That is going to cost big money to accommodate a tiny number of mentally ill people. And publicity seekers. How about this instead? The gym hires a few big security people and check out the people who claim to be women . If he has a 5 o’clock shadow escort him off the premises and ban him from the facility.
I doubt there are many Women who play they are men who want to use the men’s locker room, but I don’t think the guys would mind.
And that’s the root of the fallacy - there’s nothing to figure out. It’s an entirely psychological state, if a person says they are transgender, they inherently are transgender. There is no test that must be passed. There are zero ‘rules’ that a person must be transgender for a certain length of time before qualifying, or even that it needs to be a consistent identity. If your state of mind at this moment is that you are transgender, then at this moment you are transgender. That is the only standard the pro-trans movement has established - if we must unconditionally accept one person who claims to be transgender, we must unconditionally accept all persons who claim to be transgender. There’s no picking and choosing.
Trans issues - Tell us what you really think
The most authoritative and definitive study of the question has just been published in Britain, “The Cass Report,” by Hilary Cass, one of the most respected pediatricians in the country…. After weighing all the credible evidence and data, the report concludes that puberty blockers are not reversible and not used to “take time” to consider sex reassignment, but rather irreversible precursors for a lifetime of medication. It says that gender incongruence among kids is perfectly normal and that kids should be left alone to explore their own identities; that early social transitioning is not neutral in affecting long-term outcomes; and that there is no evidence that sex reassignment for children increases or reduces suicides.
Will any of the Twitter mobs who hounded the skeptics take stock? Will the ACLU’s Chase Strangio feel any regret for trying to censor the first major book raising the alarm? Will groups like GLAAD and HRC confess to their grotesque lies — “The Science Is Settled” — and ugly bullying tactics to suppress reporting on the question? Will they cop to having supported gay conversion therapy in which many gay kids were “fixed” by being turned physically into the opposite sex?
Will HRC and countless educators temper the curriculum that tells small children that their bodies are irrelevant to whether they are a boy or girl, and that they can change their sex at will? Will these ideologues ever concede the foul homophobia behind questioning the maleness of a girly boy or the femaleness of the tomboy? Will they ever admit that their ideological extremism, and their “queer” conflation of trans and gay experiences, has led to one of the greatest medical abuses of gay kids in history? Of course they won’t. As I write, HRC and GLAAD have not uttered a peep about the report’s findings. They are intellectually and morally bankrupt institutions, desperate for money, and using the scarred bodies of gender-dysphoric children to fundraise.
History will be brutal to those responsible. But almost certainly not brutal enough.
Today, the child mutilating perverts are proud of themselves
There is strong consensus among the most prominent medical organizations worldwide that evidence-based, gender-affirming care for transgender children and adolescents is medically necessary and appropriate.
We are going to hear more about this pro Hamas, pro terrorist, wing of the left. It is amazing that the super woke Google is actually standing up to them
The statement of equivalency of transgender people with mentally-ill people aside, I think all-private changing rooms would also benefit cis-gender people who find it embarrassing/uncomfortable to have others see their bodies or be forced to see the bodies of others who are willing to expose themselves.
And gyms would no longer need to have separate changing rooms for men and women, just 100% private ones. In some cases, that may reduce costs since you have less unused changing room spaces.
Wouldn’t hiring extra security also be quite costly? And if you’re going to ban transgenders entirely, why not simply establish in your rules that members have to use changing rooms according to their biological bodies. Zero cost. For safety though, they may also want to ban lesbians and gay members so that you don’t risk having them ogle (or assault) people of their own genders in the changing rooms…
Let the market decide. If women want to do business with a company that allows men to use women’s changing rooms then Planet Fitness will succeed. Women who do not like that can do business with other companies that do not allow it.
Having no skin in the game (I don’t go to a gym), I think that’s fair. I’m just not sure these policies are good for business. Meaning whether the gains in transgender membership will make up for the losses in women scared away by the presence of biological males in women’s changing rooms. But only time will tell. Maybe their target audience is more ok with it than I am.
The loss of women scared of males in the locker room is trivial, compared to the loss of memberships based purely on principle. This would have the makings of another Bud Light, if people cared about their gyms as much as they care about their beer.
You forgot the gains in the cisgender Peeping Tom / perv membership.
Planet fitness is doubling down on woke
Might as well actually.
Otherwise their previous woke stance would sound ungenuine. We saw how that worked for Budweiser when they tried to walk back their campaign…
Musk tweet. WSJ still a lot better than the others, only one I read of those.
Saw a friend reading NYT the other day, said “what’s Pravda got to say these days?” He said it was important to know what you’re supposed to think under this regime, and NYT tells you what to think these days.
Wish they also had Fox News, Drudge report, and Breitbart say to compare the frequency at which these are used in conservative media. What about a more centrist source like The Hill? Also curious to know if this trend is similar across the globe.
WSJ may have lower frequency only due to higher focus on economics than on societal issues. But I’m still surprised that, relatively, WSJ saw a +468% increase in frequency compared to +361% for WaPo.
Just keep your wig on
Critics were quick to react to Dudum’s message, with many social media users saying they will be cancelling their HIMS subscriptions and asking others to do the same.
Vandalism has consequences…
I agree. Fox News, Drudge, and Breitbart should be included with discussions of the NY Times, LA Times, National Enquirer, etc.
Yikes! I’m shocked. Although a few possibilities come to mind, I see no obvious reason for their return to sanity.
I think some recent research and reports, including academic ones, showing that the case for economic benefits from diversity is tenuous. Especially the supporting case for diversity has been examined with greater scrutiny and methodology (and thus results) was shown to be questionable. That data-supported view point was not really available before but now, after implementing some of these programs, they have more data on benefits (or lack thereof) of these diversity programs. So to me, I think it’s a simple case of trial and error.
I think you’re right, and find it amazing that so many jumped in with both feet (and bragged about it) before doing any kind of sane, economically prudent, testing. I suppose this is part of the continuous upgrade, downgrade change for change’s sake society.
