Report: Fitness Center Bans Woman For Refusing To Share Locker Room With Transgender Man


“The woman had her membership terminated after expressing her desire not to get naked in the locker room alongside a man presenting himself as a woman.”

A letter sent by a lawyer to the company’s CEO says that “the woman ‘iis the survivor of an attempted rape,’ which makes her ‘sensitive to men in places where they do not have a legitimate purpose.’ When she voiced her concern to staff at the Leesburg location in May, she was met with resistance and was stripped of her membership.”


WOMEN have the RIGHT to not undress/dress in a locker room with men whether they look like men or not.


I’m going to say it. It’s a rhetorical question, of course, but I can’t help myself.

When did it become okay to subjugate HER rights as a PERSON?

I hope the ACLU gets hold of this and PF gets the tar sued out of them. I completely think they deserve it.


Did the transgender person have a penis?

Did the transgender person offer to use the dressing room before or after the woman who complained out of consideration for her fears?

Was the gym management aware of the attempted rape?

Did the woman offer any compromise with regard to where the transgender person ought to be?

I suspect the ACLU would support the transgender person.

  1. Irrelevant in the grand scheme, though I’ll assume this person did.

  2. Irrelevant. This isn’t about that person, it’s about the complainant. Legally this woman did the right thing by approaching the business and not letting it become a tit for tat game of “I said X they said Y”.

  3. Irrelevant, as that’s not something anyone should have to reveal to make a point.

  4. Not the woman’s problem; it’s not her place of business. I shouldn’t have to offer an alternative to the business. This isn’t reverse customer service.

The ACLU doesn’t always take the side you’d expect they’d take.


Not necessarily. Sometimes the ACLU takes what seems to many a surprising position. Besides, women’s rights are especially “fashionable” today with the MeToo movement and so forth.


Perhaps what is needed is three separate locker rooms for transgender people.
One room for those transgendered from male to female.
A second room for those transgendered from female to male.
A third room for those who were born as transgendered.
This is a great way to bankrupt fitness centers and run them out of business. Too bad for those of us who want the convenience of a place helping us to keep fit.


I’ve actually said this is coming our way.


Can’t wait for the showdown between feminists and transpeople. :popcorn:


I think the feminists will side with the transpeople.


Depends on the feminist.


I read a week or so ago that a lesbian group got in trouble at a pride parade some place for protesting men invading their spaces under the guise of women. At least these guys are consistent.


More information from Liberty Counsel’s solicitor letter to Planet Fitness:

Granting that all of this is true (which I’ll admit is difficult since I don’t have much love for Liberty Counsel and they’ve been known in the past to have a tenuous relationship with telling the truth), this is a lot more than some aggrieved transgender woman being harassed by a cisgender bigot, and then Planet Fitness terminating said bigot’s membership. This looks a lot more like some creep getting his jollies by harassing women in the locker room.


Planet Fitness is in a situation here. This gal might sue them, sure.

But on the other hand, their gender bending customer will certainly sue if not permitted in the ladies’ shower room.

This is a big corporation, and they are doing what is the least risky course of action from the viewpoints of their lawyers.

PF is between a rock and a hard place here


I don’t think their lawyers were present as this was going on. It will be interesting to find out if they had a policy in place or if this was the decision of the manager on the spur of the moment.


If they didn’t have a written policy approved by their attorneys before this action, they have one now.

But the story said they had a similar case in 2015, so they probably had a policy or the manager contacted their own superiors.

Kicking out paying customers on something like this is something the executive suite should be alerted to


Imagine if it was some manager playing activist and calling the shots that might cause the company much lawsuits…oy vey lol


Then there is an opening for a spa manager.


Somehow I have had the good fortune to avoid weird, open space changing rooms. I will never understand why some places don’t have changing rooms and shower cubicles.


I think it’s mostly cultural inertia. Long ago (back when “boys were boys…”, you get the idea) the decision was made that sex segregation was sufficient such that open showers, open changing benches, flimsy toilet stalls with wide open cracks and clearance under and over the door was all the privacy you were going to get. Getting the ball rolling on changing that entrenched custom is going to take quite the impetus. We’ve already seen a nudge with regards to single occupancy unisex restrooms. I imagine that’ll be the way forward, ultimately.

Edit: When I was in high school (2002-2007) the answer to the problem of privacy in showers was solved not by making little stalls around the already existing showers, rather they just abolished showering after gym altogether! Sucked for all the freshmen who were required by policy to take gym 1st period and then go the rest of the day stinking.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit