Planet Fitness Drops Member After Gender Identity Complaint

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering how many of you walk around truly believing you will be attacked in your gym locker room. It must be crazy to be that paranoid all the time.

I don't think this will happen in an all female locker room. But introduce a male - yes, I would be nervous. I have large breasts and caught a boy who was probably only 5 or 6 staring at them as I was getting changed. And he proceeded to ask his mom questions about them. It bothered me and I was embarrassed. So was the kid's mom.

Why does it matter that this child was a boy? A girl of that age has exactly the same amount of experience with breasts like yours than a boy. You really felt threatened by a 5yo's questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here. Most facilities are safe. In fact most of them are as safe for cispeople in appropriate facilities as they are for transpeople in 'wrong gender' facilities. Bad things happen. But they happen to ciswomen in women's rooms just as well as to transwomen in men's rooms. You can't seriously suggest keeping ONE kind of people super duper awesome safe and for the rest of the humans on earth to just deal with the possibility of having an intruder in their facilities who is going to molest, rape or murder them. Doesn't make sense.

Make facilities safe. That's the solution to this problem.
Make gender neutral facilities is the solution to the comfort/discomfort type problem.

The bad things that happen to ciswomen in women's rooms are not done by transwomen. (Unless you know of some cases that nobody else knows about?) Therefore, banning transwomen from women's rooms will not make ciswomen safer. But it will make transwomen less safe.

So we disregard thousands, millions of people in order to accommodate a minority that could also be kept safe with measures that everyone, cismen, ciswomen, transmen and transwomen could benefit from? That does not make sense. Unless of course you do actually care about the comfort and safety of transwomen more than that of cismen, ciswomen and transmen...Why exactly are safety measures for ALL not an acceptable option to you? Why does it have to be to let ciswomen use women's facilities and disregard everybody and everything else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here. Most facilities are safe. In fact most of them are as safe for cispeople in appropriate facilities as they are for transpeople in 'wrong gender' facilities. Bad things happen. But they happen to ciswomen in women's rooms just as well as to transwomen in men's rooms. You can't seriously suggest keeping ONE kind of people super duper awesome safe and for the rest of the humans on earth to just deal with the possibility of having an intruder in their facilities who is going to molest, rape or murder them. Doesn't make sense.

Make facilities safe. That's the solution to this problem.
Make gender neutral facilities is the solution to the comfort/discomfort type problem.

The bad things that happen to ciswomen in women's rooms are not done by transwomen. (Unless you know of some cases that nobody else knows about?) Therefore, banning transwomen from women's rooms will not make ciswomen safer. But it will make transwomen less safe.

So we disregard thousands, millions of people in order to accommodate a minority that could also be kept safe with measures that everyone, cismen, ciswomen, transmen and transwomen could benefit from? That does not make sense. Unless of course you do actually care about the comfort and safety of transwomen more than that of cismen, ciswomen and transmen...Why exactly are safety measures for ALL not an acceptable option to you? Why does it have to be to let ciswomen use women's facilities and disregard everybody and everything else?

How are we disregarding them? As you say, we are talking about safety. Transwomen are not a threat to the safety of ciswomen in women's locker rooms.

I agree that it would be a good solution for public places to put in some single-user facilities, available for anybody to use who wants to use them. For example, a ciswoman who does not feel comfortable sharing the women's locker room with a transwoman.

[Anonymous]

I say let Planet Fitness have the trans and their support at any cost followers. If they lose enough customers to the competition, maybe then they will think about all their customers and not the few select.

I will personally share this information to any and all who consider PF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You said in your experience you have never been raped by a transgendered. You have never been raped period. The poster you dismissed with your lack self-righteousness said that she felt unsafe and uncomfortable with male and their genitalia while she was in a vulnerable position of undress. She had been raped. You have no standing to dismiss her feelings. Until you have been spread eagled begging for your life while some person with male organs penetrating you shut the fuck up about what's possible and what's not. You have no standing. She does. I do. All the reading in the word will never make you understand or feel that time. You have no right to Poo Poo her feelings you helfer.

I did not dismiss her feelings. She has a right to her feelings. However, she does not have a right to require other people to do things that are not safe for them, based on her feelings.

NP here. Most facilities are safe. In fact most of them are as safe for cispeople in appropriate facilities as they are for transpeople in 'wrong gender' facilities. Bad things happen. But they happen to ciswomen in women's rooms just as well as to transwomen in men's rooms. You can't seriously suggest keeping ONE kind of people super duper awesome safe and for the rest of the humans on earth to just deal with the possibility of having an intruder in their facilities who is going to molest, rape or murder them. Doesn't make sense.

Make facilities safe. That's the solution to this problem.
Make gender neutral facilities is the solution to the comfort/discomfort type problem.

While this is a good long-term solution, sometimes you can't just renovate a facility and add a room just like that. So, while plans to provide an alternate third changing room for whatever reason may be the ultimate goal, each facility needs to find a way to address current needs and requirements within the facilities that they have.

I am not belittling rape victims or others who are uncomfortable with a transgender using their locker rooms, but since there are no other facilities that provide those services and Planet Fitness now provides advertisement that this is their policy, it is up to those members who feel that they are no longer comfortable with the policies to look for other gyms to use. As to why they can't be accommodated, it's because there are no other facilities that provide for the safety of the transgender community, but there are many other gyms that provide for the comfort of those uncomfortable with transgender use of their facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the procedure should the gym implement in future to screen transgendered? Should they lets every male who claims that he is a female to use female locker? Should they defend dr. Note?

From this gym's statement on the incident in question: "Our gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity."

So as to what procedure a gym should use to "screen transgendered", my answer would be "sincere self-reporting of gender identity" dictates what bathroom you're allowed to use.

And how would you know that the next guy who works into a women's locker is sincere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we allow businesses like Planet Fitness to turn people away because they complain, aren't politically correct, disagree with sharing a changing facility with a person who is not biologically female,
But we say that other businesses cannot turn people away when they place orders that disagree with the owner's conscience. We penalize bakers who won't bake cakes for gay weddings, flower arrangements, etc.

I wanted to respond to this specifically. In this case, Planet Fitness canceled the membership of someone who did not respect their policy of gender expression and locker rooms. That person complained and when she did not receive the satisfaction she wanted, she returned to the business multiple times to "warn" other patrons of the establishment about the presence of a trans woman in the locker room.

In the other situations you mentioned, businesses have been penalized for refusing service to individuals on the basis of those individuals' membership in a protected class. Those businesses are within their rights to refuse service to someone who does not respect their policies or conform to their belief system. Individuals who have a problem with that are within their rights to vote with their feet. The same is true for PF: if you have a problem with a business being friendly to transgender people, you are welcome to patronize another business whose policies and beliefs are more in line with your own.

What you are not welcome to do is return to the place of business and harass other patrons. If a person approached me at the gym to "warn" be that a trans woman was also a member of the gym, I would say "Great, I'm glad they care about fitness. Please leave me alone." If the person persisted in the conversation, I would feel harassed and would complain to the management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So as to what procedure a gym should use to "screen transgendered", my answer would be "sincere self-reporting of gender identity" dictates what bathroom you're allowed to use.

Because a pervert or rapist would never lie about his "gender identity" in order to gain access to the women's locker room.

/facepalm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So as to what procedure a gym should use to "screen transgendered", my answer would be "sincere self-reporting of gender identity" dictates what bathroom you're allowed to use.

Because a pervert or rapist would never lie about his "gender identity" in order to gain access to the women's locker room.

/facepalm

When you provide an actual example of this happening in reality, I will take this concern seriously.

So far, the only argument against transwomen in the women's bathroom/locker room that I'm sympathetic to is the emotional issues that survivors of sexual assault might experience as a result. I am sympathetic to that, but I still don't think that it's a good enough reason to ban transwomen from women's bathrooms/locker rooms.

Also, you still have not answered the question of how a gym should screen people to make sure that they're woman enough to use the women's room. One of the transwomen I know has a driver's license that lists her as female. She uses a female name and female pronouns. She also has the penis she was born with. Which is more convincing proof for you about this person's gender: a legal document issued by the US government, or the physicality she has not yet changed surgically?

[Anonymous]

The only reason Planet Fitness kicked the woman out and sided with the transgender woman is because they were fearing public humiliation via media and social media because that's the day and age we live in. They didn't do it because they themselves believe transgender people should be accommodated, kept safe, whatever. And that's sad. I guess sooner or later there will be trans-free facilities and pro-trans facilities because some companies will actively side with trans people and some won't and eventually we will all be separated instead of included and connected in a way we can all live with. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason Planet Fitness kicked the woman out and sided with the transgender woman is because they were fearing public humiliation via media and social media because that's the day and age we live in. They didn't do it because they themselves believe transgender people should be accommodated, kept safe, whatever. And that's sad. I guess sooner or later there will be trans-free facilities and pro-trans facilities because some companies will actively side with trans people and some won't and eventually we will all be separated instead of included and connected in a way we can all live with. Sad.

I agree that it would be sad if Planet Fitness was motivated by fear of public humiliation, rather than a desire to keep all of its customers safe. However, if a fear of public humiliation is what it takes to get a for-profit corporation to do the right thing, then that's what it takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And how would you know that the next guy who works into a women's locker is sincere?

Speaking of sincere, here is my sincere question: why are you so much more worried about some hypothetical thing that could happen but never actually has yet, than about real actual things that really actually do happen regularly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason Planet Fitness kicked the woman out and sided with the transgender woman is because they were fearing public humiliation via media and social media because that's the day and age we live in. They didn't do it because they themselves believe transgender people should be accommodated, kept safe, whatever. And that's sad. I guess sooner or later there will be trans-free facilities and pro-trans facilities because some companies will actively side with trans people and some won't and eventually we will all be separated instead of included and connected in a way we can all live with. Sad.

I agree that it would be sad if Planet Fitness was motivated by fear of public humiliation, rather than a desire to keep all of its customers safe. However, if a fear of public humiliation is what it takes to get a for-profit corporation to do the right thing, then that's what it takes.

Except the "right thing" is to provide gender neutral changing rooms...I am going to wildly guess Planet Fitness is not going to spend any amount of dollars to provide their locations with THOSE to make all their customers happy. They kicked the woman out for publicity. Which they are now widely getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason Planet Fitness kicked the woman out and sided with the transgender woman is because they were fearing public humiliation via media and social media because that's the day and age we live in. They didn't do it because they themselves believe transgender people should be accommodated, kept safe, whatever. And that's sad. I guess sooner or later there will be trans-free facilities and pro-trans facilities because some companies will actively side with trans people and some won't and eventually we will all be separated instead of included and connected in a way we can all live with. Sad.

I agree that it would be sad if Planet Fitness was motivated by fear of public humiliation, rather than a desire to keep all of its customers safe. However, if a fear of public humiliation is what it takes to get a for-profit corporation to do the right thing, then that's what it takes.

Except the "right thing" is to provide gender neutral changing rooms...I am going to wildly guess Planet Fitness is not going to spend any amount of dollars to provide their locations with THOSE to make all their customers happy. They kicked the woman out for publicity. Which they are now widely getting.

Nah, the right thing is to allow women to use the women's locker room. (And men to use the men's locker room, but somehow there is never any bathroom/locker room panic about transmen in the men's locker room. Why not?)

[Anonymous]

For everyone pretending no sexual predators pose as transgender to molest women...you are wrong. It has happened. It does happen. You just have to want to find reports on it...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault