Skip to content

I bet they don’t even see the problem

July 10, 2015

A Planet Fitness in Michigan cancelled a woman’s membership when she complained about a man, who self-identified as a woman, using the women’s locker room. Apparently, if the person filing the complaint had kept it to herself, a live-and-let-live mentality would have allowed her to continue with business as usual. But she objected to the management and warned other women, noting that no notices were posted by the locker room or restroom, and her membership was cancelled.

What I find especially interesting is how the usual liberal mantras were turned in the other direction. Here’s part of PF’s response:

“Planet Fitness is committed to creating a nonintimidating, welcoming environment for our members. Our gender identity nondiscrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity” (emphasis mine).

“Nonintimidating” for whom? Certainly not for any women who object to having a man–sorry, a “woman” with male genitalia–in their dressing room.

The woman raising the complaint said, “This is all new to me. I didn’t go out to specifically bash a transgender person that day. I was taken aback by the situation. This is about me and how I felt unsafe. I should feel safe in there” (emphases mine).

Aren’t we all supposed to feel safe in the liberal vision? Whose safety gets precedence? The report says that “LGBT advocates applauded the Planet Fitness policy, saying it was necessary to ensuring the safety and privacy of transgender individuals.” Why should the transgender get to feel safe but not women who object? An attorney with the ACLU said that “A transgender woman would be much more at risk for her safety if she had to use the men’s bathroom.” Really? And what about the safety of women a man pretends to be transgender to gain access to the women’s dressing room and restroom and engages in some kind of mischief? Will PF apologize for its silly policy? Not likely. And who gets privacy? Apparently not women who don’t want to undress in front of strange men. What kind of privacy issues are there when a transgender with a male body uses the same locker room as men? Whatever they may be, they outweigh those of women who uncomfortable undressing in front of a person with a penis (what is the PC shorthand for males who claim to be women?). We can count on situations like this to multiply as this PC stupidity continues to hold sway.

So, people who are making the new rules for social practice, what are the rules now? Who gets to feel safe and why? Who gets to have privacy protected and why? I really don’t expect reasonable answers to this. As Stella Morabito writes in her article “How To Escape The Age Of Mass Delusion,” “the emotional stew in which we are now boiling doesn’t allow logic or reason to prevail.” A train running on emotion and mob thinking can’t be stopped by reason. I suspect that it’s going to take a lot of instances of liberals suffering the effects of their own PC silliness for change to come about.

(It should be noted, by the waym that the woman filing the complaint apparently isn’t your run-of-the-mill hard core conservative. “She agrees with LGBT advocates on one potential solution: unisex, single-stall bathrooms.”)

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: