- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,033
- Reaction score
- 19,492
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Are you going to claim they have less liability if a woman attacks someone in the ladies locker room than a transgender woman?
They are harassing them by being there, plain and simple. No different then the perv in the raincoat watching you.
No they aren't. There is no harassment there, only your archaic notions that men and women can't see each other naked in a nonsexual manner, ever.
I don't think that's the issue. I think people are more worried about some random guy posing as a transgendered woman to gain access. Someone already inclined to creepy behavior could very easily make use of such policies for their own purposes.
Except those "archaic notions" are OUR notions and written into OUR law. And yes, in that context, the ruling context of the day, it IS harassment.
Do you think women are raped as often by women as they are men?
Actually, they really aren't. This is mainly policy, not laws. The laws do not require what some believe they do in most places.
If they continue in this direction, they will become a club exclusive to people who are confused about what sex they are.
But there may be legitimate danger in employing a simple "we'll take your word for it, no questions asked" policy that allows anyone who claims to identify with a different gender, access to the locker room.There is no legitimate danger to anyone by allowing those who identify as a gender they weren't born as in the locker rooms. It is illegal to sexually assault a person no matter their relative sexes.
now you are claiming the lie that PF tried to shut her up because of this? lol
links? proof? facts
sorry but there is 100% ZERO evidence in this story that they failed to provide a safe and protective environment,
if you disagree simply provide any facts that support your false claim in your next post, thanks
Facts win again
Yeah, because there are no public nudity laws. :lamo
1.)Why even bother to post.
2.) We all know what you're going to say.
3.) Fact is their policy about speaking badly about their policies to other members is a no-go.
4.) They just don't have the legal authority to make said policy.
5.) But all she had to do was to inform others of the policy and they saw the problem for themselves.
6.) They did indeed wish to silence her
7.) and they did. It's all there in the OP which has provided all the facts.
8.) Facts you seemingly want to ignore.
9.) Anyone want to guess what you'll post next? :lamo
Are you going to claim they have less liability if a woman attacks someone in the ladies locker room than a transgender woman?
But there may be legitimate danger in employing a simple "we'll take your word for it, no questions asked" policy that allows anyone who claims to identify with a different gender, access to the locker room.
From what appears to be the most widely-cited article on the incident…
A Midland County woman's gym membership was canceled after she refused to stop telling fellow gym members "a man" was using the woman's locker room.·According to Cormier, she returned to the gym each day between Monday and Thursday. While there, Cormier said she told women in the locker room about the individual she observed in the bathroom the weekend before.
·
·
Cormier said she then got a call from Planet Fitness' corporate office telling her that she was violating their "no judgement" policy. She says they asked if she was going to stop talking to other women in the locker room and she said she would not.
Cormier said the representative told her she was no longer welcome at the gym.
They let a man have free access to the women's locker room while women were undressing therein.
What more than that do you need? In and of itself, that demonstrate a reckless and inexcusable disregard for the safety, comfort, and well-being of their female clients.
If a sexual predator, who now understands PF will allow him to use a woman's locker room so long as he says "I'm self-identifying as a woman", turns the PF woman's locker room into his playground, then they would be liable for creating the environment.
Why even bother to post. We all know what you're going to say. Fact is their policy about speaking badly about their policies to other members is a no-go. They just don't have the legal authority to make said policy. But all she had to do was to inform others of the policy and they saw the problem for themselves. They did indeed wish to silence her, and they did. It's all there in the OP which has provided all the facts. Facts you seemingly want to ignore.
Anyone want to guess what you'll post next? :lamo
This isn't public nudity. The laws for public nudity are not relative to which gender of person might see you naked.
And if it happens a few times, it's certainly reasonable to say that the facility is not maintaining a safe environment.And that person could get reported for their behavior, if it were truly the behavior and not just their being there that was the cause of the complaint.
Moderator's Warning: |
If they continue in this direction, they will become a club exclusive to people who are confused about what sex they are.
Or those who don't care.
All lifting does is make you big and clumsy. Your fighting skills may improve if you quit playing in the jungle gyms and practice your skills.
Any sexual predator could simply dress as a woman now and go to any locker room they wanted if they were that dedicated. But in reality, a sexual predator is generally going to be smart enough to know how big a risk that is or get caught quicker than they could actually do anything. These aren't like empty locker rooms that multiple people don't use.
And if it happens a few times, it's certainly reasonable to say that the facility is not maintaining a safe environment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?