Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the laws of the state. This lawsuit should help clarify how things work in this particular state.They are a business, and they have every right to allow those who identify as a certain gender into those rooms.
That is her problem, sort of like someone seeing a news report that a gym (not their gym), had cameras or an employee "spying" on people changing, then the person getting paranoid that their gym might be doing it and suing because it could have happened that someone might be spying on them. The intimidation was in her head, not something the gym should have to pay her for. There is no more actual sexual harassment from a transgendered woman or even a man just seeing a woman naked than a woman seeing another woman naked. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a locker room, where people get undressed. The only expectation of privacy there would be in people not touching you or not having someone peek at you when you are behind a shower curtain or a stall door/curtain.
No, such fears are not "irrational," and of course there is no way of knowing whether or not a man is transgendered simply because he decides to put a blouse on and walk into the ladies locker room.The complaining woman chose her actions in the locker room based on her own irrational fears, nothing more. It is irrational to fear a man being in the locker room. It is especially irrational to fear a transgendered woman being in the locker room, particularly since there is absolutely no evidence that she was a danger to anyone. This is no different than if someone was uncomfortable with a lesbian being in the locker room and "fearing" the lesbian would attack or look at other women.
1.)No, such fears are not "irrational," and of course there is no way of knowing whether or not a man is transgendered simply because he decides to put a blouse on and walk into the ladies locker room.
2.)On the contrary, what's "irrational" is a blanket assumption that a man poses no threat simply because he's wearing women's clothing.
Which gyms have policies that allow cameras or people of the opposite sex to spy on people changing without posting signs or otherwise letting customers know of the policy?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the laws of the state. This lawsuit should help clarify how things work in this particular state.
No, such fears are not "irrational," and of course there is no way of knowing whether or not a man is transgendered simply because he decides to put a blouse on and walk into the ladies locker room.
On the contrary, what's "irrational" is a blanket assumption that a man poses no threat simply because he's wearing women's clothing.
Oh come on. Sexist? In the past year, how many times (if any) did some random woman attack and sexually assault another woman?Second, this is completely sexist. It assumes that women can't sexually assault or just plain assault other women. It also wrongly assumes that guys would be likely to do something like that, dress like a woman just to do this. It could also be said that many men who would do this could just as easily do this without such a policy very easily. It assumes that a man would risk getting caught raping someone but not for something so petty as entering a woman's locker room in disguise. That makes no sense at all. And it completely ignores transgendered men.
It would be those laws that pertain to civil rights and public accommodations. Given that such laws are typically vague, any analysis - yours or mine - will likely be meaningless without a knowledge of the relevant case law, something I have no access to.Show the laws of the state of Michigan violated by the rules of this gym.
1.)Oh come on. Sexist? In the past year, how many times (if any) did some random woman attack and sexually assault another woman?
2.)Do you often find yourself chiding those who refuse to ride with drunk drivers because it's irrational to believe it's any less safe given that sober people crash cars, too?
3.) I'll tell you what is irrational - throwing probability out the window in favor of mere possibility.
1.)It would be those laws that pertain to civil rights and public accommodations. Given that such laws are typically vague, any analysis - yours or mine - will likely be meaningless without a knowledge of the relevant case law, something I have no access to.
How dare she let other members know of the gym's unstated, unwritten, locker room policy! She had no right to let others in on the secret..that totally ruins the surprise!!She had no right to tell other members that she or they were being "put in danger" by the gym allowing transgendered people to use the locker rooms/restrooms of their identified gender.
Oh come on. Sexist? In the past year, how many times (if any) did some random woman attack and sexually assault another woman?
Do you often find yourself chiding those who refuse to ride with drunk drivers because it's irrational to believe it's any less safe given that sober people crash cars, too?
I'll tell you what is irrational - throwing probability out the window in favor of mere possibility.
How dare she let other members know of the gym's unstated, unwritten, locker room policy! She had no right to let others in on the secret..that totally ruins the surprise!!
How dare she let other members know of the gym's unstated, unwritten, locker room policy! She had no right to let others in on the secret..that totally ruins the surprise!!
It would be those laws that pertain to civil rights and public accommodations. Given that such laws are typically vague, any analysis - yours or mine - will likely be meaningless without a knowledge of the relevant case law, something I have no access to.
Please provide the last time someone was attacked in a gym locker room, or changing room, or public (as in actually having people coming in and out, or employees in the area, somewhere, available any time its open) restroom. Last I checked, it is even more rare for a rape to occur in a public restroom, changing room, locker room, then for a woman to sexually assault someone.
Oh and statistically, women are assaulted by people they know, not strangers. People they are dating or are acquainted with or even their family members.
She had no right to harass them about the policy (there were complaints from other members), nor to state the policy as more than just the policy. She didn't just say "they allow people to enter the locker room of the gender they identify as, that is their policy" and leave it at that. She inserted her own view of "that puts us at risk of assault from that man".
You are certainly welcome to start or join a movement to do away with the many national and state laws and regulations that require separate facilities for men and women, but until that day comes when you've convinced enough people that it is their beliefs, and not your own, that are "irrational," I'm afraid you'll just have to live with being on the losing end of the argument.Yes, they are irrational, even if some guy were dressing up as a woman just to gain access to the women's locker rooms or restrooms just to see naked women. A man seeing a naked woman is not equivalent to the woman being in danger. And there is nothing whatsoever to show that women in a locker room or anyone in a locker room is in danger of being raped because of these rules. This is so unbelievably unreasonable.
First, locker rooms almost always have people going in and out of them. No half intelligent rapist would even attempt to attack anyone in a locker room and risk discovery, from either the people entering or those working in the gym.
1.)You are certainly welcome to start or join a movement to do away with the many national and state laws and regulations that require separate facilities for men and women
2.), but until that day comes when you've convinced enough people that it is their beliefs
3.) , and not your own, that are "irrational," I'm afraid you'll just have to live with being on the losing end of the argument.
4.)It's really up to the public at large to decide what sort of arrangement is appropriate and to legislate accordingly.
You argue as if there were one set of public accommodation laws. Nonsense.Nope. In fact, public accommodation laws would say almost the opposite and you don't have the civil right not see certain people naked nor to not have them see you naked.
1.)You argue as if there were one set of public accommodation laws. Nonsense.
2.)Whether or not women have a right to change in a public locker room without men present is up to the people of a particular state or municipality to decide for themselves.
No, I'm not going to produce an itemized list of laws and regulations of which there are many, starting with the US Department of Health and Human Services on down to local building codes. All of this you would know if you spent a a minute or two doing a bit of research.1.) please produce these laws and regulations that apply in this matter to a gym
If PF wants to make one large adult locker room they can and its the publics choice to either accept it or not go there lol
your post fails and facts win again
1.)No, I'm not going to produce an itemized list of laws and regulations of which there are many, starting with the US Department of Health and Human Services on down to local building codes. All of this you would know if you spent a a minute or two doing a bit of research.
2.)The facts are there whether or not you wish to recognize them. They don't go away simply because you put your head in the sand.
Sadly, just the sort of response I expected. With all sincerity... why not spend a couple of minutes educating yourself on the topic rather than spitting out this "facts win again" nonsense? Surely your time would be better spent expanding your knowledge in the area, rather than twisting peoples words around in some vain attempt to appear a "winner" on some insignificant internet thread?1.) translation: you made it up and cant do it, thats what I thought.
2.) the only people that have posted facts so far have been the posters destroying your posts
Please let us know when you can back up any of your claims with facts, thanks
fact win again
1.)Sadly, just the sort of response I expected. With all sincerity...
2.)hy not spend a couple of minutes educating yourself on the topic rather than spitting out this "facts win again" nonsense? Surely your time would be better spent expanding your knowledge in the area, rather than twisting peoples words around in some vain attempt to appear a "winner" on some insignificant internet thread?
3.) Anyway, since you refuse to research and I refuse to provide you with details
4.) it seems there's nothing more to discuss.
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?