women being in the women's facilities.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm trying to find out if the only concern is that random dude can walk in and not be challenged, or if that's cited as a complaint but people would still be complaining about transgender women being in the women's facilities.

I'd have a problem with both TBH.

[Teallaura]

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

Argh - I hate tablets. I can't select the one paragragh I am addressing so please bear with me.

You said it is obvious when a man is merely in drag and when he has a gender identity issue - which is simply not true. The is no good mechanism for distinguishing one from the other. Once policy allows the one, it is impossible to exclude the other without inviting a lawsuit that you will lose. The realityis that some kid acting as desk clerk can't distinguish and the company, assuming it has someone with a brain (given their ads, probably a stretch to assume working brain cellls) a

[Kristian Joensen]

"assuming it has someone with a brain (given their ads, probably a stretch to assume working brain cellls) a"

I suspect something got left out here?

[seer]

What if as a guy, I self-identify as a lesbian woman? Which locker room do I use?

[Teallaura]

"assuming it has someone with a brain (given their ads, probably a stretch to assume working brain cellls) a"I suspect something got left out here?

Yes. "Actually, they won't want him to."

[Paprika]

What if as a guy, I self-identify as a lesbian woman? Which locker room do I use?

Use the one you prefer. If someone confronts you over it, go to the media and play the victim card.

[sylas]

Argh - I hate tablets. I can't select the one paragragh I am addressing so please bear with me.

You said it is obvious when a man is merely in drag and when he has a gender identity issue - which is simply not true.

No, I didn't; honestly. It ISN'T obvious; not even with detailed physical examination! It is, however, a pretty unambiguous distinction (at least, certainly no more ambiguous than any notion of "actual" gender.) After all -- it is ALSO not obvious at first sight whether someone is in drag, or is conventional female; there are many individuals whose gender is not at all obvious at first sight, and a surprising number (between 1 and 2% of the population) whose gender is physically ambiguous even with detailed physical examination.

What I actually said is that the difference between someone just dressing up as a woman on occasion for whatever reason; and someone who actually identifies as a women consistently, is not ambiguous. (And I'll qualify that now by saying at least it is no more ambiguous -- and probably less ambiguous -- than a putative "actual" gender.)

The policy, as I understand it, is that individuals should use facilities appropriate to their normal personal gender identification -- not just what ever one they feel like using at the moment. Someone who lives as a man should use male facilities; someone who lives as female should use female facilities.

Of course, you can't just look at someone and tell if they are being truthful. Heck... in general, you cannot just look at someone and tell what gender they are! Even a chromosome test will give incorrect answers with surprising frequency, if anyone chose to require such by policy. So nothing is going to be "obvious" in that sense. At some point -- WHATEVER policy you adopt -- you will need individuals to declare for themselves where they fit by that policy; the guy at the desk will NEVER be able to tell by "obvious" traits how to classify all individuals.

I'm mainly reading the thread at present. I'm interested to know also if there are any women here who are ok with sharing locker facilities with a transgender woman. I know many such women exist; but I suspect it's less common for people who identify as Christian to be that relaxed about transgender.

BTW; just to tackle another strawman. No I am NOT in favour of "silencing" anyone. That's just silly; no-one was is being silenced here. One individual had a membership cancelled -- which is not the same thing at all. It was canceled because she declined to abide by the "No Judgement Zone" policy which has always been a huge part of PlanetFitness branding. She can continue to speak and has done so. She's being heard all over the world; not silenced at all. But PlanetFitness has chosen to maintain their policy of a No Judgement Zone at the gym, which is their prerogative, I think, for the boundaries they have established.

The suggestion has been made that we should be tolerant of places that choose to exclude transgender individuals from the facilities matching their normally identified gender. OK... now does anyone (else) think we should be tolerant of places that chose to accept transgender individuals according to their normally identified gender? You don't have to attend such a gym yourself, if you choose, of course.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

Use the one you prefer. If someone confronts you over it, go to the media and play the victim card.

Yeah, that is the ticket!

[seasanctuary]

What I actually said is that the difference between someone just dressing up as a woman on occasion for whatever reason; and someone who actually identifies as a women consistently, is not ambiguous. (And I'll qualify that now by saying at least it is no more ambiguous -- and probably less ambiguous -- than a putative "actual" gender.)

The policy, as I understand it, is that individuals should use facilities appropriate to their normal personal gender identification -- not just what ever one they feel like using at the moment. Someone who lives as a man should use male facilities; someone who lives as female should use female facilities.

Yes, there's too much conflation of those things. :(

[Juvenal]

I'm mainly reading the thread at present. I'm interested to know also if there are any women here who are ok with sharing locker facilities with a transgender woman. I know many such women exist; but I suspect it's less common for people who identify as Christian to be that relaxed about transgender.

While I agree it's likely Christians are less relaxed about the transgendered, and I appreciate your statement that there are cis women who are comfortable with transgender women, I am, perhaps surprisingly, not familiar with any myself, and I have reason to believe discomfort with trans women is the norm in even the most welcoming of environments.

Among TWebbers, I'd imagine my primary workplace is easily the most welcoming to GLBTs. Close to half of my male students and a significant proportion of my male colleagues are openly gay. Being open about sexual orientation is the norm here.

And yet I have almost no clue how many, let alone which of my students are trans, as demonstrated to me in private conversation with the one openly trans woman I've dealt with in class: She identified two of my former students as trans women as well, one of whom was already in the process of gender reassignment treatment. My teaching load puts me in contact with nearly a thousand students a year, making it statistically certain I'm aware of only a fraction.

Previously, I'd written about the incident that spurred this conversation when I identified the student as "she" to the amusement of her fellow students, and to her personal embarrassment, much to my chagrin. Now this reaction was fairly mild, easily ameliorated, and accessible to pro-active classroom policy publication to prevent its recurrence. But the evident discomfort in this welcoming environment made clear to me the dangers of self-identification elsewhere. This thread makes for an interesting case study.

Earlier in this thread, there was a link to an article that posted a picture of the trans woman involved in this incident. I'm curious how posters here would feel about a picture of the complainant posted just as prominently. In particular, I'm interested in knowing if they'd see this as targeting the woman for retribution, and whether, in that light, they can recognize the equivalent threat posed to the trans woman — in response to her hanging up a bag in a locker room.

Concerns for personal safety ring hollow to me if they do not include concerns for the safety of others.

In America, acceptance of gays occurred only after the creation of martyrs.

As ever, Jesse

[Bill the Cat]

Of course, you can't just look at someone and tell if they are being truthful. Heck... in general, you cannot just look at someone and tell what gender they are! Even a chromosome test will give incorrect answers with surprising frequency, if anyone chose to require such by policy. So nothing is going to be "obvious" in that sense. At some point -- WHATEVER policy you adopt -- you will need individuals to declare for themselves where they fit by that policy; the guy at the desk will NEVER be able to tell by "obvious" traits how to classify all individuals.

The problem remains though. All it will take is one good liar to utterly destroy a life. Sure, there are men out there who sincerely believe they are female, but in the time it takes for that man to enter the facility, enter the locker room, and identify himself to the women in the locker room when they ultimately notice, a man who is a convincing liar will have sufficient time to fulfill whatever nefarious purposes he has in mind. It's simply too big of a risk for Planet Fitness to force women to assume, and too easily regulated so as to be safer for the larger majority. Someone has to be inconvenienced in this situation, so why not make safety the higher determining factor than "non-judgmentalism"?